Are Karl Popper's views on falsifiability falsifiable?

[kmarinas86]

In science and the philosophy of science, falsifiability, contingency, and defeasibility are roughly equivalent terms referring to the property of empirical statements that they must admit of logical counterexamples. This stands in contradistinction to formal and mathematical statements that may be tautologies, that is, universally true by dint of definitions, axioms, and proofs. Some philosophers and scientists, most notably Karl Popper, have asserted that no empirical hypothesis, proposition, or theory can be considered scientific if it does not admit the possibility of a contrary case.

 

Is the above meaning falsifiable?

[CraigD]

Put into more terse and formal language, Poppers view of falsibility and science can be expressed: If there exists B such that B implies not A, then A is “scientific”.

 

As such, his view is a definition of the term “scientific”. Although one may argue that a particular definition contradicts the most common definition, or is not the most useful definition, of a particular term, a definition is not a scientific hypothesis as defined by Popper, so is not subject to the requirement that it be falsifiable.