tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post4180124552557547219..comments2024-03-28T11:29:46.845-07:00Comments on Whole Health Source: How Should Science be Done?Stephan Guyenethttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09218114625524777250noreply@blogger.comBlogger56125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-70916121713486014112014-06-11T11:18:57.287-07:002014-06-11T11:18:57.287-07:00Hello Everybody:
Even though this thread is old, ...Hello Everybody:<br /><br />Even though this thread is old, I think I can add something of value to it from what I have learned over the years from top sources:<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />*Most scientific ideas are wrong. <br /><br />*Most experiments are wrong, too- the first time they are done.<br /><br />This is very important to understand but it is not conveyed to the public often enough.<br /><br />(Einstein himself once humorously admitted that a fair share of the papers he authored were wrong, so his colleague should "not worry so much" when they were working together).<br /><br />Richard P. Feynman stressed we should be very careful to present all the evidence that agrees and disagrees with our idea or theory. To have enormous bend over backwards scientific integrity.<br /><br /> "Science is about figuring out our mistakes."<br /><br />Saul Perlmutter<br /><br /><br />Science should be done by thoroughly challenging our most deeply held views and beliefs every single day. In science, we test it. And we keep on testing it until it does not work anymore. And when it does not work anymore, THEN we will know that there is something FUNDAMENTAL we are missing about the science. This principle is powerful and can be used in many areas.<br /><br />Some principles of General Relativity are tested every single day in undergraduate laboratories.It holds wonderfully.<br /><br />In science, we force our views to conform to the evidence of reality. We do not force the evidence from reality to conform to our beliefs. This is how many Internet sites are set up etc.- 30 bananas a day , vegans, and what have you etc. These types of salesmen are PRESUMING the answers BEFORE asking the question. This is a huge no-no.Professor Filippenko would have a lot to say about this.<br /><br />There are no scared truths in science. One of the GREATEST gifts of science is that it makes us very uncomfortable.<br /><br /><br />We must be especially careful.To spend more time trying to disconfirm our idea or theory than to confirm it... That we are ourselves are the easiest person to fool. Taking tremendous care NOT to fool ourselves is the first principle. Enormous care must be taken.<br /><br />In science, it helps to "think like a Martian." Feynman talked about thinking about a problem completely anew as if we had never seen it before.<br /><br />There is lots and lots of junk published every day- even in peer reviewed journals. Considerable amounts of junk get by referees. This system has considerable problems and can be abused and sometimes is. Gate keepers etc. It is not by any means the arbiter of truth. Just a basic check of scientific work meeting the minimal standards.<br /><br />As Plank once said, "Science proceeds one funeral at a time." Gate keepers, stuffy journal editors do exist. Shenanigans go on in science as Paul Davies points out. All the political crap, back stabbing, ego etc goes on.<br /><br />In science, what really matters is this:<br /><br />When somebody else finds your work interesting... And they take it up.... And they perform A1 quality experiments.... And it WORKS.... And then it gets to be done more and more and more and more. Then, and only then, does something become part of the "cannon of science."<br /><br />Replicated "A number 1 quality experiments "from many different research groups around the world over and over preferably using several different testing methods- all getting the same result represents top quality work. Such is the case with the discovery of Dark Matter. As such, our confidence in the result grew and grew.<br /><br />Quantum mechanics represents a TOP QUALITY scientific theory. Replicated experiments of A number 1 quality over and over throughout the world.<br /><br /><br /><br />It is worth noting Isaac Newton's "Principia Mathematica "<br />was not peer reviewed. Yet, it is some of the very finest quality scientific work ever done. All scientific theories are only approximations with varying degrees of certainty- NONE absolute. :)<br /><br />Take care, everybody.<br /><br />RazAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-77958202280570918882012-08-15T12:41:41.941-07:002012-08-15T12:41:41.941-07:00Very nice post Victor. I would also recommend Alfr...Very nice post Victor. I would also recommend Alfred Korzybski who wrote Science and Sanity:An Introduction To Non-Aristotelian Systems And General Semantics. He characterizes knowledge as "similarity of structure" between verbal structure (symbolism etc.) and objective structure (experience etc.) A scientist's job is to make this "map" as accurate as possible. One immediately sees that this is a never ending process.general semanticisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06685305712573504032noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-45700586585679977882012-08-14T14:17:37.005-07:002012-08-14T14:17:37.005-07:00The question Karl Popper wanted to answer is "...The question Karl Popper wanted to answer is "what is the difference between scientific and non-scientific ideas". The answer is that scientific ideas are formulated so precisely that you can falsify them. This was a very important idea, but it does not tell you how to do science, nor does it say the non-scientific ideas are not important in their own right.