Not to belabor the point, but science can't prove anything. Science is based on falsification, and what isn't falsified isn't proven, it remains a theory.
Boiling it all down, where do we humans get the universal idea of Truth from in the first place, if there is no universal standard by which it can be (1) identified (perceived); (2) known; and (3) relied on? [Check out the seeming paradox implicit in that statement.]
There may not be a 'Universal Truth' we have no guarantees that our quest is achievable.
I do believe that is the very insight at the heart of Descartes' observation that the idea of God is the necessary foundation of every other idea we have or could ever have, including the idea of the personal self, or (as he put it) the ego.
How so? I see the idea of God as a red herring. Also the idea of a God based ego, is another false path.
I believe there is a universal truth. I believe that truth is the quest for truth. It is like life, a process, not an end result.
And yes I know that is circular logic : ) Life is just a feedback loop too.
It's not circular logic. It's total, unadulterated nonsense.
I shifted the position of a single word. The statement remains equally valid.
Well jeepers you're entitled to your opinion LeGrande. What can I say? Everyone has opinions.
The concept of falsification described in the paper, which is actually a speech given by the originator of the concept, the philosopher (not a scientist) Karl Popper, is actually not about what science itself is, but about what constitutes a truly scientific "theory." As Karl Popper explains, it is not about the validity of science, but what distinguishes real science from pseudoscience. (The concept was originally developed around 1920. There was a lot of science done before that date which certainly did not depend on any concepts developed by Popper.)
Please read the article to understand exactly what Karl Popper means, because it is not what you are saying at all.
The concept is not really difficult but it is amazing so few people really understand it. It should not be called "falsification," but "falsifiability," and it essentially means any theory or hypothesis for which some test cannot be devised which would prove the theory or hypothesis to be false, if it is false, cannot be truly scientific.
The purpose of the concept is to prevent just any wild conjecture to be allowed acceptance as "science." It has nothing to do with the process of science itself, but about what may or may not be legitimately called science. It definitely does NOT say that science is falsification or attempts to falsify anything.
In fact, it says the opposite. If a theory is a truly scientific one, there will be some test or experiment or observation that will prove it false, if it is false. For example (from Popper), if Einstein's prediction that light will be "bent" by massive gravitational force is true, observing the light from stars that pass near the sun will make them appear to be in a different position from their true position. When that observation was finally made possible, if the stars did not appear to be in the wrong position, that would have "falsified" Einstein's theory. In fact, the theory, at least for that prediction was proved correct. So falsifiability is actually a way to prove something is true, not false.
Here is how to think about it. If there is a test that will definitely prove something is false, if it is false, and that test performed and fails to prove it false, then it must be true. There may be few tests in science that are that definite, but the point that science does not try to "disprove" or "falsify" anything should be clear.
I do not think you intend to deceive anyone about this, and am sure you really believe what you are saying, but please do not continue to misrepresent the concept of falsifiability.
Hank