Replies

Back to evolution. It becomes clear why the simple-minded parroting, even by scientists, that if it can't be falsified it isn't science, is not sufficient to rule out a theory. What science actually is, is a matter for extreme debate. The rediscovery post-Merton of the social nature of science has thrown eternal Scientific Methods out the window, but that doesn't mean that science is no longer distinguishable from non-science. It just isn't as easy as one would like in an ideal world. Last I looked, it wasn't an ideal world, anyway.

However, on the ordinary understanding of falsification, Darwinian evolution can be falsified. What's more, it can be verified in a non-deductive sort of way. Whewell was right in the sense that you can show the relative validity of a theory if it pans out enough, and Popper had a similar notion, called 'verisimilitude'. What scientists do, or even what they say they do, is in the end very little affected by a priori philosophical prescriptions. Darwin was right to take the approach he did.

Please don't ask me to do your homework again.

This is silly anyway. Your silly assertion is meaningless anyway. It is unsupported by any facts or substantive logic. "'Cause I say so ('cause my mommy says so)" isn't really worth addressing. You just got me in an expansive mood. You are just a silly Cr/Ider public;y reveling in ignorance.

Good Night, Dr. Sceince.

Please don't ask me to do your homework again.

I read the article and these 2 paragraphs, in no way refute my assertion. On top of that, no where in these paragraphs is there a stated theory of evolution, just an assumption that it is falsifiable. Claiming whatever is this man's theory to be falsifiable does not make it so. Claiming that SM is not viable, does not make it so and I believe this concept is not the accepted majority thinking among true scientists. Also, falsification is only one step on the road to a workable theory. And that theory is??????? Still haven't seen it. Want another try?

W.K.

This is silly anyway. Your silly assertion is meaningless anyway. 'Cause I say so ('cause my mommy says so)" isn't really worth addressing.

So, is what I have postulated silly because "you said so" or because "your mommy said so"? Nice try.

It is unsupported by any facts or substantive logic.

The article in which you claim:

"As you can see, TToE passes EVERY possible definion of science and uses the scientific method.;

makes no such claims. It only claims that the SM is outmoded and then attempts to have it both ways by stating the theory of evolution passes one aspect of the SM by simply claiming the theory to be falsifiable. I believe this gentleman will find himself in the minority on his view of the SM. Additionally, his claims are "unsupported by any facts or substantive logic" anywhere in the article. It would help if this person actually stated the theory of evolution he so inadequately attempts to defend. Without that theory, it is impossible to discuss the article any further, let alone attempt to scrutinize the substance of his assumptions and claims.

W.K.