(August 19, 2015 at 8:04 am)robvalue Wrote: What I'm saying is that a scientific theory should make some sort of predictions, so it can be tested. Yours appears to define words in such a way as to reach an inevitible conclusion. If a theory (or more properly a hypothesis) doesn't make any predictions that can be tested, or have some other way to falsify it, then it can't be a scientific theory. It's just an assumption/tautology.
Are you asking us to discuss the way you define words? That's the only thing I can think of to "test" it.
Since I don't have any sufficient knowledge of science, then I cannot think of any experiments or anything of the sort. Therefore, I am only left to have a debate based upon arguments and such alone. So I am just simply asking for people to come up with counterarguments against my theory as it is even though there is no scientific methods and such being presented in it.
