I'm telling you your criterion is wrong. That's not the same as saying there is no possible criterion, is it?

You may not, but theory vs prediction is a totally standard and well-understood distinction in the philosophy of science. If you're going to be stubborn then I'll have to leave you to do your research and take it from here.

Not on the basis you've set out, which is exactly what I've been trying to tell you all along. Your criterion is unrealistic and unreflective of the way science is actually done.

What? No! The theory of gravity can be used to make an infinite (in principle) number of predictions, of which you've just given one example. See the difference?

I really think it is better to get your terminology straight and read up a bit on epistemology before making judgements about what does and does not qualify as science. One might think that scientists actually working in the relevant field would be in a better position to determine what is legitimate, and if you're going to contradict them then you need a solid grasp of what you are talking about.

Sounds like you should find out a little more about him first.

If, for the sake of argument, we can't tell, then it's clearly not fair to call it unscientific. The fact that you don't like that as a consequence doesn't make it any more or less true.

It's a prediction. As in, "if we do X, Y will happen". Why is this so hard to understand? Seriously, it doesn't seem at all wise to complain about things being unscientific without being more familiar with arguments about demarcation criteria and the history of science.

Well, maybe, and maybe not, but you have just made an appeal to consequences. That is irrelevant to the truth or otherwise of the critique.

AGW as a prediction depends on a number of theories. Anomalous observations could be explained by problems in any one of them, or a combination. I still don't get your point.

Unfortunately for you, it's a bit more complicated than that. Hilary Putnam's critique of falsifiability as a demarcation criterion is relevant. Briefly, any experimental or observational test of a theory requires you to believe certain auxiliary hypotheses. That is one of the main reasons why a single anomalous observation is rarely enough to bring down a whole theory. The predictions produced by climate science that we collectively refer to as AGW require a number of different scientific theories for their production, so of course the problem of auxiliary hypotheses increases. Your whole line of argument is unrealistic when we look at the way science has actually been done.

This is all very interesting but you keep citing falsifiability as if AGW were a scientific theory rather than a scientific prediction.

It's not whether you're personally against them or not. It's whether everyone else has the right to demand that you have them. The GP's post goes exactly to that question. He correctly makes the point that your refusal of the vaccine constitutes a risk to everyone that you come in contact with, since not everyone can safely have the vaccine and there is not 100% protection even for those that do.

Isn't the point that, without a secret ballot, candidates can intimidate people into voting a particular way? IOW the key period is before the election, not after?

Thanks, Fouad.

Modifying which noun?

You spelt that wrongly.

Let's just write this out in words: the Queen acts as a figurehead, speaking words which have been written for her by the government of the day, and this encourages English women to be more manipulative towards men.

Sorry you had a bad experience with one English woman but this chain of reasoning is totally bogus.

This is the most tenuous causal link I have ever come across.