Fwd: Big Bang?

[Cyrus]

jbor at bigpond.com wrote:

> I have reservations about the notion of a "falsifiable hypothesis", 
> which seems to me like rhetorical sleight of hand. (What is the 
> "truth" or "fact" status or quotient of an "hypothesis"? Are there 
> degrees? Probability coeefficients? Is an "hypothesis" ever actually 
> falsifiable? -- mostly it seems it's succeeded by a similarly 
> well-funded "scientific" derivation. Are there precedent unresolved 
> and constant variables (or slothrops even) which logically prevent the 
> hypothesis from ever being disproven?-- if so, it isn't, 
> technically-speaking, "falsifiable". Is it, in linguistic terms also, 
> a closed system which defines and perpetuates itself?)


I don't see why you have a problem with the concept of falsifiablity. 
'Is an "hypothesis" ever actually falsifiable?' Of course it is. A 
scientific hypothesis is not just an abstract sentence, which you can 
defend at all times and costs through rhetoric and whatnots. It is based 
on data and observations. If the data prove false, the hypothesis falls 
apart. If new data come along, refuting the hypothesis and making its 
predictions null, the hypothesis is discarded. Why are you taking 
something as straightforward as this and trying to make it look obscure 
and convoluted?

Cyrus