  This paper is concerned with the question of when a theory is refutable with
certainty on the basis of sequence of primitive observations. Beginning with
the simple definition of falsifiability as the ability to be refuted by some
finite collection of observations, I assess the literature on falsification and
its descendants within the context of the dividing lines of contemporary model
theory. The static case is broadly concerned with the question of how much of a
theory can be subjected to falsifying experiments. In much of the literature,
this question is tied up with whether the theory in question is axiomatizable
by a collection of universal first-order sentences. I argue that this is too
narrow a conception of falsification by demonstrating that a natural class of
theories of distinct model-theoretic interest -- so-called NIP theories -- are
themselves highly falsifiable.
