[edsheppa]

Just a couple of points. 1) It is an abuse of the language to speak of "proving" scientific theories. 2) There is a more fundamental criterion than falsifiability, namely utility. What is the point of a theory that doesn't exclude any possibility? The more unobserved outcomes excluded by a theory the more useful it is. I think the utility criterion is more generally applicable in non-scientific areas than falsifiability.

[longshadow]

There is a more fundamental criterion than falsifiability, namely utility.

The more "utilitarian" the theory (exclusion of unobserved phenomona), the more falsifiable it is. They're flip sides of the same coin.