Validating an accounting theory karl popper
One of the tenets behind the scientific method is that any scientific hypothesis and resultant experimental design must be inherently falsifiable.Although falsifiability is not universally accepted, it is still the foundation of the majority of scientific experiments.For example, someone might claim "the earth is younger than many scientists state, and in fact was created to as though it was older through deceptive fossils etc.” This is a claim that is unfalsifiable because it is a theory that can never be shown to be false.If you were to present such a person with fossils, geological data or arguments about the nature of compounds in the ozone, they could refute the argument by saying that your evidence was fabricated to appeared that way, and isn’t valid.
Whilst some "pure" sciences do adhere to this strict criterion, many fall somewhere between the two extremes, with pseudo-sciences falling at the extreme end of being unfalsifiable.
After all, a conjecture that hasn’t been proven yet is just a hypothesis.
The idea is that no theory is completely correct, but if it can be shown both to be falsifiable supported with evidence that shows it's true, it can be accepted as truth.
While such studies and ideas are not falsifiable, most would agree that they are scientific because they significantly advance human knowledge.
Popper had and still has his fair share of critics, and the question of how to demarcate legitimate scientific enquiry can get very convoluted.