Originally posted by Thequ1ck
Are you saying that there are aspects of science that aren't disprobable?
I admit there's a lot of evidence to the contrary but the nature of science is that everything is disprovable.
That's why science is retrospective and antiquated. There I said it. Science hasn't got the kahoona's to carry us into the future.
Instead we're gonna let a bunch of ...[text shortened]... three letter word to be in charge.
I am proposing that we upgrade science to futurism.
but the nature of science is that everything is disprovable.
I don't know were you got that from. Where DID you get that from?
The only thing that is disprovable in science is an incorrect/false theory.
A correct/true scientific theory cannot be disproved and therefore you are incorrect in saying “everything” in science is disprovable.
Perhaps you are confusing “disprovable” with “falsifiable”?
All scientific theories must be falsifiable but needn't be disprovable ( and, Obviously, should ideally be NOT disprovable ) for a theory can only be disprovable if it is BOTH falsifiable AND false:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
“...
That something is "falsifiable" does NOT mean it is false; rather, that IF it is false, then some observation or experiment will produce a reproducible result that is in conflict with it.
...(my emphases)”
note the operative word “IF” in the above.
So clearly science is not about making theories that are disprovable if that is what you are implying?