Exercise 1: Why the Homeopathy Case Is a Stronger Illustration Than Pure Unfalsifiability — Possible Solution
==================================================================================================================

A pure falsifiability critique would only tell you that a claim is
structured in a way that makes it impossible, even in principle, to
test - it says nothing about whether the claim is actually true or
false, only that it can't be checked at all.

Homeopathy is a stronger case precisely because it doesn't have that
escape route available. Its core claims ("this remedy improves this
condition compared with placebo") are genuinely testable in the same
way any other medical claim is - there's a clear, real comparison
(treated group vs. placebo group) that can be run and measured.

What the real NHMRC review demonstrates is a second, and in some ways
more damning, kind of failure: not merely that the claims COULD be
tested, but that they WERE tested, extensively (57 systematic reviews,
176 studies, 61 conditions), and repeatedly failed to show reliable
evidence of an effect. This shows homeopathy isn't hiding behind
unfalsifiability - its claims were given a genuine, real chance to
succeed under rigorous conditions, and did not.

ANSWER: The NHMRC review demonstrates something a pure falsifiability
critique alone can't - not just that homeopathy's claims are
theoretically checkable, but that they were actually, rigorously
checked at real scale and found unsupported, which is a stronger and
more direct kind of failure than simply being untestable.

WHY THIS WORKS AS AN ANSWER
------------------------------
This draws the precise distinction the exercise asked for: between a
claim being merely unfalsifiable in principle and a claim being
genuinely tested and failing in practice, using the chapter's own real
NHMRC numbers as evidence.