> You have, multiple times now, refused to notice that a statement of the form "If A, then B" is one that can be absolutely established to be true, outside of experiment.

I have done nothing of the kind. "If A then B" is not science, and science -- physics -- is the topic of conversation.

Let's recap, since you can't be stopped from wandering off the topic. You said this:

>> If you assume that the observer is described by quantum mechanics, then the Everett Interpretation is logically required to be true.

To the above pseudoscientific claim, I replied, saying:

> Arthur Conan Doyle notwithstanding, in science the truth is not arrived at by eliminating the alternatives. Science requires positive evidence -- absence of contrary evidence doesn't support a given outlook. Were this not true, Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster would win acceptance through lack of contrary evidence.

Now if you want to discuss this issue, then stop wandering away from the topic into pointless philosophical tangents. Mathematics is not science, only science is science.

> Next, you're obviously fond of Karl Popper's falsifiability criterion.

Karl Popper didn't invent fasifiability, he discovered it. Science is not defined by Popper, it is defined by falsifiability. Falsifiability is science 101, and it's not a debate topic.

> While showing blithe unawareness of how poor a description it is of actual science through the ages.

I'm accustomed to having discussions with people who can't be bothered to examine their own ideas. So, even though you are probably never going to get this, let's perform a thought experiment in which falsifiability is not required for science, see where it takes us (I originally wrote this to counter the myth that psychology is a science):

Let's say I'm a doctor and I've created a revolutionary cure for the common cold. My cure is to shake a dried gourd over the cold sufferer until he gets better. The cure might take a week, but it always works. My method is repeatable and perfectly reliable, and I've published my cure in a refereed scientific journal (there are now any number of phony refereed scientific journals). And, because (in this thought experiment) science can get along without defining theories, I'm under no obligation to try to explain my cure, or consider alternative explanations for my breakthrough — I only have to describe it, just like a psychologist.

Because I've cured the common cold, and because I've met all the requirements that psychology recognizes for science, I deserve a Nobel Prize. Yes or no?

Ask yourself what's wrong with this picture, and notice that the same thing is wrong with psychology — all description, no explanation, no established principles on which different psychologists agree, no effort to build consensus, and no unifying theories.

> If you understand the last, then you'll understand that Einstein's rejection of QM ...

You are, as usual, missing the point that Einstein objected until direct observational evidence became overwhelming in favor of quantum theories. He gave way before falsifiable evidence that, refutable in principle, was not refuted. The reason? Unlike you, he was a scientist, not a philosopher.

> ... needs no more explanation than Fred Hoyle's rejection of the Big Bang theory ...

Guess what happened to Fred Hoyle's rejection of Big Bang theory? It gave way before falsifiable evidence, evidence that remains in principle falsifiable to this day.

The people over at the Discovery Institute (the source for Creationism and "Intelligent Design") will be delighted by your position on pseudoscience -- it's exactly the same as theirs. As far as they are concerned, you can call anything science. If you keep crashing into goal posts like falsifiability on your way to your personal objective, no problem -- move the goal posts.

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

Quote: "Science must be falsifiable. The scientific method can not be implemented without the theoretical possibilities of both disproof and verification."

Circle the word you didn't understand and raise your hand.