Ok, I'm taking a guess here and soupdragon can correct me if I'm wrong, but after reading soupdragon's posts and thinking about his "belief system" thread, it might be that soupdragon has decided that rather than get into a quagmire over
his philosophical definition of falsifiable that he will accept the
scientific definition of falsifiable - once somebody offers it - for the purposes of moving forward with his argument that a lot of scientific theories are not falsifiable.
At least that guess would be consistent with this statement:
Quote:
|
soupdragon: Trouble is Musashi, it's not a straight forward philosophical issue.
|
and this:
Quote:
soupdragon: Relatively simple in scientific terms, but not so simple in philosophical terms, and this, of course, is a fine example of where the subjects overlap.
I make no assumptions in this regard, you better believe me!
|
And his original question was what do scientists mean when they say scientific theories are falsifiable. Perhaps he'd rather just work with our scientific definitions then his philosophical ones in this discussion? In that case if he offers his definition the discussion would get dragged way off from where he's trying to go if we start arguing with his definition.