I was just going by the Wikipedia page. I'm not a positivist
   either (despite growing up with Star Trek and other positivist
   notions of the future) but I also think falsificationism has its
   limitations as well. But generally, I look at the subcultures of
   the sciences for validity: I try to discern "what's trendy" vs
   what seems to stand the test of time within each. Scientists are
   humans doing the best they can, working within their subcultures
   and within a greater society, all suffering from the same
   psychological underpinnings as any of us, so I try to keep that
   in mind when I gauge truth values. == I suppose it is the misuse
   of falsifiability that I take issue with but when it's used
   properly, I'm a fan of it. A proper scientific position knows
   when to say "can't say either way". and yeah, the demarcation
   problem is an issue. I often take issue with the promoters of
   Science for a number of reasons but one of the main things that
   drives me nuts is the promotion of the *least* scientific of all
   of the sciences - the most fantastical and declaring 'this is
   Science, the rest comes from here"... and I dunno, I just find
   it very misleading to people.   ==