<br /><br />A few comments back, Rupert Sheldrake was mentioned. His ideas on morphic fields are a clear example of ideas that are not sufficiently precise to be science. There is no experiment that could refute Sheldrakes ideas. He could always claim that the effect was just a bit weaker as could be detected by the experiment, because he does not quantify anything. Maybe one day, Sheldrake or someone else will improve these ideas and make them more precise and turn them into a scientific theory.<br /><br />How to do science? That is hard to say. Best look at how a good scientist works. That is one of the reasons why the master apprentice relation is so important in science. Being critical of your own work is not necessary for science; also someone else can refute your scientific theory (if it was at least falsifiable). Being critical of your own work is good for your career. Being wrong is okay, but you should at least be wrong for an interesting reason. Being stubborn and sticking to an idea when meeting some opposition is often a good idea. Being attached to an idea and having a stimulating argument with colleagues can bring the best out of someone and may lead to proofs one would otherwise never have thought of. This doesn't mean that you should be in denial. Having a good intuition for where this boundary lies, is one of the things which makes a great scientist.<br /><br />I think the post gives much too much emphasis on statistical testing, which is probably the main problem in nutritional science. Ideally you design experiments such that you do not need statistics. In nutritional science this is difficult as it would require very large groups of test persons, which is expensive. And also understanding the mechanisms is important in deciding between two theories, not just one statistical test on one specific relationship. Then you quickly leave the realm of nutritional science and venture into medicine, biology or bio-chemistry.<br /><br />Some more name dropping. Thomas Kuhn wrote a good book about what scientist do when the do science, especially about the difficult times when a major shift in scientific thinking occurs.<br /><br />Imre Lakatos wrote a good book about what scientists do when the do not do science. <br /><br />Also Feyerabend was already mentioned. "Anything goes" when it comes to coming up with scientific ideas or when one in not superior to another one in all respects. Creativity and intuition are very important in this phase.Victor Venemahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02842816166712285801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-85030079676301464942012-08-03T06:17:11.001-07:002012-08-03T06:17:11.001-07:00Speaking of science and entropy , thermodynamics e...Speaking of science and entropy , thermodynamics etc. - here is a quote from the great physicist Richard Feynman ( he is one of the greatest in history) and something to consider strongly.<br /><br /><br />"So far as we know all the fundamental laws of physics, like Newton's Equations, are reversible. Then were does irreversibility come from? It comes from order going to disorder, but we do not udnerstand this until we know the origin of the order"<br /><br />- Richard P. Feynman <br /><br />This is from "Feynman Lectures On Physics." <br /><br />I strongly recommend this rather than listening to Internet salesmen speak about thermodynamics and entropy etc. <br /><br />None of these Internet "gurus" are nowhere near as qualified or as intelligent as Feynman was to speak on matters of physics. <br /><br /><br />Feynman could TRULY speak on thermodynamics and entropy because he was a genius on the topic of physics.Learn from the best.<br /><br />P.S. Feynman figured out what happened with Space Shuttle Challenger The guy was extraordinary.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-7259382351558776832012-08-02T15:10:02.735-07:002012-08-02T15:10:02.735-07:00> The great Rupert Sheldrake (in "7 experi...> The great Rupert Sheldrake (in "7 experiments"<br /><br />good setup.<br /><br />... still waiting for the punch line.Sanjeevhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09522727136330797375noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-44402133031162476992012-08-01T20:04:35.450-07:002012-08-01T20:04:35.450-07:00It's humbling to hear the greats being evoked....It's humbling to hear the greats being evoked. It's important to frequently reflect back on the science one does. That being said, there's certainly poor science being done, some of it tied into the design and perspective of the hypothesis. What are your thoughts on skepticism from a priori assumptions and bias in interpreting data Stephen Gould wrote about in Mismeasure of Man? Thanks!michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17881788121839601108noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-12305289040641277582012-08-01T19:21:22.347-07:002012-08-01T19:21:22.347-07:00Anyway, gathering data while watching a hypothesis...Anyway, gathering data while watching a hypothesis grow, all by itself, is 99% of the fun of science.