A completely wrong statement has by definition been falsified.
Well, if we're being colossally picky, strictly speaking there's only falsification so far, to date. Definitive, universal, once-and-for-all falsification takes us straight into Dave "scratch wig" Hume territory and outside the scope of the present discussion. But meanwhile back on the ranch, the point that bluey made, that I reiterated and that you seem still not to get remains: for an idea to be falsified is predicated on the prior existence of a methodology in which falsification is a viable concept, and you haven't demonstrated such a methodology. Test ideas/claims; have some sort of protocol in place for sifting the true ones from the false ones.
That's all bluey was saying. No heavy weather or big dramas or difficulty about this; it's perfectly simple.
Either you are continuing a category confusion he started or you have just become Turd Polisher by appointment to the court of King Hillside.
There's confusion here but not with Die Blau Meister, who is consistently a model of cogency and clarity (thank goodness his ongoing connection problems haven't driven him off the forum altogether - we can't afford to lose one of the best posters we have).
