"...tonight, on Star Trek."
Yeah, it's increasingly apparent that the last thing Buddha wants is to be drawn into a debate of his actual proof and the actual philosophies and their authors that we might consider applicable. But he sure seems to want everyone to remember just how well-read he is and how error-prone and benighted his critics are. For one precious hour each weekday morning in the western hemisphere he dispenses his wisdom from on high -- "That's not what 'postulate' means, therefore I win." "Let's talk about what color the dinosaurs were, because that's an argument I think I can bluster my way through easier than this one." "Let's talk about other people's proofs for God to draw attention away from my failure."
And then, sadly, no more time in the day to devote to such things as resolving the circularity in his proof, proving the axiom that the deduced creator must the God of the Bible, resolving the equivocation of "observer" between his first two cases and the third. You know, those pesky details that can be safely swept under the carpet and overlooked.
But that's as may be. Let me get back on topic. It appears Buddha's belief that unfalsifiable is synonymous with false comes from equivocating or misunderstanding what Popper (and others similarly situated) mean when they say they "accept" a field of study. It means they accept it as capable of creating knowledge under the axioms they've established for what knowledge should consist of -- the demarcation principle. Metaphysical categorization has nothing to do with the truth value of hypotheses or predictions the field might offer, or even whether all the hypotheses that might arise in the field are individually verifiable. Buddha rewrites demarcation to mean, "accept as true." That further obfuscates what "as true" would mean in various contexts, but it's moot because Buddha added that language; it's not in his source. The correct interpretation of "accepts" here is "accepts as science."
The conflation of whether one can determine -- by whatever means -- the truth value of a hypothesis and what the actual truth value is or must be is fundamental error in all manner of inquiry, not just science. It doesn't suddenly become valid reasoning just because one starts thinking metaphysically. Buddha's ongoing error is illustrated in his swing-and-a-miss answer to Dave Roger's question about whether unobserved events in fact happened.