<br />Even if all the glory is in testing it.<br />Inductive reasoning; just steep in the data long enough and you will see the truth in its fumes.<br /><br /><a href="http://hopefulgeranium.blogspot.co.nz/" rel="nofollow">http://hopefulgeranium.blogspot.co.nz/</a>Puddleghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00953398103675945541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-23349706059584312352012-08-01T12:58:57.757-07:002012-08-01T12:58:57.757-07:00The great Rupert Sheldrake (in "7 experiments...The great Rupert Sheldrake (in "7 experiments" and elsewhere) shows that "fundamental constants" have actually varied over time.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.sheldrake.org/experiments/constants/" rel="nofollow">http://www.sheldrake.org/experiments/constants/</a> <br /><br />"In practice, then, the values of the constants change. But in theory they are supposed to be changeless. The conflict between theory and empirical reality is usually brushed aside without discussion, because all variations are assumed to be due to experimental errors, and the latest values are assumed to be the best.<br /><br />But what if the constants really change? What if the underlying nature of nature changes? Before this subject can even be discussed, it is necessary to think about one of the most fundamental assumptions of science as we know it: faith in the uniformity of nature. For the committed believer, these questions are nonsensical. Constants must be constant.<br /><br />Most constants have been measured only in this small region of the universe for a few decades, and the actual measurements have varied erratically. The idea that all constants are the same everywhere and always is not an extrapolations from the data. If it were an extrapolation it would be outrageous. The values of the constants as actually measured on earth have changed considerably over the last fifty years. To assume they had not changed for fifteen billion years anywhere in the universe goes far beyond the meager evidence. The fact that this assumption is so little questioned, so readily taken for granted, shows the strength of scientific faith in eternal truths."Puddleghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00953398103675945541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-660768317122577572012-08-01T06:59:24.707-07:002012-08-01T06:59:24.707-07:00The myth of the singular scientific method. This i...The myth of the singular scientific method. This is a pervasive myth. There is really no such thingas the singular scientific method and what gets taught to us in 6th grade is a complete misrepresentation of the process of science This is a link to a reputable site from the University of California at Berkeley. This is the best link on the entire nternet as to how the REAL processes of science work in reality :<br /><br />http://razzwell.blogspot.com/2012/07/the-myth-of-scientific-method.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-71183467189807008762012-07-31T07:17:19.645-07:002012-07-31T07:17:19.645-07:00Although it is not my current profession, my degre...Although it is not my current profession, my degree emphasis was in Philosophy of Science.<br /><br />The one thing that I would like to say about the scientific method is that it assumes that human perception and reasoning is necessarily flawed. Therefore the goal is to take something that seems reasonable and formulate a test to test that reasonableness. This first test will tell you whether or not it is reasonable. Further testing must be conducted to determine if it is not only reasonable but true.<br /><br />In our society, especially in the area of nutrition, we read the NYT and see that a proposition passed the reasonable test and believe that that's as far as it goes. "See! Meat causes cancer!" Slow down, chief. We need to test this for truth not just reasonableness.Blakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11757839370870371917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-64384796530295463962012-07-29T18:00:33.806-07:002012-07-29T18:00:33.806-07:00"The scientific method is just a formalized v..."The scientific method is just a formalized version of common sense." <br /><br />Frame that quote and sell it, because it's catchy and it resonates. The closes a philosopher of science came to capturing what scientists do is Feyerabend who said "anything goes." Anything as long as it holds up, of course.Draganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08695139535031342589noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-30340189513391949632012-07-29T08:42:46.839-07:002012-07-29T08:42:46.839-07:00I just read the WSJ article. I don't understan...I just read the WSJ article. I don't understand why that got your back up. If you're wary of potential confirmation bias in your own research, and strive to avoid it, then why get so upset. <br /><br />Unless, of course, the whole point of the post was to attack Gary Taubes. Can't let that one go can you.Stephenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07349466308226709595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-55016993818629428172012-07-28T14:08:16.487-07:002012-07-28T14:08:16.487-07:00I am also not so sure why that WSJ article set you...I am also not so sure why that WSJ article set you off. It's point is a valid one: confirmation bias is a cognitive trap that scientists can fall prey to just like anyone else. Many of your posting here have been good examples of how to avoid that trap as you provide a very good model to your readers of keeping an open mind to where the data leads whether it agrees with your extant belief system or not ... but many who respond here demonstrate the exact problem that the WSJ writer discusses, believing studies that agree with their extant position and not ones that do not.Don Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07535573633972564567noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-41787753382454083582012-07-28T05:53:30.486-07:002012-07-28T05:53:30.486-07:00Another vote against science as common sense, even...Another vote against science as common sense, even with the "formalized" caveat. Albeit I understand the desire for a sound bite that captures it enough.