Oh, just to make sure you [Johannes] understand.
You didn't answer my question.
Which was:
What evidence could disprove your ideas?
Other words, if you have some theory it's important that such as theory is falsifiable- if the theory doesn't have such component, it isn't science. The other side of this same coin is the ability of such a theory to predict something accurately. If a theory is not falsifiable then it also can not predict anything. And is useless and not science. Though it might fit in a category of speculation [perhaps you could say it could fit in a category of pre-scientific or philosophical. But you can't call it science].
Or said differently, wiki:
Falsifiability (or refutability or testability) is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, it means that it is capable of being criticized by observational reports. Falsifiability is an important concept in science and the philosophy of science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
And since science generally involves measuring, generally one must include some way to measure what is predictive of your theory- and that the normal way one can make it falsifiable. And theories which can only be measured in the far future i.e [50, 100 or more years], are problematical in terms of their scientific value.
Flame » in reply to re: Good question.
re: Good question.
The whole thread (37 posts)
- A snippet for Johannes
- re:Interesting, Thank you alcaray