Mr Bombastic

If a theory doesn’t make a testable prediction, it isn’t science.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2015/02/falsifiability/

Manning345 Loc: Richmond, Virginia

I v**e for falsifiability as a tool to be used in the process of examining a proposed theory, but only as a tool, not necessarily a theory-k**ler. If you cannot yet figure out how to bring a theory into the testability domain, the lack of F-Testability is cautionary, but merely that. If you can perform an F-Test, you have a more confident idea of the worth of the theory.
Interesting that Tegmark was mentioned. I have been plowing through his book now and then, but he is not an easy read for me!

Mr Bombastic

But several scientists want to do away with falsifiability altogether. That's just not right. It would relegate science to "Because I said so."

Mr Bombastic

There is also the fact that a theory must be falsifiable through observation or experimentation. Without that, is it truly science?

Manning345 Loc: Richmond, Virginia

Theories are formed through observation and contemplation, I believe, before any thought of experimentation or falsifiability, and the act of formation is of a scientific nature, and the emerging theory seems to have explanatory value. Einstein was a theoretical physicist, and he proposed theories that were not tested or falsified for some time (I do not remember whether he proposed possible tests or others did), but I would credit his formations as being scientific. For a theory to be fully accepted, however, it must meet the tests of repeatability and falsifiability. Einstein's were accepted.

So, I agree with you that falsifiability should remain as a necessary criterion for full acceptance.

When a scientist is contemplating a new theory is he doing science or not? I say yes.
On the other hand, if a proposed theory fails the tests, is the scientist doing science? I say yes here also, but the theory is given a decent burial.