<br /><br />Science instead is a social endeavor of trying to create models that increasingly better predict what will be observed in the future, creating tools to make observations to test those predictions along the way.<br /><br />Each model is held provisionally, with minds hopefully always open to the model being revised by enough additional observations that do not fit the predictions, or even replaced by a model that both fits past and future observations better. Because science does not accept revealed truths it manages uncertain futures by regulating the degree of doubt we hold in future predictions. That doubt can, in a limit function sort of way, approach zero, be infinitely close to zero, but it never is zero. <br /><br />Those who make interesting observations, those who theorize and make models, those who make astute criticisms, are all part of that process of doing science. Together they create something that can never be "the truth" but can instead be something better at predicting the future and having control over it than anything else currently available.Don Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07535573633972564567noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-72715256317422153252012-07-28T05:21:34.119-07:002012-07-28T05:21:34.119-07:00Stephan is a genuine researcher. He is not include...Stephan is a genuine researcher. He is not included in my Internet guru list at all. My buddy ( very scientifically literate) Urgelt respects Stephan a lot. Urgelt is the guy who set me straight about the scammers out there. Most of the common sites asre loaded with junk non-science.<br /><br /><br />The salesmen sites are not valid sorces of information. I have already shwon how most SALESMEN Internet gurus have misrepresented the genuine science about obesity.<br /><br />My information is of the highest quality with detailed lectures by Dr. Jeffrey Friedman who is the real deal.<br /><br />Anybody smart can clearly see how he Internet gurus have been discredited by the work of Friedman, Leibel, Coleman and Rosenbaum, among others. These gurus do not even accurately relay the information.<br /><br />Look into this more. Every single biologist and physicist I have spoken with have said the same thing to me about these Internet salesmen selling fat loss books etc.It's unanimous. Their information is junk.Stick to real researchers.<br /><br />You're correct, however, that I probably will not put them out of business ( even though they clearly have been discredited as their information is completely at odds with the world's obesity scientists) because they appeal to a gullible public who lacks scientific literacy.<br /><br />have a look at all of my links. That information is far closer to the truth than the Internet gurus. The information is "less wrong."Those scientists are the real dea and excellent.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-5450162256962063332012-07-28T02:30:24.243-07:002012-07-28T02:30:24.243-07:00R A Z Z, I imagine you are the same person as Razw...R A Z Z, I imagine you are the same person as Razwell? <br /><br />You will never put the internet gurus out of business, and that's as it should be because all of them, in my experience, talk a lot of sense. Perhaps they talk nonsense at times, but if they do, it's just because they haven't read enough of the literature. How can they read it all? Their ideas evolve, just like yours do. <br /><br />Stephan's ideas have evolved over the past 4 years since I started reading WHS, and I have observed this with utter fascination. This is how things are supposed to be. Anyone with fixed ideas is simply not reading the literature.Janehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18175128589806816624noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-60477807218628355722012-07-27T15:50:34.621-07:002012-07-27T15:50:34.621-07:00Leon Rover
You must understand: I have typed the ...Leon Rover<br /><br />You must understand: I have typed the same thing SO many times, I do not care if I have typing mistakes anymore.<br /><br />Plus, my keys are busted from arguing with morons.<br /><br />Add the fact I do not have my contact lenses in, as I am giving my eyes a much needed rest from wearing them for 13 hours straight.<br /><br />I am in the business of putting the Internet gurus out of business by showing the public what they promote is NON- science and that they do not even have a grasp of the fundamentals of what science is.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-36673538281800282892012-07-27T14:16:37.451-07:002012-07-27T14:16:37.451-07:00R A Z Z Honey,
" depserately " ??
