The Implications of Evolution: Ideas Have Consequences

[Mulefoot]

I've seen the concept of falsifiability bantered around a bit, and I think while it's certainly a foundational maxim in scientific circles, not all scientific theories are universally rejected without it.

For example, string theory is not falsifiable.

 

[Visbek]

Gravity is a law. Evolution can't be.

As already discussed:

We can formulate a law of gravity, because in physics, laws describe a process in a quantifiable way.

A scientific theory, in contrast, tells us why a process happens. Theories can be tested and falsified, even if they aren't always expressed via mathematics.

Since you missed it, we most certainly can develop theories of gravity that explain why Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation works. E.g. we can discuss Einstein's theories of general and special relativity; we can examine string theory, M-theory, and loop quantum gravity, which try to reconcile gravity and quantum mechanics.

Again, laws are NOT more certain than theories. They're just different types of scientific statements.

 

[ASHES]

I've seen the concept of falsifiability bantered around a bit, and I think while it's certainly a foundational maxim in scientific circles, not all scientific theories are universally rejected without it.

For example, string theory is not falsifiable.

String Theory is not a scientific theory, it is a theoretical hypothesis.

 

[Mulefoot]

String Theory is not a scientific theory, it is a theoretical hypothesis.

In what sense is string theory not a theory?

 

[ASHES]

In what sense is string theory not a theory?

Not a scientific theory.