lol No it's an attribute which is irrelelevant to what I said. If you know something is true, it's not falsifiable; and if it's falsifiable, you never knew it to be true. Neutrons have a charge?
Falsifiable has to do with whether one could create an experiment that has the power to address the truth of the hypothesis. So, string theory and anything about God are not falsifiable, because no experimnt can be designed to address the question. Is god answering prayer? The answer from science has to be "I don't know", because there is no way to test that - it's not falsifiable. That does NOT mean it's true. It means there is no way within the powers of science to test it. If an hypothesis is not falsifiable, all science can say is "I don't know".
Stated like a true Holiday Inn expert. Why do people pretend to be experts when they aren't? Is this some kind of personal insecurity issue?
I don't suppose you'd care to point to the specific fault (other than the typo) in what I said. <arms akimbo, jaw thrust forward, eyes closed>
Because you used the colloquially definition of falsifiability rather than the scientific definition of falsifiability.
I did no such thing. The definition applies to hypotheses, which by definiton are not known to be true. Obviously, then, what one does know to be true is not falsifiable.
No, this is just a misunderstanding. Falsifiability is a question of whether it is possible to test the hypothesis. It doesn't have to do with whether the hypothesis is true or false. It has to do with whether it can be meaningfully tested. For example, one can't test string theory through experimentation. We simply don't have the technology for that. So, it's not falsifiable. Thus, it isn't an hypothesis. For example, one can't test whether god answers prayer. So, it's not falsifiable. Thus, it isn't an hypothesis.
All I know about the Big Bang is that it's what the evidence indicates and that its name came from early detractors of the theory, before it was eventually accepted. I also know that no one has come up with a better theory.
There is no such thing as "the evidence". There is just "evidence". Evidence is not a proof. There is evidence both for and against the Big Bang Theory. The theory is NOT a theory of science, but rather is a religious theory. The theory cannot move beyond being a circular argument since it is not falsifiable, as science has no theories about past unobserved events. It is a religious belief in no different of a manner than the Intelligent Design Theory is.
A problem is that "theory" has more than one definition. In science, it refers to a collection of one or more hypotheses that have gone through a rigorous regime of independent testing and review. Unfortunately, we also use the word in a far more casual definition where there is no real world testing or review. The "big bang" theory is a theory of science. There is evidence from as early as a tiny amount of time after the expansion began. That is the total of what the theroy addresses. That is science. Theoretical physicists are certainly searching beyond that point, but they aren't presenting theories in the sense of experimental science - which is what is normally meant by "science". Theoretical physicists may have a theory that there are multiple universes or that we're composed of strings too small to detect using ideas of quantum mechanics and a ton of math to extrapolate what we actally CAN detect. But, those are not theories in science, because they can't be tested - they can't be "falsified".
Wouldn't the discovery of the "graviton," be one validation of string theory. Equations predict it's existence.
BB is 100 percent science and the cosmic back ground radiation is everywhere This is a theory of fact
Theory means the same thing whether inside or outside of science. A theory is simply an explanatory argument. An argument is a set of predicates and a conclusion. In order to become a theory of science, that theory must be falsifiable, meaning that there must be an accessible, practical, and specific test available, that yields a specific result, to test it against. In other words, the theory must be able to be tested against a null hypothesis. Not at all. It is a religious theory. Science has no theories about past unobserved events (such as the "big bang"). Evidence is not proof. Evidence is simply any statement that supports an argument. Evidence is essentially a predicate. A proof, on the other hand, is an extension of foundational axioms. They're just coming up with supporting evidence for religious beliefs that aren't about any sort of deity. Correct. Those are also religious theories.
BB is not science. Science has no theories about past unobserved events. What is a "theory of fact"? That doesn't even make any sense...
The Big Bang is most definitely scientific theory and is 100% based on "Past Observations" as well as current and future unobserved Phenomenon which will continue to verify it.
Evolution is another scientific theory that concerns past events and is so fundamental as to be one of the foundations of all modern biology. In both these cases (and others) the theory makes strong predictions, allowing the theory to be falsifiable. There is proof in math, but there is no proof in science. In math, systems may be fully defined. That is not possible in nature. For example, Newton had no way of knowing that he was wrong. He simply didn't know that he hadn't considered all factors. Humans just don't have a fully defined model of nature that would allow for there to be a proof of anything. We can't know whether we've considered all possible factors - thus we can't have proof. We're limitd to having high confidence, but ALL theories could possibly be shown to be false. OK, but now you are agreeing that there ARE two different definitions of "theory". You just call one religion. I guess that's OK, but it requires a broad definition of religion. My theory that the corner pizza store closed due to mismanagement doesn't feel very much like religion.
I see that you are a firm believer in the faith, but faith is not science. Also, evidence is not proof.
