falsifying the idea of falsification

[Drich]

What's at issue with falsifiability is not whether we practically will be able to find such a thing. It's that in principle the statement could be proven wrong.

Likewise no serious person expects the theory of evolution to be falsified. It is as proven as something can be. But we know in principle how it could be falsified -- by finding a rabbit from the Precambrian era. If it is possible in principle to show something is false, it's falsifiable.

I don't doubt that researchers have used sonar and submarines and everything else to search Loch Ness. At this point it's perfectly reasonable to conclude that there's no monster. 

This is not what scientists mean by the term "falsifiable." 

To be falsifiable, there would have to be one piece of evidence which conclusively shows that there is no monster. And that's not what happened.

For the Loch Ness monster to be falsifiable, there only needs to be one piece of evidence which could prove it false.  It's a falsifiable claim - I'd say there are plenty of pieces of such evidence...but a person arguing otherwise is only arguing that these pieces of evidence aren't -those- pieces of evidence.

At it's core, though..it's the claim that a dragon exists at the bottom of a lake.  I guess falsification applies for monuments to boru and to dragons - but not for god.

again not the point. the terms is not about the act of doing. or showing how a particular fact was proven false, but the idea that if other evidence arises can it then be proven false? or is there always an unknowable variable. if there is always an unquantifiable variable in a theory the philosophy of science particularly falsifiability says the subject is not a scientific matter. IE Science is not equipped to study or answer this question.

Because there are unlimited reasons why none of our efforts on nessy work, means science/scientific method is not the tool need to answer this question. this is another field of study which may include science, but pure science is not applicable here. which is what Popper was trying to do. separate the garbage science that could not be vetted by the scientific method, from the BS science that was trying to be assimilated into a scientific field (as a means for funding pet projects like the search for loch ness monster, alchemy, "theology," Phrenology ect..]