Replies

If something CAN be false in science, it is taken as "scientific"

Let's not pretend that this is the only criteria for a scientific statement.

"God will show himself on May 7, 2005 at 1523EDT in Times Square in New York City" is a falsifiable statement, but it is not scientific.

If it is SHOWN as false, it is dismissed or adjusted.

Correct.

There is no focal point that can be "true" unless it can be "false"

Not quite. There is simply no way to accept as "true" a statement unless there is some hypothetical means by that it could evaluate as false. I'm not sure why you're trying to argue that this is somehow bad methodology, unless you're pushing to have any arbitrary nonsense pushed into science classrooms on a whim.

If there is absolutely no possible observation that would demonstrate that a statement is false, then the statement is fundamentally meaningless. There is no way to strengthen its validity, because you have no basis for comparing it to a contrary situation.

Socrates posited that EVERYBODY knows "the Truth." The only task is to ask the correct questions. Any answer will lead to the next step in logic, and thus eventually to the "trail head" of truth.

Okay, then. I "know" that "the Truth" is that the universe was created Last Thursday by the cat Queen Maeve. How do we proceed from there? What questions do we ask to lead ourselves to the "trail head" of this Truth?

"Okay, then. I "know" that "the Truth" is that the universe was created Last Thursday by the cat Queen Maeve."

You overode the "ask correct questions" aspect.

If I knew the correct questions, this debate would have been over long ago.