(November 17, 2016 at 9:04 am)robvalue Wrote: If you can't repeat something, you can only falsify it in theory (in the abstract) and not in practice.
Can you please clarify what you mean by the distinction between abstract and practice. For instance, in the studies, concerning witness identification, and memory, that are cited; would you agree, that they are dependent upon witness testimony being falsifiable in a meaningful way?
Quote:Right, you look for corroboration. So anecdotes are only an indicator. I don't know what more you want them to be. No one is dismissing them entirely. They can be used as a starting point for further investigation. But if there is nothing more to investigate, then it's tough noogies really. You either believe it, or you don't, and that's up to each individual. And again, no one is trying to tell people not to believe stuff. We could question the consistency of your methods, but we couldn't prevent you believing things even if we wanted to.
I look for corroboration often in regards to physical evidence as well. Does your same conclusion follow?
I am all about testing the consistency of methods... that is largely what this thread is about. Now I would agree, that in many categories of science, simple observation is not enough. And with that, I would agree with your comments above. This is because of the nature of the claim, and it is not really pertaining to what has happened, but what will happen in the future. If you are saying that testimony is not science, then I agree. But I think that you need to clarify exactly what you are saying by this.
