[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?

[unlearner]

"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?"

Your arguments forced me to reevaluate my past position. After thinking on this further, I am inclined to say that the periodic elements are not falsifiable, only verifiable. Perhaps you can demonstrate otherwise.

What would be falsifiable is the underlying cause for elements to self organize in incremental steps based on a particular model. I am not sure how failing to find a particular element would impact a theory. But finding one that does not fit the paradigm would falsify the theory.

The problem is that historical events can sometimes be verified or supported, but we cannot disprove most historical claims without having specific knowledge of a history which contradicts such claims.

Although I agree that you defeated my line of reasoning against historical data being part of science, I still cannot see how you can generally falsify a historical claim.

Well, in some cases you can. For example, if someone claimed there was a specific person who was president of the USA, and we know he was not because we know who was. But how do you falsify something like Lincoln's assassination? We do not need to falsify it though. It is enough to verify or support it.

You did expose some errors in my reasoning before, so I am more than willing to consider your objections to this point as well.