[headsonpikes]

1 Recent work in the philosophy of science has revealed the degree to which high level scientific theories tend to resist simple refutation. If it were applied consistently, in fact, every theory in science would be hastily rejected. As a result, Karl Popper’s criterion of “falsifiability,” which most commentators seem to presuppose, was rejected by most philosophers of science decades ago as a litmus test for science. Nevertheless, it’s certainly a virtue of scientific proposals to be able to say what evidence would count against it.

Blowing smoke like a squid! I believe he is misrepresenting Kuhn's SSD as well as Popper's LSD.

[headsonpikes]

That should be SSR, for Structure of Scientific Revolutions. My bad.