[steve-b]

This is interpreting the data to see if it meets the prediction - this is not an example of a repeatable experiment (BTW: where is the repeatable aspect). A repeatable experiment would involve something like duplicating the fossil record findings in the lab to see if a repeatable experiment will meet predictions.

So, in your world, the only way to test the theory that Shakespeare (rather than, say, Francis Bacon) wrote the Shakespearean canon would be to clone Shakespeare, give the clone a supply of ink, parchment, and quills, and observe the result?

[Last Visible Dog]

So, in your world, the only way to test the theory that Shakespeare (rather than, say, Francis Bacon) wrote the Shakespearean canon would be to clone Shakespeare, give the clone a supply of ink, parchment, and quills, and observe the result?

What the HECK are you rambling about? It makes no sense.

Observing data is not the same thing as creating a repeatable experiment. I made no comments about the "only way to test a theory".

[PatrickHenry]

So, in your world, the only way to test the theory that Shakespeare (rather than, say, Francis Bacon) wrote the Shakespearean canon would be to clone Shakespeare, give the clone a supply of ink, parchment, and quills, and observe the result?

You got it. Provided you could do this repeatedly.

You are not guilty, Mr. Simpson, because we, the jury, saw no repetition of your crime in the lab.