Drawing the line between science and pseudo-science.
What this means is that you could do a test that shows a scientific claim to be false, but no conceivable test could show a pseudo-scientific claim to be false. Sciences are testable, pseudo-sciences are not.
“Sciences are testable, pseudo-sciences are not.” Tch, tch: Contemporary physical theory describing mass has no emprical validation: Higgs; SUSY partners, proton decay, solar axions; muon g-2 vs. theory, quantum gravitation jointly and severally, dark matter versus MOND Milgrom acceleration, beta-decay rate sinusoidally varying with time of year, matter-antimatter abundance… Where is the pony?
All physical theory begins by elegantly assuming the vacuum is mirror-symmetric toward mass as it is observed to be toward massless photons. The vacuum is observed to be chiral toward mass all the way down. Herarchies of manually inserted symmetry breakings plus perturbation treatments are admissions of administrative error, not exercises of science. Science would deliver ponies.
Galileo defined science as an empirical endeavor. Math is not enough. Somebody must look,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/shoes2.png
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/benzil.png
Geometric parity calorimetry experiment.
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/erotor1.jpg
Two geometric parity Eotvos experiments.
The worst they can do is succeed.