RE: Simulation Theory according to Dilbert
May 5, 2017 at 2:05 pm
(This post was last modified: May 5, 2017 at 2:07 pm by Neo-Scholastic.)
(May 5, 2017 at 12:12 pm)Aoi Magi Wrote:(May 5, 2017 at 11:51 am)alpha male Wrote: If this was an example of a falsified prediction among many successful predictions, then yeah, you could call that science. But that's not the case. Paleontology is better considered as history rather than science.
You do understand that one of the most basic tenets of science is it's claims/ideas/theories are all falsifiable, and that's how science works, right? In any branch if even all predictions and claims have been falsified and readjusted to new evidence, then that is science. If in a subject all testable claims have been falsified, yet the new evidence isn't even being considered, that's religion.
You're playing fast and loose with ideas about prediction and falsifiablity. There is an important distinction between findings that can be replicated (i.e. tested) and those that cannot be replicated and therefore cannot be tested. Experiments can be replicated; discoveries cannot. Discoveries only confirm or undermine (falsify) existing theories. There is almost no difference between expecting to find fossils of transitional form in specific strata and expecting to find an ancient city based on manuscript evidence. Your distinction between science and not science is arbitrary depending on the subject.
