6 days =15 billion years?

[Glenn P]

Even granting that that is true, is there an example of a theory that was absolutely falsified for good?

I don't have a catalogue of theories here with me. But it's tiotally adequate simply to make up a theory that we know is silly and which falsified by the evidence. The Pelican example is such an example.

It's often said that science only generates probabilities, not true/false verdicts.

People say a lot of things.

As for the nonsense that a theory can only be falsified by another theory, I would like to see an example.

Well, I've never entertained such nonsense.

[FreezBee]

Yes you could, and either theory could be falsified by checking the evidence.

Please read the above a couple of times.

Actually neither theory would be falsified by the evidence, although either of the theories may be able to make the most out of the evidence.


- FreezBee

[Glenn P]

Please read the above a couple of times.

Done. But what was the purpose of that?

Actually neither theory would be falsified by the evidence, although either of the theories may be able to make the most out of the evidence.


- FreezBee

Please read this a couple of times (since that seems to be the request to make at the moment): Actually either theory could indeed be falsified by the evidence (depending, of course, on what the actual evidence indicated).

Is this the part where you state your belief again and I state mine - having already supplied a counterexample showing my belief to be correct?

[shunyadragon]

No. Usually a theory cannot be falsified just as it can't be proven. If experimental results and predictions do not agree well, the theory or its corresponding ancillary assumptions can be changed.

Why not just say, "adequate" rather than "more than adequate"?

By definition a given theory or hypothesis can be falsified if the research or experiments fail to predict what the theory or hypothesis claim or assume to be true. A new or altered hypothesis or theory may be proposed, but it remains

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsification

The act of disproving a proposition, hypothesis, or theory.

Falsifiability (or refutability) is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, that if it is false, then this can be shown by observation or experiment. Falsifiability is an important concept in science and the philosophy of science. The term "Testability" is related but more specific; it means that an assertion can be falsified through experimentation alone.

© source where applicable

Why split frog hairs over whether it is 'adequate' or 'more than adequate.'

The bottom line is your original statement, 'Evidence doesn't show us anything, though it may suggest something.' and the challenge for me to prove it just do not fit science.

[rogue06]

All swans are white

[shunyadragon]

All swans are white

All swans you see are white, but the ones you do not see are black, red, blue, and pink.

[Glenn P]

All swans are white

That was easy!

[rogue06]

That was easy!

Which was sort of the point. The statement was falsified.

[shunyadragon]

Which was sort of the point. The statement was falsified.

Amended. All swans are black or white, except the pink, red and blue ones you do not see.

[Augustine2004]

All swans are white

Which part of 'usually' do you not understand?

[shunyadragon]

That was easy!

CRUUUMP!!! The bear trap of falsification was tripped.

[Augustine2004]

CRUUUMP!!! The bear trap of falsification was tripped.

Not so fast. Sure, many statements are obviously false. Now tell me a theory supported by at least a few scientists that the rest regard as obviously false.

[KBertsche]

Not so fast. Sure, many statements are obviously false. Now tell me a theory supported by at least a few scientists that the rest regard as obviously false.

There are still a few who hold to the "steady state" theory, though almost everyone else has accepted the "Big Bang" theory.

[shunyadragon]

Not so fast. Sure, many statements are obviously false. Now tell me a theory supported by at least a few scientists that the rest regard as obviously false.

Intelligent Design, YEC, OEC, and possibly Cold Fusion, but cold fusion may not be 'obviously false,' though some poor previous research has been found to be 'obviously false.'Falsification and predictive vale of scientific theories would not use this terminology. Most theories not currently accepted may not be considered 'obviously,' unless it is theologically based as in the above examples. 95 to 99 % of all scientist consider ID, YEC, and OEC versions of Creation as 'obviously false.'

Theistic Evolution and those, like myself that endorse a 'Natural Teology' would be alternatives that are more widely accepted by theistic scientists, because these views do not put the burden on science to justify theistic world views.

The current absence of swans of other colors may change if by selective breeding new colors are developed. This was the case of 'blue roses.' In my life time there was no such thing as a 'blue rose,' since that time 'blue roses' have been developed. Therefore at one time the existence of these different colored roses and and swans would be demonstrated as 'false,' but at a later time found to exist.

[Augustine2004]

Intelligent Design, YEC, OEC, and possibly Cold Fusion, but cold fusion may not be 'obviously false,'

IIRC you don't accept intelligent design. Since you lump Christianity with that, it follows that you see that as falsified. Wow. Why don't you put forth your case against it?

'Falsification and predictive vale of scientific theories would not use this terminology.

A literal reading of that is nonsense. I suppose you mean people who use those terms. I then don't understand what you mean by 'this terminology.' You mean my use of the phrase 'obviously false'?

Most theories not currently accepted may not be considered 'obviously,' unless it is theologically based as in the above examples. 95 to 99 % of all scientist consider ID, YEC, and OEC versions of Creation as 'obviously false.'

I guess you do mean that, after all. You have committed the fallacy of popular support, though. Continiental drift was widely and roundly derided when it was first proposed.

Theistic Evolution and those, like myself that endorse a 'Natural Teology'

'Theology'?

would be alternatives that are more widely accepted by theistic scientists, because these views do not put the burden on science to justify theistic world views.

No. Science is based on the assumption, which remains unjustified, that the universe always operates according to a set of logical principles, most of which we have yet to understand or discover.

The current absence of swans of other colors may change if by selective breeding new colors are developed. This was the case of 'blue roses.' In my life time there was no such thing as a 'blue rose,' since that time 'blue roses' have been developed. Therefore at one time the existence of these different colored roses and and swans would be demonstrated as 'false,' but at a later time found to exist.

Right now I'm not able to wrap my mind around this paragraph. Why did you write that? What's the point?