You can't be serious. Who fed you that nonsense?

Well, you certainly think you did. I'll let you review what you've written and decide for yourself if you'd like to revise that assertion a bit. That is, if you really think falsification is the sole criterion for demarcation.

Now you've moved from falsification to verification? You should know that there are serious problems with verification and quite a bit of difficulty reconciling it with falsification. I'm going to guess you skipped Popper and Carnap altogether in favor of forum posts. This is why I'm not convinced you understand basic science. Further, science, quite obviously, doesn't deal in truth. (I'll leave the bit about objectivity for another day. It's not as simple as you seem to believe.)

Moving on, there is a really silly bit in your previous post that I'd like to point out.

The implication here is that you accept those discipline as science. The reverse, in that case, should also be true. As you can study the sociological impact of religion on society, you should equally be able to study the theological impact of society on religion. You can't really justify privileging one over the other, at least, not rationally.

You're confusing the study of beliefs with the beliefs themselves. You have a deep misunderstanding of the subject, which is probably why your reaction here is visceral and not rational.

I think you're confused, though I'm not sure where you've gone wrong. A little history of science, and a better understanding of induction might help you here.

What bothers me about that it's a complete misrepresentation. Criticism is meaningless when it drifts off in to some parody of the topic under discussion.

In this case, the author implies that "alternative medicine" is understood as "alternatives to medicine" instead of "alternative approaches to medicine". If he intends his talk to convince believers that they're mistaken, he's failed. They'll simply roll their eyes, convinced he doesn't understand the topic, as it appears the speaker doesn't understand the topic at all.

It's just as bad as the yahoos that go around defining homeopathy. I'm sure you can find a "That's not what homeopathy is, it's really ..." comment here already. It's simply not helpful. The believer will see that definition, realize it's not related to their beliefs, and ignore it.

Bad arguments are bad, regardless of who makes them or what their intentions happen to be. If you want to be rational, you can't go around shouting slogans and making bad arguments indistinguishable from some mad-libs version of the arguments of the opposing side. It's absolutely ridiculous.

What, exactly, do you think TESS stands for anyway?

Here you go

So said everyone ... 7 years ago. At this point, it's just pure delusion. iOS just isn't relevant.

The "major decline" you and everyone else has been on about nearly a decade just hasn't happened. Flash has declined, sure, but not significantly. Google and Mozilla recognize this, and have taken steps to ensure flash content will work in their browsers for the foreseeable future. After all, if their browser can't render the content people want, they'll look elsewhere.

I suspect we'll have this exact same discussion 5 years from now. There's just too much content and the alternatives just aren't mature enough to see any significant change over the next few years.

This is simply reality.

That shouldn't be terribly difficult.

Here's something you might not know: Your personal use case is not representative of the world at large.

Flash is still quite popular, and isn't likely to vanish any time soon. Millions upon millions of users engage with flash content on the web daily. It's going to take a very long time for alternatives to catch-up in terms of authoring tools and, most importantly, content. It'll take even longer for that old content to fade into obscurity -- just like Java applets before it.

I know it's cool to play the ideologue, but it's foolish to deny the obvious reality. Flash is going to be with us for many years.

Who wouldn't? They probably assumed you were mentally ill. Even low-life scammers have their limits.

Sure, but neither one of us is suggesting that beliefs cannot change.

Well, the challenge I offered is still on the table: Give it a try.

Can you manage it? By an act of will, can you truly believe that a blue ghost is stealing socks from the laundry? Can you simply stop believing in, say, the existence of field mice?

Who? Not an individual, but the rest of the civilized world.

We've collectively decided to maintain those sites for a purpose. We've also collectively decided what does and does not constitute disrespectful behavior at those sites.

You're upset that you can't do whatever you want, wherever you want, without facing social consequences for your actions. You hear this sort of nonsense from school kids trying to defend their poor behavioral choices.

You wouldn't send text messages in a movie theater, would you? Then don't play video games at Dachau!

You seem to be arguing with your imagination.

Good luck.