But that's not a "fact", it's a false accusation, offered with no evidence or logic to demonstrate it.
Issuing false accusations makes you a ____, and yet again exposes your "philosopher" pose here as false.
Indeed, your Feinberg/Landau quote above, "using the scientific method to judge the scientific method is circular reasoning", is beyond nonsensical.
In fact, scientific methods are simply tools, which either work or don't.
Science's work-products are theories -- explanations of patterns -- describing how the "natural world" operates.
We judge those theories by how well they work in predicting natural events.
If, in your opinion, that is "circular reasoning", then your opinions are cruel and unusual punishments of normal logic.
microgood: "Testing whether Einstein's theory of general relativity can happen now, whereas testing of whether one species evolved from another can only be done indirectly and in a highly speculative way.
They operate in two different levels of believability."
First of all, as I have explained here more than once now: science is always careful not to claim more than its data appropriately allows.
That's why it turns out, your complaint about alleged "definitive truth" is just another false accusation, and the news-article's actual term of "definitive proof" never once appeared in the real scientific report it refers to.
That scientific paper is rich in data, calculations, tables, graphs & photos, but only uses terms like "evidence" and "suggests", which is how all such reports are written.
That's because such science is not about "definitive proof", or "truth", much less "faith" & "doctrine."
It is about, just like forensic science, using the evidence to recreate, as accurately as possible: what really happened "way back when".
So I'll say it again: you are not required to believe a word science tells us, just don't call your own religious beliefs "science", FRiend.
Second of all, your assertion that "...testing of whether one species evolved from another can only be done indirectly and in a highly speculative way" is simply not accurate.
Just like forensic scientists recreating a crime scene, "historical scientists" study countless details at the microscopic and chemical levels to determine what roles they played in the Great Scheme of Things.
Those minute details include innumerable observations on daily operations of:
- physics
- chemistry
- biology
- morphology
- DNA
- creatures' descent with modifications,
- average mutations per generation,
- natural selection,
- adaptions,
- genetic drift,
- evolution of new breeds and sub-species,
- DNA match-ups between closely related species versus more distantly related biological genera, families, orders, etc.
- geological stratigraphic dating
- plate tectonics & continental drift
- cosmological dating of the Universe age & evolution
- and many more too numerous to list.
Indeed, there are no scientifically confirmed observations -- none -- which seriously contradict it.
Does that make it absolute "definitive truth"?
No, of course not, nothing in science is.
But it certainly does make it the best theory (read: "pattern") we have, and indeed are ever likely to have.
That's all science ever claims to be.
