Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> 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. 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…
Testing the "if" is science - but difficult without a framework helping understand "how". Testing only if, in a vacuum, isn't enough - and it is a tool on the path to understanding "how". This allows such things as using statistical models (if one has an idea of distribution, for example) to help refine the "if" tests, and narrow down exactly what your "if" experiment tested.
I don't think you can have science without both, and I think defining a body of theory is the more important aspect.