Is falsifiability overrated?

[Ninshub]

Vernon Neppe, MD, PhD, FRSSAf, is a neuropsychiatrist and head of the Pacific Neuropsychiatric Institute in Seattle. Together with Dr Edward Close, he pioneered the new discipline of what they call “Dimensional Biopsychophysics”.  (...)

Here he suggests that the criterion of "falsifiability", as defined by the philosopher Karl Popper, has limited applicability in science. He argues that we should consider the scientific feasibility of hypotheses that are not currently falsifiable. This new term in the Philosophy of Science is called. "Lower Dimensional Feasibility, Absent Falsification” (LFAF) . Feasibility is particularly true in the social sciences -- as well as in physical sciences involving more than three dimensions of space and one dimension in time. LFAF has important applications in the Forensic Sciences and in Medicine where feasibility may be more important than Falsifiability, and there are areas of science called pseudoscience.despite the methodology (e.g. parapsychology, consciousness research) and yet Cosmology and Evolution are ‘scientific†despite not being falsifiable.

 ....and yet Cosmology and Evolution are ‘scientific’ despite not being falsifiable.

It's good that this contradiction is pointed out. A double standard among scientistic scientists. One prominent theory in cosmology is now the multiverse, and Darwinism is the prominent theory of evolution. Neither can be falsified, and I think that contrary to Neppe, this truly  is a sign that they are not "scientific" in the highest sense that they can't be considered valid guidance to the true nature of the world.