Falsifiable: Popper’s much to do about nothing much, and Woit and Smolin as the logically challenged (or two non-experimentalists who have a need for science by consensus)

Indirectly, through Lee Smolin, I finally get Peter Woit’s definition of falsifiable, which is actually nothing much more than the standard nonsensical nonsense that’s summarized by answers.com.
In Smolin on the Anthropic Principle, Woit says,
[Smolin] gives an eloquent explanation of the importance of falsifiability for a shared scientific enterprise.
I can assume, then, that Woit is satisfied [...]

Possibly false falisifiable quotes 11-23-07(2)

From Woit’s This Week’s Hype.

anon. Says:
May 24th, 2007 at 6:15 am ‘I guess it’s all right that I don’t have time to comment on this, since no comment seems necessary…’ – Peter WoitGlad that you are not wasting time on fruitless arguments.Lubos is correct. Physics proceeds by asserting a theory is true and [...]

Falsifiable quotes 11-23-07

Woit in Carroll and Johnson on Bloggingheads,
Sean gives a fairly standard defense of the landscape (”maybe it really is the way the world works”), with no discussion of the main problem with the landscape, that it shows no signs of making falsifiable predictions that would make it legitimate science.
From the comments:

Eric Mayes Says:
July 16th, [...]