Replies

You are not understanding the concept of "falsify." Big Bang is a very well thought out theory. It accounts for what the universe looks like now, and can be used to make predictions (i.e., background radiation). However, if something comes along that cannot be covered by the Big Bang, cosmologists will have to go looking for something else to explain it. The Big Bang would have been falsified. That is all "falsifiable" means -- something may come along to render the theory moot. Saying "God did it" is not falsifiable, as anything can be attributed to God. Big Bang is not so blessed. It sets out a certain set of parameters and says "this, this and this must have happened to account for this." However, if something comes along that falls outside those parameters, Big Bang goes out the window. This is what happened to ætheric theory. For the longest time scientists considered light to be composed of waves, not particles (now it's known to act like both). Waves need a medium through which to travel -- hence æther. Æther explained the actions of light quite nicely indeed, until the Michelson-Morley (sp?) experiment falsified it.

I do understand the concepts of falsifiability (believe it or not). But falsifiability is a tool only. As such, it has nothing to do with the classic definition of science. As far as the Big Bang Theory is concerned, there are proposed falsifiability tests. These tests may or may not ever be able to be done. A few years ago, we didn't even have these proposed tests. Did that make the theory any less of a theory? No, it merely meant that there wasn't enough info.

When I worked on CGRO a few years ago, every scientist had at least 2 theories for the whys and wherefores of gamma ray bursters. None of them were falsifiable. That didn't stop them from doing some nifty research and trying to find the answers anyway. Going by the classical definition of science (a search for truth), falsifiability is not strictly necessary.