Nope. For something to become established as a theory in science then evidence is obviously an integral component to that coming about. That should be obvious even to you. Your latter, ironically, would blow up an irony meter if there were any left.
Now you think cities are people?
Nope.
What's your day job? Comedian?
That's right.
I leave uninformed opinions to conspiracy nuts and reality deniers.Your uninformed opinion is of no relevance.
The thread that someone else started seeking examples of me being shown up in science discussions, but which quickly filled with numerous examples of me explaining scientific points to people? Heck, there were even quotes such as: "I have to give you that one. I did not know that" regarding the uneven distribution of the moon's mass.
Nothing from the guy who I had to explain wave orbitals to...
You mean that thread?
Go ahead, I guess.
Now you think cities are people?
Do you get this stuff from crisp packets or something? Just laughable.
Nah, sure ain't yours either.
Golly, I hope not.
Your day job clearly has no connection to science, that's for sure.
Wrong actually but hey ho.
Karl Popper:
| Every genuine scientific theory then, in Popper’s view, is prohibitive, because the theories of natural science take the form of universal statements. “All As are X” is equivalent to “No A is not-X” which is falsified if “Some A is not-X” turns out to be true. For example, the law of the conservation of energy can be expressed as “There is no perpetual motion machine”. However, the universality of such laws, he argues, does rule out the possibility of their verification. Thus, a theory that has withstood rigorous testing should be deemed to have received a high measure of corroboration. and may be retained provisionally as the best available theory until it is finally falsified and/or is superseded by a better theory. Popper stresses in particular that there is no unique way, no single method such as induction, which functions as the route to scientific theory, and approvingly cites Einstein on that point: There is no logical path leading to [the highly universal laws of science]. They can only be reached by intuition, based upon something like an intellectual love of the objects of experience. (2002: 8–9) Science, in Popper’s view, starts with problems rather than with observations—it is, indeed, precisely in the context of grappling with a problem that the scientist makes observations in the first instance: his observations are selectively designed to test the extent to which a given theory functions as a satisfactory solution to a given problem. |
That does not equate to "science is the process of throwing theories out".
That still doesn't equate to "science is the process of throwing theories out" as you said so get your comprehension abilities in order yourself. Popper had some interesting points of view and where it comes to science he certainly gives some food for thought but science is not one man's opinion. Theories are constantly prone to rigorous testing, scrutiny etc as they should be and if they don't hold up then are either discarded or modified depending. That's how science works and if a theory becomes so established as with evolution for example then it's still prone to the above - but it's not going to be falsified but more amended as as you should be aware, a theory in science is not the same as a theory in general.
Sure if they're falsified. Science isn't in the business of retaining theories that don't hold up to scrutiny.
But many times "Science" retains theories that are highly questionable but must be kept to satisfy the prevailing paradigm. Even when that paradigm is full of problems... like the silly "big bang" theory.
Darwinism isn't a theory. It's a cult kept alive by God-hating, anti-science imbeciles and useful idiots, such as yourself.