Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
> One could argue that science is about falsifying hypothesis - and terby narrowing in on not just if something works, but how. 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…
I get in discussions about philosophy of science all the time because I am passionate about it. But I am very disappointed because it turns out that other people who are passionate about science and the philosophy of science haven't really done the reading. This discussion is a prime example.
It makes me feel like nothing more than a conduit, copying arguments out of old books and pasting them on the internet.