So you still have no evidence for your claim falsifiability s a necessary part of science.

Do you not understand the demarcation problem?

Do you not understand that without the requirement of falsifiability, you allow things like astrology and intelligent design to be considered "science"?

Falsifiability is *required* for science. It is literally the *cornerstone* of the scientific method.

Do you honestly think that something non-falsifiable, like the existence of non-temporal and non-spatial fairies living in your nose is scientific? :)

You've apparently got a hypothesis that isn't contradicted by any observation - colder, hotter, the same, faster, slower, the same, wetter, drier, the same, all of them are "consistent with" your belief system. Much like God, who can turn water into wine, or just leave water alone, apparently there is nothing excluded from observation by your faith :)

"The notion of transwarp beaming is like trying to hit a bullet with a smaller bullet, whilst wearing a blindfold, riding a horse."
– Montgomery Scott, 2258 (Star Trek)

You said:

It [falsifiability] is not and never has been a requirement for science.

If you'd like to assert that falsifiability isn't required, by what method do you exclude astrology or creationism from being "science"?

Falsifiability is quite obviously the answer to the demarcation problem, although I'm happy to entertain any alternative you'd like to propose :) /crickets

Otherwise known as, "regulation to keep the competition out".

It seems to me that the tendency to over-regulate in order to give advantage to existing market movers simply isn't justified. Yes, you need to deal with liability, but there's nothing that says that over-regulation is the only (or the best) way to do it.

So, according to you, unfalsifiable hypotheses, like astrology, or creationism, can be considered science the same way we consider astronomy and evolution? :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Your beliefs are colliding with facts again :)

Of course Karl Popper didn't define science - he simply wrote about the most basic requirement for the scientific method, that of falsifiability.

If you'd like to assert that falsifiability isn't required, by what method do you exclude astrology or creationism from being "science"? If falsifiability is not going to be the tool you use for demarcation, exactly what do you propose?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...