I ca...R A Z Z Honey,<br /><br />" depserately " ??<br /><br />I can empirically see evidence you need to finish your education.<br /><br />SlainteLeonRoverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01484097018449402128noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-31535139553548247062012-07-27T14:07:25.540-07:002012-07-27T14:07:25.540-07:00Hi, Stephan :)
This is the best thing I have fo...Hi, Stephan :)<br /><br /><br /><br />This is the best thing I have found on the Internet that clears up all the misconceptions abuot science. I will post it below its from the University of California at Berkely.<br /><br />http://undsci.berkeley.edu/etaching/misconceptions.php#b11<br /><br /><br />*There is a MYTH that scientific laws are absolute and not able to be modified, revised or shwon to be wrong <br /><br />*There is a MYTH that scientific laws and scientifci theories have a heirarchy and that a scientific law is "above" or "better than " a scientifc theory . This is completely false.<br /><br /><br />*Some poeple falsely believe that science "proves" things.<br /><br />*Some people falsely believe that science can address the Supernatural and/or the issue of whether or not God exists . It cannot at all.<br /><br /><br />*There is a myth that " all science can do is disprove."<br /><br /><br />Karl Popper's falsification is not a very accurate picture of how scientific knowloedge is built.<br /><br /> I link to it at my blog.It's from the Univeristy of California at Berkeley and it is fabulous: <br /><br />http://undsci.berkeley.edu/teaching/misconceptions.php#b11<br /><br />Science is great for certain things but it has its VERY considerable limitations.<br /><br />I hope this link helps your readers. The Internet gurus should read it. It would give them an education that they depserately need.<br /><br />If more people were scientifically literate the Internet salesmen woukld be out of business for good.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-24890213263366774042012-07-27T13:43:57.562-07:002012-07-27T13:43:57.562-07:00Hey Stephan, great article. Have you read the boo...Hey Stephan, great article. Have you read the book "Why People Believe Weird Things" by Michael Shermer? He asserts that skepticism is a method for determining the validity of claims, not necessarily to disprove them. His definition of skepticism seems to fit with the premise of your article. Do you agree?<br /><br />Thanks for the great work, it means a lot.<br /><br />- ArmiArmi Leggehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06851662556845042693noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-63738680195899925232012-07-27T11:23:17.094-07:002012-07-27T11:23:17.094-07:00@FrankG
Not sure what you are getting at. The pro...@FrankG<br /><br />Not sure what you are getting at. The proposition that the earth is spherical goes all the way back to the ancient Greeks - and measurements agree with this proposition.general semanticisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06685305712573504032noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-38902449267593312902012-07-27T08:56:14.310-07:002012-07-27T08:56:14.310-07:00@general semanticist: "I would say the goal o...@general semanticist: <i>"I would say the goal of most experiments is to see if empirical results agree with theoretical predictions."</i><br /><br />So I theorize that the earth is flat and stationary, with the sun revolving around it... <br /><br />I go outside and observe that it does indeed appear to be overall flat -- even allowing for mountains and valleys, there is always a measurable and consistent "up" and "down".. a vertical vs. horizontal orientation. I might use a spirit or water level as my guide and indeed it seems to be so. <br /><br />I am not being thrown about, nor is there a constant wind; as one would expect to feel on the surface of a rapidly moving object. I observe that, if left untouched, the water in a glass settles to a flat, mirror-like surface. So empirically, the earth (on which I stand) is stationary.<br /><br />If I closely observe the Sun I will see it rise from one horizon, move across the sky over my head and disappear over the other horizon, with all this taking place in a predictable period time that varies little over days, weeks or months -- I have charts for this stretching back centuries in fact. So an overall circular path for the sun makes the most sense of what is seen.