I agree it s not obviously relevant until we start tripping over the issue of falsifiability as we have several times recently with various editors rewriting some of that second paragraph It is a bit of a stumbler If however a consensus can be reached about how to phrase it as introductory material in a meaningful way whatever language is chosen can be maintained with an occasional checkup on the language by the participating editors In my figuring of it the way it was written before was a bit clumsy and largely indefensible on the basis that we d already said it effectively because we hadn t quite said it effectively in that paragraph I imagine there is some way of reasonably saying this in the article as yet undetermined that will ring true to those regular editors who understand the basic problem and still explain reasonably well to the previously uninitiated reader of the material Right now the first sentence of the paragraph is quite reasonable in my opinion Popper proposed the additional criterion of falsifiability which factors in those theories that are dependent on coherence rather than outright falsifiability I trust with some further discussion and a bit of experimenting that it ll get done for the rest of that paragraph Incidentally I genuinely appreciate seeing all this highly thoughtful discussion about the issues