Siteadmin, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
125,790
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 193:
Line 193: + +
→Is it falsifiable or not?: reply
It has now been two years (!) since some of the above exchanges regarding the falsifiability of the giant impact hypothesis. For some reason, the article still claims that "This new theory lacks testability and falsifiability" and then, two lines later, states that the article has been falsified! '''Both of these cannot be true.''' The theory cannot be both unfalsifiable and falsified. Unless there are any complaints, I will amend the article to reflect this. [[User:TaKess|TaKess]] 22:22, 31 March 2009 (EDT)
It has now been two years (!) since some of the above exchanges regarding the falsifiability of the giant impact hypothesis. For some reason, the article still claims that "This new theory lacks testability and falsifiability" and then, two lines later, states that the article has been falsified! '''Both of these cannot be true.''' The theory cannot be both unfalsifiable and falsified. Unless there are any complaints, I will amend the article to reflect this. [[User:TaKess|TaKess]] 22:22, 31 March 2009 (EDT)
: There is no contradiction. People (perhaps yourself?) cling to the new theory despite the failure of the tests. The new theory is impossible to falsify, but ever test to prove it true has failed. It's not science.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:52, 31 March 2009 (EDT)