Evolutionary theory cannot be falsified (Introduction)

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Tuesday, March 28, 2017, 19:28 (728 days ago) @ dhw

From David's Link:
"I don’t think a theory necessarily need be falsifiable to be considered scientific or true. Some theories are more difficult to falsify than others (evolution being one of them). The way I see it, testability and verifiability are more essential. Having said that, a theory that is falsifiable and verifiable is stronger than one that is merely the latter. "

This, to me is a horrible travesty of scientific thought.

Faslsifiability: Wikipedia

"The term falsifiability is sometimes synonymous to testability. Some statements, such as "It will be raining here in one million years, are falsifiable in principle, but not in practice."

The concern with falsifiability gained attention by way of philosopher of science Karl Popper's scientific epistemology "falsificationism". Popper stresses the problem of demarcation—distinguishing the scientific from the unscientific—and makes falsifiability the demarcation criterion, such that what is unfalsifiable is classified as unscientific, and the practice of declaring an unfalsifiable theory to be scientifically true is pseudoscience."

"If a theory doesn’t make a testable prediction, it isn’t science."

While I agree that falsifiability is not the end-all-be-all of science, it IS important. Not only does it force scientist to focus on things that are practical and measurable, but it also creates a level playing field for discussion of scientific and theological philosophy. Why is it OK for evolution not to be falsifiable but not creation?

What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum