[unlearner]

"If it's not falsifiable, it isn't science."

Science does contain elements which are not falsifiable. Observations provide supporting evidence but are not falsifiable. Having not observed them does not falsify them either. For example, the statement "black birds exist" is not falsifiable, but it does not need to be in order to use observations of crows within scientific data.

So my contention against historical events not being falsifiable does not necessarily disqualify them from science, which is where I agree your arguments proved me wrong.

"I spent a considerable amount of effort to get you past that hurdle, and now you have retrenched to the brain-dead contention that modern astronomy, paleo-geology, and paleo-meteorology aren't sciences"

No. I am not changing back to that position. I think you successfully defended these against my argument. I believe historical events are not falsifiable, but that your comparisons show that it should be possible to draw conclusions in a similar fashion as other sciences wherein direct observation is possible.

"You put on a good show of being genuinely interested, and you fooled me good. Please address further inquiries to someone else."

However you prefer. You had a lot of good points. Thanks for the lively discussion.

[donh]

o. I am not changing back to that position. I think you successfully defended these against my argument. I believe historical events are not falsifiable,

Here we go again. Was predicting elements that would be found on the periodic table an experiment that could have failed, if the periodic table had been constructed incorrectly?