Fwd: Big Bang?

[Cyrus]

jbor at bigpond.com wrote:

> I don't have a problem with the concept of falsifiability at all. Why 
> invent another straw man? It's the semantic category of "falsifiable 
> hypothesis" I questioned.



That's what I meant. There was, again, no straw man here. Lack of 
clarity, maybe.

> Does "Science", or your version of it, [...]



MY version of it? What does that mean? Are there more than one? If it 
follows the scientific method it's science, isn't it? Is there more to it?

> [...] acknowledge that there is a qualitative difference between, 
> e.g., the "Big Bang" theory, and, e.g., the theory of gravitational 
> attraction? My observation is that there is a big difference, but I 
> don't see that the rhetorical construct "falsifiable hypothesis" 
> delineates or caters for that difference in any way.



Could you please point out this difference, as you perceive it?

Cyrus