Joined: Oct. 2009
|Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 15 2012,13:11)|
|Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 15 2012,10:07)|
|Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 15 2012,10:01)|
|Regardless of what you claim is lacking from my replies, you have not addressed anything to be concerned about it the theory that is supposed to be under discussion in this thread.|
In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science. Such theories are described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand and either provide empirical support ("verify") or empirically contradict ("falsify") it. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge, in contrast to more common uses of the word "theory" that imply that something is unproven or speculative.
Did you see the bit in bold Gary? That's what you need to be concerned with.
Again Falsifiability is a very recent controversial "philosophy of science" from Karl Popper not the reality of the Theory of Intelligent Design where the philosophy is used in a way that would stop any politically inconvenient theory. Finding bunnies in the Cambrian would result in pet alien-bunnies theories but the GA would still work so just be a windfall, not falsification. The philosophy is in reality more describing the attributes of a hypothesis. The "falsification" science-stopper does not deserve to be taught as requirement for theory.
A theory should have a model in it, that explains how something works. Questions are then in turn answered. Forever going in circles to meet requirements of what another considers to be falsification is scientifically pointless.
Does your notion actually do anything?
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.