Has there ever been a serious scientific experiment, published

>>8377374
>Falsifiability is part of the scientific method, right?
Yes.
>If there's never been any real effort to falsify evolution, then it's not a proper scientific theory.
No.

Why don't you make a paper disproving evolution then?

>>8377473
No?

You've just contradicted yourself. If falsifiability is part of the scientific method, then if nobody has tried to falsify evolution then it means the scientific method is not being observed.

Going around looking for proof that your theory is right, and ignoring any evidence to the contrary, is what they do on the show Ancient Aliens.

>>8377487
>You've just contradicted yourself.
Nope.
>nobody has tried to falsify evolution
I did not claim that.
>If falsifiability is part of the scientific method, then if nobody has tried to falsify evolution then it means the scientific method is not being observed.
Feel free to start arguing any time why you think that the notion of 'falsifiability' is fulfilled by somebody trying to disprove the theory.

>>8377487
Nobody has to falsify a theory. It only has to be -able- to be falsified.

Which evolution is. Unlike creationism.

>>8377374
Falsifiability means that for the hypothesis in question there can be a distinction between the hypothesis being true and the hypothesis being false.
An unfalsifiable hypothesis would yield the same results regardless.

As such even if evolution hadn't been subjected to the rigors of people trying to falsify it what would primarily matter is that someone could try it and if evolution according to the modern evolutionary synthesis were false then the predictions made by the various supporting hypotheses would not hold true.

And I would assume that people have tried to falsify it since there were multiple competing hypotheses for quite some time as well as possibly complimentary ones that have since been falsified such as recapitulation theory.
There aren't any competing hypotheses now though.

>>8377693
>>You've just contradicted yourself.
>Nope.
>>nobody has tried to falsify evolution
>I did not claim that.
>>If falsifiability is part of the scientific method, then if nobody has tried to falsify evolution then it means the scientific method is not being observed.
/thread

>>8377824
lol fucking quotes, if I say OP is a faggot you guys will understand me at least. So; OP is a faggot.

File: 1473646746887s.jpg (13KB, 249x249px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 249x249px

Has there ever been a serious scientific experiment, published in a mainstream journal, that attempted to disprove gravity?

Falsifiability is part of the scientific method, right? If there's never been any real effort to falsify gravity, then it's not a proper scientific theory.

File: 1382851234926.jpg (212KB, 1200x367px) Image search: [Google]

212KB, 1200x367px

Has there ever been a serious scientific experiment, published in a mainstream journal, that attempted to disprove conscicousness?

Falsifiability is part of the scientific method, right? If there's never been any real effort to falsify conscicousness, then it's not a proper scientific theory.

File: huma-04.jpg (189KB, 1200x630px) Image search: [Google]

189KB, 1200x630px

>>8377838
>mfw the theory of intelligent falling is the only believable hypothesis