Re: Science = 100% falsifiability? Really?

On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 15:18:20 -0800 (PST), in talk.origins
Seanpit <seanpitnospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
<d1c84026-d730-4983-88cf-44285a845e3b@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
On Dec 12, 11:43 am, richardalanforr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

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.

What would be laughed at of court, even by mainstream scientists, is
your notion that all real scientific theories are absolutely
falsifiable. That notion shows a very basic misunderstanding of the
uses and range of scientific investigation.

Apparently you do not grasp the meaning of falsifiable. Which scientific
theories are not?

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?

Let see you explain how medical science isn't really science . . .
because the majority of medical hypotheses and theories are not
absolutely falsifiable you know. The same thing is true of physics,
chemistry, anthropology . . . even mathematics.

Medicine is poorly managed because it seldom has proper double-blind
studies. I have no idea how you would do a double-blind study on the
efficacy of surgery for lower-back pain.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Ron O opines that a Civil US Court has authority over the Truth
    ... court as a determining authority over whether or not IC and ID were ... It isn't the science side that is forcing these issues into the court ... serious scientists can address it. ... running the bait and switch scam on rubes like himself years before ID ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Ron O opines that a Civil US Court has authority over the Truth
    ... Dover court neither proved nor established much of anything. ... It isn't the science side that is forcing these issues into the court ... serious scientists can address it. ... running the bait and switch scam on rubes like himself years before ID ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Intelligent design" makes the 2005 Google Zeitgeist:
    ... > My council to scientists would be to ignore this ruling. ... it should be pointed out that the court did look at the ... > design should be decided on their merits. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Book-able view of ID as speculative science
    ... > Deadrat wrote: ... but you risk turning the court battle into a soap opera about ... the Supreme Court will look into how biased scientists are because they ... > How is mentioning and then debunking ID in a science book "religious ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Intelligent design" makes the 2005 Google Zeitgeist:
    ... I mean origin *without* intelligent design. ... >> My council to scientists would be to ignore this ruling. ... The court ruling attemted to classify "intelligent ...
    (talk.origins)