Scientific theories should require the ability to be falsified.

Con did not address any of my arguments, therefore they all stand. He does not deny that non-falsifiable theories are useless. Con's Examples of non-falsifiable theories are incorrect A theory that is not falsifiable remains after a thousand years as valid as it was on the day it was proposed. Everything is in accord with the theory and nothing can possibly contradict it. Con gives three examples of theories he claims are not falsifiable, yet should be accepted as valid scientific theories. All three examples clearly fail. Con claimed phlogiston theory is valid science and cannot be falsified. So, has phlogiston theory been falsified? In fact it has. No one considers it a plausible theory today. Con pointed out that when the original theory was falsified, a modified theory was invented to cure the falsification. That admits that the original theory was falsified and abandoned. The new theory of the same name posited that phlogiston has negative mass. So does that theory still stand? No, it was falsified by showing that the lost mass is in combustion products. Perhaps Con is suggesting that theories are never really falsified, but rather they can always be modified to escape falsification. But that's not true. No version of phlogiston theory remains as valid. No version of phlebotomy remains. No version of the luminiferous ether theory remains. Moreover, a modified theory is not the same theory. The old theory has been falsified. The old theory may inspire a new one. A “valid scientific theory” is one that is within the scope of science, rather than philosophy or art or whatever. The criteria include making useful predictions and a useful explanation, which in turn implies it is falsifiable. If the theory is testable then it is in the valid form of a scientific theory. If the test fails, then it is not true – a distinct issue. Con's second example was Lorentz Relativity, more commonly called the Lorentz transformation. “The Lorentz transformation is in accordance with special relativity, but was derived well before special relativity.” http://en.wikipedia.org... Special relativity is falsifiable, so the Lorentz transformation is falsifiable. It is no more than a different mathematical formulation of part of the same theory. Con points to electromagnetic, gravitational, and other fields that he claims are “not observable.” They are not observable by human vision, but they are observable by scientific instruments and experiments. We know that magnetic fields exist because their hypothesized behavior is verified by predictions made by the theory being confirmed. If hypothesized behavior was not observed, the theory would be falsified. Perhaps Con worries that only the behavior of the field is observed and confirmed while the field itself is not observed. But the theory of fields only deals with how the fields behave and can be used to predict field interactions, so that's all that needs to be subject to falsification Inflation theory is falsifiable and it has passed many tests. More tests are ongoing, “An experimental program is underway to further test inflation with more precise measurements of the cosmic microwave background. In particular, high precision measurements of the so-called "B-modes" of the polarization of the background radiation will be evidence of the gravitational radiation produced by inflation, and they will also show whether the energy scale of inflation predicted by the simplest models (1015–1016 GeV) is correct.” [7. http://en.wikipedia.org...] There are currently a number of hypotheses related to cosmology that have not yet reached the stage of being falsifiable theories. Speculation is allowed prior to establishing a claim to being a valid theory. Con has not given a single example of a valid scientific theory that cannot be falsified. Examples of non-falsifiable theories are astrology (because failed predictions are always rationalized after the fact, while valid theories do admit infinite rationalization), creationism (which explains all gaps in data supporting evolution as being miracles; as gaps are explained, the ones that remain are still claimed to be miracles), and astrology (which provides only reliable post-event explanations). Cited previously, Popper says that Marxism and Freudian psychoanalysis cannot be falsified. Failed tests yield progress A failed test of a valid theory raises the question of what went wrong. Con points to examples of theories that failed early tests of falsification. When a test fails, there are two possibilities, either the theory is wrong or the test was wrong. Scientists must then sort out which is the case. With a theory that is not falsifiable, no tests are possible. Failed tests allow science to progress to better understanding of the laws of nature. Separately, Con generalizes his argument to “But what reason does falsificationism give us to decide between a conflicting observation and the theory instead?” Falsification does not in itself give a reason to decide whether the test was wrong or the theory was wrong, and it does not have to. It tells scientists that there is a problem to be resolved. In general, the resolution involves evaluating the experiment with respect to other established scientific theories. The error may be found in a defect of the experimental setup, often by varying the setup and seeing how the results change. We have many useful scientific theories, so clearly the problem of deciding what is wrong is solvable. Low probability theories have scientific potential Con argues that theories with a low probability of outcome cannot be falsified in practice, so they must be considered unscientific. He then argues that all scientific theories depend on probabilities, so falsification is never valid. To be a scientific theory, it is only required that the theory be in principle falsifiable. There are a number of theories in physics that require amounts of energy so large as to be practically unattainable. Nonetheless, the theory is potentially useful, and a method may be found in the future that permits testing. Solar neutrinos were detected by putting 378,540 liters of perchloroethylene a mile under ground, a method previously unachievable. [8. http://americaninvetors.blogspot.com...]. A theory that is falsifiable may or may not turn out to be useless, while if it is not falsifiable it is guaranteed to be useless. The debate resolution claims that falsifiability should be a required. If the required test cannot be achieved in practice, then the theory remains in a box on the shelf, unable to be tested. It is as useless as a non-falsifiable theory, but for a different reason. That some such theories exist does not invalidate the use of falsifiability for the much more common case where falsifiability is practical. Science depends only on verification within domains, not universal verification. Theories are not tested in all possible circumstances, so complete validation is impossible. But while some theories depend on observing rare events, many theories do not. Magnetic field theory has been used many thousands of time in practical devices and have worked reliably. That gives them a high probability that they will be useful in similar applications. Con argues that tests of theories are built on assumptions, and “..it’s always possible to blame one of these assumptions ..” It's possible to blame the assumption, but it not always possible to follow through and show that was the problem. Falsification allows the question to be raised of whether the assumptions or the theory is wrong, whereas a non-falsifiable theory cannot be tested at all. The statement "All valid scientific theories are falsifiable." is not a scientific theory. It asserts a definition of "scientific theory." ----------------- Con's arguments amount to no more than saying that falsification is sometime difficult to apply.