An alternative explanation?

[PBequalsL]

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. 

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, PBequalsL said:

...many of the long-standing “holes” existing within the current theory...

Can you elaborate on these 'holes' please?

1 hour ago, PBequalsL said:

...how willing individuals would be in altering their current perceptions on the theory of Darwinian evolution...

Quite willing as is evidenced by the fact that we've moved on from Darwinian evolution!

[MigL]

You cannot check whether a theory is true; that would be impossible.
You can only check whether it is false; every scientific theory, then, has to be falsifiable.
Even your new, alternative theory.

The question then, boils down to, which one is a best fit to the available evidence.
Is yours ?

[PBequalsL]

2 hours ago, zapatos said:

Can you elaborate on these 'holes' please?

Quite willing as is evidenced by the fact that we've moved on from Darwinian evolution!

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. 

[zapatos]

2 minutes ago, PBequalsL said:

A. Your answer to the question by way of indicating an absence of holes tells me plenty

 

I'll take that as a "no".

3 minutes ago, PBequalsL said:

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. 

You asked about "Darwinian evolution". Don't move the goalposts.

[PBequalsL]

2 hours ago, MigL said:

You cannot check whether a theory is true; that would be impossible.
You can only check whether it is false; every scientific theory, then, has to be falsifiable.
Even your new, alternative theory.

The question then, boils down to, which one is a best fit to the available evidence.
Is yours ?

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. 

21 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I'll take that as a "no".

You asked about "Darwinian evolution". Don't move the goalposts.

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.

[zapatos]

40 minutes ago, PBequalsL said:

Basic evolution, no tree, no explanation, just says that life changes over time. That’s not exactly arguable.

The Theory of Evolution says much more than "just...that life changes over time". 

[joigus]

9 hours ago, MigL said:

You cannot check whether a theory is true; that would be impossible.
You can only check whether it is false; every scientific theory, then, has to be falsifiable.

Amen.

11 hours ago, PBequalsL said:

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?

I don't find you the least curious. What's the new theory? Mind you, a new brand of word salad is not a theory.

6 hours ago, zapatos said:

The Theory of Evolution says much more than "just...that life changes over time". 

Strawmen at work sign.

[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. 

[zapatos]

1 minute ago, PBequalsL said:

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

If two random responses from anonymous people on the internet aren't proof I don't know what is! Can't wait to see your published article. Congratulations, you've accomplished what you came here for! Really, really good work!

[MigL]

1 hour ago, PBequalsL said:

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. 

Falsifiable has little to do with it.
You are putting the cart before the horse.
And if the above is any indication of what you consider evidence of accuracy, you don't have a chance with peer review.

Show me the evidence !

[Markus Hanke]