Dear Editor,

I am grateful to the authors for their interest in my article and for the comments they raised.

The authors thought that the interpretation of Karl Popper in the article was incorrect in one point [1]. I think the authors ignored the previous paragraphs, and there is some misunderstanding. Anyway, they are my responsibility to try to solve them. I do agree with the authors. As was written in the article, falsification is a method suggested by Popper to demarcate science from non-science [2]. The statement that the authors mention is just a highlighter conclusion of previous paragraphs, but it seems that it needs some more explanation.

Undoubtedly, the main factor that enables science to move forward is the assertion of bold theses and their falsification by evidence. Falsifiability is the main feature that makes a theory of science valuable. A scientific theory should present not only the methods of verification of data but also clearly and distinctly how it can be falsified. In the philosophy of science, the theory is more likely to be accepted as scientific if it can produce concrete results suitable for falsification.

According to Popper, a scientific theory should be formulated as precisely as possible and extremely open to falsification through experience. In his words, “it must be possible for an empirical scientific system to be refuted by experience” [3]. For instance: 1) There will be a third world war. It is a verifiable but not a falsifiable proposition, because anyone can start a war. However, it cannot be falsified because no matter how much time passes, we cannot definitively conclude that there will be no world war anymore. So, this is not a scientific proposition. 2) Mount Everest is the highest mountain in the world. It is a proposition that is both verifiable and falsifiable. This suggestion is a scientific proposition; since it can be verified and falsified by the measurement method. The statement found in the article—a thesis is true only if it cannot be falsified—was used for pointing to the thesis, which has clearly stated its own falsification methods but could not be falsified even by the presence and application of suitable methods for falsification.

On the other hand, as was mentioned by the author, too, the falsification method in science is not as simple and trouble-free. There are well-known claims, such as the Duhem and Quine thesis [4, 5], that question the concept of falsification and its scientific significance. However, this issue is beyond our discussion.

I sincerely thank Dr. Bartanusz and Dr. Samples for their valuable comments and interest in my manuscript.