> > Absolutely not. Neither Popperism nor naive
> > falsificationism (which seems closer to what you actually
> > have in mind) says anything about where the onus lies.
>
> I did read Popper, but naive falsificationism I haven't heard of
> before. Do you have a reference or did you just make that up?
>
Found it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability#Falsificationism
'Naïve falsification considers scientific statements individually.
Scientific theories are formed from groups of these sorts of
statements, and it is these groups that must be accepted or rejected
by scientists. Scientific theories can always be defended by the
addition of ad hoc hypotheses.'
Huh?
Do you mean that I naïvely believe that I can falsify the standard
scenario by demonstrating that one of its tenets is false, but I can't
since its proponents can always come up some ad hoc assumption to save
it? Or what? I don't get it?
Torsten