[RussP]

"Funny man. The prediction of your supposed theory is that something will not happen?"

"Okay. I have a "theory" that pigs fly. Here's my prediction which, if false, will discredit the idea: "No human will ever be observed in the lab to grow three arms and fly into outer space while speaking in tongues." If this event is observed, my theory will be falsified."

Sometimes I get the impression I am wasting my time debating with morons. If you have a theory that pigs fly, then your theory would obviously be falsified if you ever see a pig fly. So my alternative theory, that "pigs can't fly" would be falsified if we ever observed a pig fly. My "prediction," therefore, is that we will never see a pig fly. Yes, that's a prediction that something will *not* happen. So what?

Don't bother replying. If you do, please understand that I have no time to reply to your pedantic nonsense.

[Antonello]

Sometimes I get the impression I am wasting my time debating with morons. If you have a theory that pigs fly, then your theory would obviously be falsified if you ever see a pig fly. So my alternative theory, that "pigs can't fly" would be falsified if we ever observed a pig fly. My "prediction," therefore, is that we will never see a pig fly. Yes, that's a prediction that something will *not* happen. So what?

I'm sorry to jump in, but I couldn't help but notice a slight error in this paragraph. Specifically:

...If you have a theory that pigs fly, then your theory would obviously be falsified if you ever see a pig fly....

Wouldn't that be:

'If you have a theory that pigs fly, then your theory would obviously be falsified if you ever see a pig not fly.'

Of course, since the theory isn't that all pigs fly all the time, not even that falsifies the theory.

[Ichneumon]

Sometimes I get the impression I am wasting my time debating with morons.

Sometimes I get the impression that you're frustrated by your inability to gain traction with your weak arguments, so you lash out with childish insults.

Don't insult *us* for your own poor performance.

[aNYCguy]

If you have a theory that pigs fly, then your theory would obviously be falsified if you [sic] ever see a pig fly.

Really? When can one conclude that falsification has occurred? After not making the relevant observation for one year? Five seconds? Ten thousand years? What if, after the theory has been declared falsified, I see a pig fly? Why does the fact that I have personally never seen one falsify my "theory" that they have the ability to do so?

I'll join the rest of this forum in attempting to spell this out for you: Making the claim that something will NOT be observed is NOT sufficient to make a scientific theory falsifiable.

You are free to invent a useless new methodology for which an expected lack of observation is sufficient to craft a theory, but please call it RussP's Method because the name "scientific method" is already taken. :)

...I am wasting my time debating with morons.

As others have already told you, throwing a temper tantrum will not make your weak ideas strong.

[b_sharp]

"Don't bother replying. If you do, please understand that I have no time to reply to your pedantic nonsense"

Apparently you have no time for serious threats to your world view either