Modulous writes:I was just suggesting that rather than repeat that you have while others repeat that you haven't, you either let what you have said stand or you try to bring all the disparate posts in this thread together into one specific post that describes in depth your thoughts on this issue.
Science, most importantly, is systematic. Scientists experiment with systematic methods they can follow to get useful data, and to partially control nature. Methods that work better are preferred over methods that don't work so well. This is pragmatic testing. It isn't induction, because the data on which one would use induction is not being collected until the method is adopted (which is why data appears to be theory laden). A scientific theory is, primarily, a description of the method rather than a description of the world. This ought to be obvious, since the purpose of the theory is to communicate the science. The theory is not falsifiable, for as long as the method is in use the theory which describes that method will be held to be true. However, if a better methodology is discovered, then scientists will move to that newer methodology.
Jesus was a liberal hippie
™ Version 4.2