<br /><br /><br />Job done? Or do I need to consider alternate explanations for what I have observed?<br /><br />As Richard Feinman (the other) in a recent blog post noted <i>"In nutrition we have recommendation-driven research rather than the other way around. Recommendations are made and then people do the research to support them. Peer review is provided by the people who made the recommendations in the first place."</i> <br /><br />http://rdfeinman.wordpress.com/2012/07/11/reading-the-scientific-literature-a-guide-to-flawed-studies/FrankGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01980497914756341565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-16850494497396073892012-07-27T08:15:48.293-07:002012-07-27T08:15:48.293-07:00"The goal of most experiments is not to try t..."The goal of most experiments is not to try to falsify or disprove a hypothesis (which in any case is often impossible), it is to test a hypothesis by pitting it against the null hypothesis. In other words, does the model accurately predict reality when it is tested? This is how it should be. The outcome of many experiments is either a) the hypothesis is supported, or b) the null hypothesis is not rejected, i.e. there is not sufficient evidence in support of the hypothesis. There is often no option "c", the hypothesis is falsified."<br /><br />I would say the goal of most experiments is to see if empirical results agree with theoretical predictions. Statistical methods are often required to establish the strength of this agreement. <b>The days of 2-valued determinism are gone!</b>general semanticisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06685305712573504032noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-7980231523272391392012-07-26T13:05:39.601-07:002012-07-26T13:05:39.601-07:00I think this is a great post on a very difficult s...I think this is a great post on a very difficult subject. I do wish you had not used the words "common sense," though. So many things seem to be common sense and yet they are not. If Galileo had accepted common sense he would never have discovered the strange, counter-intuitive phenomenon of heavy and light objects both falling at the same rate. And Einstein would perhaps have not revealed to us how strange time is. I would like to hope that science is something much more than formalized common sense.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-53091245687481481812012-07-26T03:36:06.588-07:002012-07-26T03:36:06.588-07:00Thanks for your reply Stephan.
Sorry, I assumed t...Thanks for your reply Stephan.<br /><br />Sorry, I assumed that you said that it would be a waste trying to falsify germ theory, "because the evidence supporting [it] is overwhelming" and it is true. The idea that germ theory just can't be falsified is more odd. (Seems straightforward: just look and see that there aren't any micro-organisms...) It had better be falsifiable in principle, if it's to be an empirical hypothesis. If it is, but is simply difficult to actually test/falsify at present, then the considerations against seeking to falsify it are pragmatic ones.<br /><br />Sorry, but nit-picking is essential in philosophy! The reason for my 'nitpicking' is that it sounds like you're giving an explanation of how science can be done other than by just falsifying hypotheses, but 2 of your 3 statements are just stipulative definitions and so non-explanatory. For example, if I say ““evidence” is that which supports scientific conclusions” then I've not explained how evidence supports scientific conclusions. That sentence would only be informative if we already know what evidence is and can see that that's the thing that supports conclusions. Your other statement, that hypothesis-testing is based on probability, just asserts that falsificationism is wrong: but the very debate is between whether science proceeds through falsification or through inductive probability. So it would be completely appropriate for you to say “I assume that science can proceed through probabilistic induction”- and most scientists and philosophers of science, including myself, agree with you, but it would be misleading to think that anything you've said (including your practical examples) is any evidence against falsificationism.David Mosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08508780038542342811noreply@blogger.com