[extropy-chat] against ID

[gts]

On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 16:16:24 -0500, Damien Broderick  
<thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:

> But the test of a supposed discipline's status as a science isn't -- for  
> Popper, at any rate -- the accuracy of its predictions, but the fact  
> that they can be tested empirically, and *in principle* falsified.

Yes.

> If you wish to make a strong case against astrology, you need to support  
> your claim that no astrological prediction has been warranted.

Or that another more comprehensive theory explains the facts better than  
astrology.

One interesting question is what to do about an observed anomaly to a  
successful theory. Is the theory then automatically falsified?

If we observe that one of the planets is orbiting in a manner contrary to  
what we know about gravity, do we say then that our theory of gravity is  
falsified? Or do we theorize the existence of an unobserved body of matter  
acting on the rogue planet? Astronomers have faced this problem before  
while learning about our solar system, and still deal with the same  
problem concerning the hypothesized dark matter in the universe.

-gts