Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Noonan
One could argue that the assertion is required when science stops trying to falsify theories it 'feels' comfortable with.
|
Which theories are science so comfortable with that all efforts to falsify them have stopped?
If a theory has been verified to 10 decimal places is it OK to stop attempting falsification? At 15? At 20? What if we have gone as far as the available technology will let us go? Is that enough to satisfy you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Noonan
One should argue that the assertion is necessary when science starts 'correcting reality' to fit their theories.
|
Please give an example of scientists "correcting reality".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Noonan
One must try to assert a unified theory if one has one especially as there are now a sufficient number of smaller conflicting theories.
|
It is not exempt from falsification. It must give back in some limit the various theories that it supercedes. This is where most ATM theories fail; while making predictions about the things the author cares about they often fail spectacularly at the simplest things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Noonan
Logic dictates speculation on a replacement should commence well before the total atrophy of an existing system. It is called planned preventative stagnation.
|
Stagnation to prevent what?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Noonan
Mathematics assisted the development of the Early Egyptian Empire and then became the cause of 3000 years of stagnation. [Snip!]
|
Mathematics caused stagnation? And kept Egyptian culture stagnated for 3,000 years?