PBequalsL

Guess what?! Your responses are empirical evidence that my initial concern was accurate. The fact that more than one response was given to serve as evidence i can now say that I have proof that people are incapable of perceiving scientific conclusions as falsifiable and demonstrate hostility upon an individual merely suggesting that a scientific theory is false. Defensive posturing, elitist behavior and insulting responses expressed by respondents. As such, any attempt to falsify widely held scientific theories will result in a high likelihood of blind dismissal. Thank you for serving as study participants. Next stop, peer review and publication.

The insanely low bar of what defines “falsifiable” via the “perhaps one day in the future..” or “majority approval” unwritten rules can either allow in ridiculously impossible to verify nor falsify theories such as string theory, Big Bang, multiverses, and evolution. At the same time it can keep out theories that display the same degree, and even more, of evidence to back up its existence. This is very often the case in regards to evidence supported theories that happen to be incongruent with already existing theories or majority perception. This concept that theories can never be proven true is a clever “get out of jail free” card. They never have to say they were wrong. Ever. This allows the perception of scientists to exist as intelligent, trustworthy, determiners of reality within societal opinion. Fact is scientists from all branches quite regularly present their conclusions and perceptual observations as truth. Terms like theory, suggestion, possibility, might, chance of, or “one of...” either don’t exist in scientific language or are utilized in the most rarest of cases. ‘The acceptance of theories boiling down to what happens to best fit within ones perception means the very nature of how currently held theories exist quite strongly within perception and how the majority of science has been shaping their conclusions around them for decades demonstrates a highly unlikely scenario that anything new will ever be accepted by the scientific majority so long as it exists incongruently to what is already believed. That’s fine. I’m taking your answer to my question as a “no”. Dude, evolutionary tree and natural selection is Darwinian evolution. You may choose to label it in some other way, but that’s truth. Basic evolution, no tree, no explanation, just says that life changes over time. That’s not exactly arguable. Don’t create goalposts.

A. Your answer to the question by way of indicating an absence of holes tells me plenty B. There has been no movement beyond Natural Selection nor the evolutionary tree. Neutral selection gets a bit of attention, but still exists at the wayside.

I’m quite curious about something. Science is all out holding its findings to having to possess the quality of falsifiability. Despite this, the conclusions made by scientists are consistently perceived and treated with a high degree of factuality. As a result society has become extremely defensive of any insinuation that such falsifiable conclusions may indeed false. With that, I find myself curious as to how willing individuals would be in altering their current perceptions on the theory of Darwinian evolution & natural selection to being false in light of a new theory that not only effectively utilizes all of the same evidence, but also serves to provide logical explanations for many of the long-standing “holes” existing within the current theory? Is the perception within anyone’s mind willing to consider that such an alternative theory can even exist? That the current theory that has even been argued by some scientists as unarguably true is in fact misperception? I suppose the deeper question is whether or not scientific findings that are widely accepted in society are even perceived as falsifiable.