Changes

::::::::''Falsifiable science leaves no room for alternative explanations.'' I disagree. No science is absolute, including the theory of gravity or the theory of evolution. Nor do they claim to be.  Any competing theory must explain all the observations and data points, at least as well as the original theory, and in a manner which is consistent at every level.  The objective of science it to reduce the margins of error as much as possible.[[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]]

::::::::''Falsifiable science leaves no room for alternative explanations.'' I disagree. No science is absolute, including the theory of gravity or the theory of evolution. Nor do they claim to be.  Any competing theory must explain all the observations and data points, at least as well as the original theory, and in a manner which is consistent at every level.  The objective of science it to reduce the margins of error as much as possible.[[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]]

:::::::::I think that your point of view is exactly what Popper (and earlier creationist proponents of falsifiability, like G.K. Chesteron) was arguing against.  It's always possible to come up with alternative explanations that completely explain the data points as well as the original theory in a manner which is consistent at every level.  "Gravity is caused by little invisible strings on every object, and a little gopher named George is pulling them down at exactly the same rate."  It explains the facts.  But it's not testable.  So it's no better than any other nonsense we can concoct.  Just because you can hypothesize an explanation doesn't mean we can TEST it.  And until you can TEST an alternate explanation, it's no better than any other crazy explanation I can come up with.  [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 15:27, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

:::::::::I think that your point of view is exactly what Popper (and earlier creationist proponents of falsifiability, like G.K. Chesteron) was arguing against.  It's always possible to come up with alternative explanations that completely explain the data points as well as the original theory in a manner which is consistent at every level.  "Gravity is caused by little invisible strings on every object, and a little gopher named George is pulling them down at exactly the same rate."  It explains the facts.  But it's not testable.  So it's no better than any other nonsense we can concoct.  Just because you can hypothesize an explanation doesn't mean we can TEST it.  And until you can TEST an alternate explanation, it's no better than any other crazy explanation I can come up with.  [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 15:27, 23 June 2007 (EDT)