| | :::::::::::While I haven't studied Popper since I was a wee undergrad, as I recall, that's precisely what "falsifiable" means, sir. If your theory makes a prediction that can be either confirmed or contradicted by observation, then your theory is falsifiable. In our case we couldn't just look up in the sky and ''see'' the geometry of space around the Earth, so we had to build an instrument to measure it, but that counts too, right? Maybe we're just coming at it from different understandings of the term? Could you please define for me what ''you'' mean by "falsifiability?" Because as long as I'm not on the same page with you about that, my continuing to contribute to this site would be a pointless waste of time.--[[User:KSorenson|KSorenson]] 19:00, 12 November 2009 (EST) | | :::::::::::While I haven't studied Popper since I was a wee undergrad, as I recall, that's precisely what "falsifiable" means, sir. If your theory makes a prediction that can be either confirmed or contradicted by observation, then your theory is falsifiable. In our case we couldn't just look up in the sky and ''see'' the geometry of space around the Earth, so we had to build an instrument to measure it, but that counts too, right? Maybe we're just coming at it from different understandings of the term? Could you please define for me what ''you'' mean by "falsifiability?" Because as long as I'm not on the same page with you about that, my continuing to contribute to this site would be a pointless waste of time.--[[User:KSorenson|KSorenson]] 19:00, 12 November 2009 (EST) |
| | + | KSorenson, again, you don't need all those words. The claim that there is a black hole in the universe somewhere is like claiming ET life exists. The claim cannot be falsified. People can keep claiming something is true, when in fact it is false but there is no way to show it is false. |