[Fester Chugabrew]

When you're faced with bare facts, the aspect of falsifiability is moot. Shall we exclude bare facts from the realm of "scientific" because they are "unfalsifiable?"

Or maybe you don't believe in bare facts.

[highball]

When you're faced with bare facts, the aspect of falsifiability is moot. Shall we exclude bare facts from the realm of "scientific" because they are "unfalsifiable?"

Or maybe you don't believe in bare facts.

Wow. That's an amazing reach.

Falsifiability applies to theories. Whatever else it to which it may or may not apply is irrelevant. All theories need to be falsifiable - that's what makes them theories.

Facts don't need to be falsifiable. Theories do. Or do you not understand the difference?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"When you're faced with bare facts, the aspect of falsifiability is moot."

What bare facts would those be?

[b_sharp]

"When you're faced with bare facts, the aspect of falsifiability is moot. Shall we exclude bare facts from the realm of "scientific" because they are "unfalsifiable?" "

The bare facts are not what needs to be falsifiable it is the initial hypothesis (hypotheses) that need to be falsifiable. Without that ability, the theory will simply be a collection of hypotheses that may or may not be accurate. In other words it would be a collection of useless hypotheses.

Without the framework of a theory, the 'bare facts' are just random bits of information.