Simulation Theory according to Dilbert

[GrandizerII]

Suppose this is so (I will do some Google search on this later to confirm), then the prediction is falsified and theory is adjusted accordingly to fit the counter-evidence. Beauty of science.

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.

Some people don't think psychology should be seen as science, but this doesn't mean rigorous scientific studies have never been conducted in psychology. Either way, what you're saying isn't true. Paleontologists do make predictions based on scientific theories, so not sure why you see paleontology such a way. Perhaps your argument is more about whether true experiments are conducted in paleontology, not whether paleontology is science.

[Brian37]

Do you realize that when I said paleontology isn't science, I was expressing an opinion, not making a factual claim? I know you're not the brightest bulb on this site, but come on....

To paraphrase Neil deGrasse Tyson, "The good thing about science is that it works regardless of your personal opinion."

The problem you are having is that you keep confusing the person with the field with the tool.

Person=Scientist
Paleontology = Scientific field
Scientific method= TOOL

Paleontology is a scientific field which uses the same principle of scientific method the TOOL!

Yes you were expressing a mere opinion, but the fact is Paleontology is a field of scientific study and that is not up for debate.

[John V]

The point is that part of the TOOL is testable predictions. Paleontology generally lacks those. Someone discovers a fossil and classifies it. Some people agree with the classification, some don't.

[GrandizerII]

The point is that part of the TOOL is testable predictions. Paleontology generally lacks those. Someone discovers a fossil and classifies it. Some people agree with the classification, some don't.

Even in those cases, how they classify fossils is based on scientific theories which, in turn, have been based on prior research testing and predicting fossil properties and locations and such. Not every part of science has to be about predicting. It's just one integral component of it.

[John V]

Some people don't think psychology should be seen as science, but this doesn't mean rigorous scientific studies have never been conducted in psychology. Either way, what you're saying isn't true. Paleontologists do make predictions based on scientific theories, so not sure why you see paleontology such a way.

List some of them. They probably won't be testable and/or risky.

Perhaps your argument is more about whether true experiments are conducted in paleontology, not whether paleontology is science.

I don't see a difference there. Depends on what you mean by "true experiments."

[Brian37]

The point is that part of the TOOL is testable predictions. Paleontology generally lacks those. Someone discovers a fossil and classifies it. Some people agree with the classification, some don't.

Stop wasting my time with your nonsense. It is a scientific field. And I doubt you have the same level of education on that subject as say a Paleontologist who works for the Natural History Museum.

[Neo-Scholastic]

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.

[Aoi Magi]

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.

Huh? maybe you didn't read what I wrote, but trying to find the fossil and the city based on available information is still science, however whether you choose to update or discard your idea based on the findings, or choose to ignore the findings because they don't match your idea determines science vs non-science.

[John V]

Huh? maybe you didn't read what I wrote, but trying to find the fossil and the city based on available information is still science, however whether you choose to update or discard your idea based on the findings, or choose to ignore the findings because they don't match your idea determines science vs non-science.

Evolutionary relationships as determined through genetic analysis frequently don't match those previously established through morphology. Paleontologists seem to ignore that as they continue to assert relationships based on morphology.

[Cyberman]

Why do they do that, in your opinion?