[Hank Kerchief]

...it would nonetheless suggest that there is probably a causal relationship.

There is nothing wrong with making decisions based on less than perfect knowledge, when that is the best you can get. The point of "proof" and "testability" is to get knowledge that is better. "Suggestions," and, "probability," are not proof. They may be evidence that eventually leads to proof, but in the meantime, they are just suggestions and probabilities, at best, hypotheses, not scientific truth or theories.

Hank

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

But to classify a hypothesis as meaningless merely because there is no known way for it to meet the falsifiability test is a fools errand. I would venture to say that falsifiability can not be applied to much which is not measurable by us (i.g. "Why does Saddam persist in showing the world what an idiot he is"?).

I would say that merely because a hypothesis cannot be falsified doesn't mean that it isn't valid. More the especially when the hypothesis presents facts that fit the equation than prevailing theory does.

OTOH, just because a hypothesis is falsifiable does not make it viable either. For example, I can make the claim (quite justly) that everytime I flip a coin, it will land on heads. If I flipped the coin 100 times and it landed on heads everytime, I could reasonably make a hypothesis that no matter how many times I flipped it, it would always land on heads. However, the only way to prove this event is to not disprove it. Not exactly falsifiable, but not without merit natheless.