Replies

That you chose to embrace your 6th-grade teacher's opinion over Popper's in matters that Popper was the recognized expert is surely no reflection on him.

My intent was not to disparage Popper, but to try to point out that name-dropping is not an argument. Einstein was a patent examiner when he published Special Relativity. Maybe my 6th grade teacher was more brilliant than Popper. Maybe evolutionists redefine science in order to support their philosophy. Maybe they just like the name "scientist".

The fact remains that the established criteria for a scientific theory emphasizes its falsifiability (read: testability). That you choose to focus exclusively on one method of falsification ("experiment") while ignoring other equally valid methods, including OBSERVATION, such as is illustrated by the test of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity by OBSERVING the bending of starlight passing by the Sun during an eclipse, is no fault of Popper's

I have not ignored observastion but have tried to argue for the essential component of experimentation (which, obviously, produces observable results) and have presented specific arguments to that end (1574). These arguments have also pointed out serious problems when experimentation is not performed. Responding by name-dropping and quoting an article from said dropped-name that doesn't refer to experimentation but focuses on falsification is not convincing. It amounts to "Karl Popper said it. Believe it." I'm trying to get someone to actually engage intellectually instead of just pontificating. However, you did not deserve as harsh a response as I gave you and for that I am sorry. There are others on this forum however to whom it is more appropriately directed.

With regards to General Relativity, it is most certainly not devoid of experimental evidence. One such experiment confirmed the gravitational dilation of time by comparing atomic clocks flown in planes (less gravitational force) vs. clocks on the ground (more gravitational force).

I'm sorry, but the example you described about testing gravity did not illuminate any difference between experiment and observation. Yes, any experiment should be repeated. So should observations. You don't compare your stellar model to one observed star, you try dozens. One fossil proves nothing. Hundreds of fossils provide pretty compelling evidence. Thousands of stars and fossils later, you can conclude that your theory, whether astronomical of biological, is accurate. Repetition is important, but you can repeat observations as easily as you can repeat experiments because they are essentially the same!

My intent was not to disparage Popper, but to try to point out that name-dropping is not an argument.

Quoting the 20th century's pre-eminent philospher of science on his widely accepted insights into the nature of scientific theory isn't "name-dropping".... it's pointing out that you and your 6th-grade teacher are at odds with the people who actually are experts in this matter. If that is "name-dropping, then so is pointing out the error of saying that "gravity varies in inverse proportion to distance" by quoting Newton as saying:

F=Gm₁m₂/r²

Einstein was a patent examiner when he published Special Relativity. Maybe my 6th grade teacher was more brilliant than Popper.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

[snip] Responding by name-dropping and quoting an article from said dropped-name that doesn't refer to experimentation but focuses on falsification is not convincing. It amounts to "Karl Popper said it. Believe it." I'm trying to get someone to actually engage intellectually instead of just pontificating. [snip]

Then why don't you read Popper; then you'll understand why he says what he says, and maybe someone will then be willing to "engage you intellectually" -- as it stands, you are putting your fingers in your ears and saying "Why should I believe Popper instead of my 6th-grade teacher?" It's not my job to spoon-fed Popper's thought process to you.... if you're interested, you'll do the heavy lifting yourself.

With regards to General Relativity, it is most certainly not devoid of experimental evidence. One such experiment confirmed the gravitational dilation of time by comparing atomic clocks flown in planes (less gravitational force) vs. clocks on the ground (more gravitational force).

Do you really not understand the point that valid objective means of falsification include, but are not limited to, experimentation, observation, counter-example, etc.? The fact that variables cannot be "controlled" (as in set to any value you might desire) in an observation, as opposed to a lab experiment, does not in any way detract from the ability of an observation to falsify a theoretical prediction, and hence the theory that made it.