Re: The philosophical Turkey: The difference between verification and

On Dec 12, 6:52 pm, Seanpit <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.
0catch.com> wrote:
The thing is, presenting a hypothesis that is ultimately falsified
doesn't mean that that original hypothesis wasn't the best and most
scientifically reasonable conclusion given the limited data that was
originally available. In short, just because a scientific hypothesis
or theory is ultimately falsified doesn't mean that it wasn't really
scientific. All scientific hypotheses should be open to potential
falsification or at least practical if not absolute falsification.

Some hypotheses, such as the one presented here by Forrest, are open
to absolute falsification as stated. However, not all scientific
hypotheses can be absolutely falsified. They can only be falsified in
degree - i.e., to a practical level of statistical "significance".
For example, most hypotheses regarding medical treatment cannot be
absolutely falsified. Some can only be falsified in degree - i.e., to
a p-value that is greater than the pre-determined level of
significance.

Of course, the lack of the complete falsifiability does not mean that
medical science and other such hypotheses and theories (like chaos
theory and other theories that involve the use of concepts like
randomness) aren't really true sciences. They are - despite Richard's
claims to the contrary.

Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com

Sean, you're wasting time!

You evidently think that all the scientist who have criticised your
pontifications are both ignorant and incompetent, so why waste your
words of wisdom on this forum.

So write them up as a paper, and submit it to a journal whose editors
*are* capable of understanding your argument. After all, you've been
posting much the same bunkum (sorry: scientifically important
argument) for five years. Surely you can write up *something*?

Why not prove all your critics wrong?

Of course, I know perfectly well that you won't, because you know
perfectly well that your arguments have no substance, and that any
competent scientist would laugh them out of court.

Let's all have a good laugh as you bluster and evade once again. What
sort of impression do you think that this gives, do you think?

RF

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: When Falsification Cannot Be 100%
    ... a fair number of very well educated scientists don't ... A turkey lived in a pen with lots of other turkeys. ... falsification because the first time the man fails to roll double ... subject to absolute falsification. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: When Falsification Cannot Be 100%
    ... falsification because the first time the man fails to roll double ... subject to absolute falsification. ... by "luck" or random chance is impossible to prove to perfection. ... scientists look for falsification. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: When Falsification Cannot Be 100%
    ... a fair number of very well educated scientists don't ... falsification because the first time the man fails to roll double ... subject to absolute falsification. ... completely useless as hypotheses. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The philosophical Turkey: The difference between verification and
    ... falsification or at least practical if not absolute falsification. ... most hypotheses regarding medical treatment cannot be ... medical science and other such hypotheses and theories (like chaos ...
    (talk.origins)