[MacDorcha]

Falsification is an aspect of empirical thought and it's methodology.

ID is suggesting that Empiricism is NOT the *only* method of knowing, though science is important in knowing "how" it does not answer "why"

ID is "what if" the *why* of traditionaly philosophies and the *how* of newer scietific philosphies met.

[Dimensio]

ID is suggesting that Empiricism is NOT the *only* method of knowing

So how can an explanation that can never be falsified -- that is, there's no observation that would demonstrate that the explanation is off-base -- ever be useful? How can you have a meaningful explanation of events without a valid hypothetical construct to which you can refer as an example of what would be the case if the explanation were not true?

How can you truly "know" something if there's no way to "know" if that something is false?