Quote:My point is that the criterion of falsifiability should not be a stand alone criterion of being scientific.
How exactly does mangling atomic theory into "For every metal, there is a temperature at which it will melt" make this point? Are you trying to argue that I was discarding all of atomic theory with my criticism of the mangled version you posted?
Quote:One example is what is known as bootstrapping, where a hypothesis is assumed to be correct and the implications of this are tested on other related hypotheses.
Are you suggesting I am ruling this out? Why do you have to assume it is correct in order to test it this way?
Quote:In effect, what are we trying to achieve in science? We are trying to get closer to the truth. (Maybe you prefer to get further from the truth?)
In what way is a non-faslifiable hypothesis further from the truth? - because you can't knock it down? No.
The criterion of falsifiability largely explains science's success at getting closer to the truth. Assuming you have already found the truth is the biggest barrier to getting any closer. Science is so powerful because it discards what is wrong. Using your Darwinian analogy, falsifiability is exactly what allows you to weed out the less fit theories. You attempted to argue that science progresses by one theory replacing the other because it is better, apparently in the absence of the falsification of the weaker theory. In practice, this falsification of the weaker theory comes first.
Quote:I already explained how other competing hypotheses can win on the basis of probability.
You made the claim repeatedly. That is not the same as explaining how. I expect if you actually explained how, it would look identical to falsifiability. In fact I responded the first time you made this claim by pointing out that it is never certain. I can only assume this is yet another example of you thinking you understand something without being able to explain it.
Quote:I said before that General Relativity would have died at birth had falsifiability been applied.
I know you said it. I pointed out that you are wrong. You had nothing in response. You are still wrong. Yet you repeat the claim without being able to back it up. This is taking you back to the first step again. Once more, you are somehow failing to understand my position and making unjustifiable claims about it.
Quote:You said yourself that there was a need for a theory to fill the gaps left by the breakdown of Newtonian mechanics under certain conditions.
Correct. The falsification of Newtonian Mechanics was the primary motivator for the development of relativity.
Quote:This is just one example of external pressure that can influence how a theory goes. There is a lot more to science than simple falisifiability.
It is an example of falsifiability directly contributing to the advance of science. Just one of many.
Quote:It's just not that sterile and inorganic.
Who is arguing that it is? Step 1 remember. Figure out what my position is before trying to disagree with it. I know it sounds like I am talking to a child, but it is extremely difficult to get basic concepts like this through to you. I keep giving you the benefit of the doubt, and you keep proving that you are trying to disagree with a position that you have absolutely no knowledge of.
Quote:Science is also a social phenomenon, and this was observed by later philosophers as previously mentioned. If you fail to account for the social nature of science, and just rely on falsifiability, then you miss a lot.
Yet another strawman. Read the article again. I directly refers to these social phenomena.
Quote:If science was entirely driven by the falsifiability principle , scientific knowledge would be poorer for it. Fortunately it is not.
Another strawman. As I already explained, it is one of many criteria, not a "driver". Why is it so hard to get this through to you?