62
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 207:
Line 207: + +
no edit summary
::: You raise a valid semantic point. I've improved the wording accordingly.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:49, 1 April 2009 (EDT)
::: You raise a valid semantic point. I've improved the wording accordingly.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:49, 1 April 2009 (EDT)
:::: The wording is now better. But with respect, the problem is not an issue of mere wording. The article claims that the theory is not testable or falsifiable; it then ''lists things which contradict the theory''. If the theory is not falsifiable, then no observation could possibly be taken as "contradictory" to the theory; no potential piece of evidence could make it appear implausible. That's part of what lacking falsifiability implies. The article also claims that the theory lacks testability, but you have just stated here that there have been tests performed to check it! Clearly both of those cannot be true, either. [[User:TaKess|TaKess]] 16:19, 1 April 2009 (EDT)