You eaither misunderstand what falsifiable means, or you intended something else for the above. If a truth were falsified, it would not be true. I assume you meant, there are scientific truths that cannot necessarily be tested, which necessarily means, tested in a way that means something. If a test can pass, whether what is being tested is true or not, the test proves nothing. The test only proves something, if it can only be passed if the hyposthesis is true, and must fail (be falsified) if it is not true.
If there are sceintific truths which are "untestable," could you please name one.
Hank
In many fields of study, the items being studied do not behave entirely predictably. Suppose one is testing a drug and feeds it to six animals in a test group but not to six animals in a control group. Even if all six animals in the control group outlast all six animals in the test group that does not prove the drug was harmful. It suggests that it's likely, since, absent outside influences, such an event should happen only once every 924 such trials, but it would nonetheless suggest that there is probably a causal relationship.
I believe there are many scientific truths that are untestable. For instance, the mathematical truth that there are an infinite number of primes is untestable. This truth is easy to prove but impossible to test. But I’m not a mathematician and perhaps a rigorous proof is equivalent to a test. I differentiate the two myself.
Forgive the poorly worded sentence.
There are scientific truths that are not "falsifiable" in theory.
In other words, simply because a belief or theory is not subject to repeatable and observational "operational" scientific testing, this does not mean that belief or theory is false.
I assume by "testing" you mean (as I do) at least repeatability and observation.
Any scientific singularity would not be subject to such testing.
There are several in number theory, such as Euclid's second theorem that there are an infinite number of prime numbers. Provable, but untestable.
Very simple: Try testing: "The laws of science are universally rational and applicable."
Science itself is based on the assumption that the universe is based on rational principles.
When you think about it, God alone could find such an assumption, or hypothesis, falsifiable.
LOL. There is no shortage of the scientifically challenged here.
I don't have time to read the whole thread to see if you got your answer to this, but one of the more famous Math theorems of the 20th century says exactly this, developed by Kurt Goedel, and known as Goedel's Theorem. To paraphrase (since his phrasing is gibberish to all but a mathematician), "in any logical system with a closed set of rules, there will exist undecidable propositions which are, nonetheless true."
There's a great book by someone with a name like Hofstadler or something close to that, entitled "Goedel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid," which puts it all in laymans terms. Highly recommended, though lengthy.