[lutusp]

You have failed to address any of my arguments, standard arguments that clearly define what science is and is not. And you have decided that ad hominem is a better approach, even though a logical error. Given your inability to defend your position, this isn't too surprising.

[singingfish]

No, I outlined that your entire frame of reference is wrong, yet you persist with long winded and mostly irelevant time wasting.

[lutusp]

> No, I outlined that your entire frame of reference is wrong ...

I posed evidence, you posted opinion. If you understood science, you would know the difference.

[singingfish]

Your "evidence" seems to be of the variety that there is a very restricted set of conditions where an epistimology can be considered scientifically based. This is prima facie not the case as scientific knowledge is far wider than your claim allows.

[hueving]

>This is prima facie not the case as scientific knowledge is far wider than your claim allows.

Only if you change the definition of "scientific knowledge" to something much more vague that is not the definition agreed upon by scientists. If you loosen it up to where it seems you are targeting, it lands well into pseudo-science or just religion. By expanding it to include theories that aren't falsifiable, it's nothing more than a circle-jerk because unfalsifiable theories indicate that they provide no information gain to the scientific community and are ultimately worthless.

[singingfish]

> Only if you change the definition of "scientific knowledge" to something much more vague that is not the definition agreed upon by scientists.

Oh dear. I've got news for you. While currently not practicing, I have been paid to do scientific work in the past. That makes me a scientist. And according to my professional opinion, your entire frame of reference is wrong.