Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Your quote literally includes the phrase "testable explanations"? It says "and predictions". That is, both "testable explanations" and "testable predictions" are a part of science. > Indeed, 'testing "how"' isn't really possible, only testing "if". This argument is a dead end. If you construct your epistemology in such a fragile way that testing "how" is not possible, then take a closer look at the world you've con…
OK, I think I see where we talk past each other - I stated: > One could argue that science is about falsifying hypothesis - and terby narrowing in on not just if something works, but how. You read that as saying that we can only test how, not if. Now you read my comments as saying we can only test if not how. I think we're in agreement that they are two sides of the scientific process.
The original sentence, "One could argue that..." is poorly worded and confusing. Maybe you could take this opportunity to clarify what you meant.
I'm not really interested in litigating who said what. I'd rather understand what you actually mean, rather than try and attack the wording that you happened to use.
To clarify what I'm saying: Testing "whether" can be science, without testing "how", and vice versa.