Scientific hypotheses make empirical predictions

benkirk · February 8, 2016, 4:40am

Biosemiosis.org:

When someone defends their position by suggesting that universal experience is disallowed in science, that person is not practicing science.[/quote]
None of the things you listed are experiential. We know those things because real scientists constructed hypotheses that made empirical predictions. Then they and others tested those hypotheses empirically. They did as much or more working as talking.

You are not practicing anything resembling science. You are rejecting the most fundamental scientific method. You’re not even bothering to test your hypotheses against the existing literature.

[quote]The insults and pedantic referencing of the scientific method is icing on the cake.[/quote]I don’t see it as pedantic given your lack of understanding.

Show me…

Again, it’s not my job to show you anything. It’s up to YOU to test YOUR hypothesis. I’m sorry if this seems pedantic, but you just don’t seem to grasp it.

[quote]Empirical science isn’t the issue, Ben. You just don’t want the observations to be made.

I’m pointing out that observations have been made that you are ignoring.

Again, your hypothesis:

If stop functions are NECESSARY as stated in the hypothesis, a SINGLE exception is sufficient to falsify the hypothesis, correct?

It took me literally 30 seconds to find the relevant empirical literature.

Not at all. If something you claim to be necessary really isn’t, it tells us a lot about how it likely evolved and was not designed.