I'm not saying that such claims can be disproven. What I'm saying is that such claims have no intrinsic value.

Imagine I put a six-sided die inside a box. I close the lid to the box, shake the box, and then declare that I rolled a 6. As long as we leave the box closed (or if I shake the box again before we open it), can we disprove my claim? Of course not. But does my claim provide any actual insight on the true state of the die? No.

Because my claim was "less tangible to test", it, of course, can't be proven wrong. But it also provides no predictive value.

Let's run through another similar scenario.

Imagine you're playing a board game with a little kid. The kid needs to roll a six to win. The kid rolls the die, and the die rolls off the table and under the couch. The kid runs over, looks under the couch, says "it was a six, I win!" and then grabs the die before anyone else can look.

Do you trust the kid, and declare them the winner? Or do you instead insist that they roll again, this time on the table, so everyone can see (i.e. so that there's publicly observable evidence)? Maybe if the kid is really little, you'd just let them win. But as the kid gets older, you'll likely hold them more accountable, and make them roll on the table, right?

This is what I'm suggesting. That we hold people accountable and insist on publicly observable evidence for their claims. And if someone makes a claim that is not publicly "tangible to test", then we should just dismiss or ignore that claim as not relevant to the rest of us.

Sure, there may be some psychological value in someone believing a certain thing (just as there is psychological value in a kid believing that they rolled a six). But such claims are not valuable to other people, and not appropriate to be spread publicly as versions of truth.