So you believe in unfalsifiable theories
No, I accept they are unfalsifiable and as such, may or may not be true pending further data.
I only "believe" in TAUTOLOGY.
For example, "cause and effect" is demonstrable.
Inductively (don't forget Humorous Hume), we can reason that "if cause and effect" is presumed to apply to all possible phenomena, then determinism is true.
TAUTOLOGICALLY "cause and effect" either applies to all phenomena or it does not (applies to some but not all).
Can you or anyone else prove that any particular phenomena has no cause and thus violates "cause and effect"?
Well, some people will point to the unpredictability of the quantum flux as possible evidence of non-causal phenomena.
However, it is currently impossible to know or demonstrate if the unpredictability of the quantum flux is evidence of non-causal phenomena.
Unpredictability itself is only evidence of lack of data (appeal to ignorance).
HOwever, we can compare unfalsifiable claims and logically deduce the ramifications.
For example,
"Cause and effect" may only apply to some things and not other things.
Any phenomena that is non-causal would necessarily be indistinguishable from random.
A mix of causal and non-causal phenomena is unfalsifiable (in-determinism), but also TAUTOLOGICALLY accounts for all possible options and does not conflict with scientific data and is parsimonious.
The concept of in-determinism is superior to determinism because it accounts for all possible variables (TAUTOLOGY).
Although multiple, competing hypotheses may be technically unfalsifiable, they can still be compared based on logical coherence and TAUTOLOGICAL comprehensiveness.
