Just one final clarification for you - keep in mind that my comments on error bars were musings on the falsifiability of global warming, from a philosophy of science perspective. [ShakaUVM]
That's quite a euphemism for repeatedly accusing scientists of failing to construct and test falsifiable theories, or accusing them of dishonestly claiming more knowledge than there is.
Now, I'd grown accustomed to 'spiritual'Â claims, and had decided to ignore them because they weren't falsifiable .
My sense of duty to science stops here, unfortunately, so I can't falsify this hypothesis. [Dumb Scientist]
scientific theories have to make unique, falsifiable predictions.
I agree that models which don't make falsifiable predictions are worthless. I've just never seen that happen in peer reviewed journals. [Dumb Scientist]
It's definitely falsifiable science, too. [Dumb Scientist]
My third piece of evidence is the concept of falsifiability. You see, a scientific hypothesis needs more than naturalism to be valid. It also needs to be falsifiable in the sense that an experiment (either real or gedanken) can be performed that will either support the theory or disprove it. Evolution, for example, is falsifiable in many different ways.
But evolution as a whole just isn't comparable to an unfalsifiable concept like the Flying Spaghetti Monster or intelligent design.
It's possible that abiogenesis happened several times, so finding two types of DNA wouldn't falsify evolution.
The word 'falsifiable' isn't applicable, because creationism/ID isn't science.
I'll note that too short a time between the bombardment and the first microbes could falsify evolution.
While I admire your attempt to adhere to the scientific method, I'm not sure that these examples constitute falsifiability in a rigorous sense. If every animal had different DNA bases, that would utterly demolish evolution. All of the predictions you're offering as falsifications merely seem to add a few more 'why'Â questions (as you say) to an already gigantic stack of 'why'Â questions that theologians have struggled with for centuries. [Dumb Scientist]
In science, nothing is ever proven true. Experiments might sometimes fail to falsify theories, but that's very different from being 'proven true.'Â [Dumb Scientist]
I don't know if you're discussing heresy or orthodoxy. All I'm saying is that you're discussing religion of some variety, not falsifiable science. [Dumb Scientist]
You say that as though my life's work isn't developing and falsifying hypotheses.
But, as I've stressed, creationism can't ever be refuted, because its inherently supernatural properties make it compatible with any potential discovery. On the other hand, I've listed two simple falsifications of evolution: chimpanzees in the Precambrian and many species with totally different DNA bases.
Scientific theories compete in the sense that every new observation either supports or falsifies them.
Science is falsifiable. It produces specific predictions. Creationism/ID doesn't. [Dumb Scientist]
That's what falsifiability means. There has to be some type of evidence which could, in principle, prove the theory wrong. I've linked to many many more tests in the conversation that list was taken from. [Dumb Scientist]
Evolution is thus falsifiable in that manner. Creationism can work either way, so it's not falsifiable and therefore not science.
And yet again, the distinction is that your belief can't ever be disproven because it's based on religious faith, whereas scientific theories have to be testable by definition. [Dumb Scientist]
... It's nice to see that we both agree on the core matter.
No, the "core matter" here is that you're repeatedly and baselessly libelling an entire subfield of physicists, which I most certainly do not agree with, in any sense of the word.
Why do people insult scientists in this manner? It's like telling a plumber "Oh, come on... you don't really know the difference between a bathtub and a sink." Presumably, people wouldn't insult him by suggesting that he's fundamentally incompetent at his life's work. Maybe that's because plumbers carry big wrenches, while scientists carry calculators? [Dumb Scientist]
... the point of my original post above was to talk about the very paradox of verification and falsification in regards to climate science... which I think it seems you agree with. They are very problematic. [ShakaUVM]
This is the second time you've claimed that I agree with your bizarre misconceptions. Please stop. It wasn't true then, and it's not true now. As I've already discussed, some physics topics can seem very problematic if you spend your time (for instance) running a small business. That's why professional physicists spend that time doing physics and getting structured feedback from other physicists. As it turns out, experience and peer-review can help one tackle subjects which armchair quarterbacks might consider "very problematic." If that weren't true, then physicists probably would agree with you... but only if they could manage to stop muttering "f*ckin' magnets, how do they work?"