If the hypotheses, which they propose, can be
falsified by empirical evidence, then these hypotheses can be discarded.
so you just made a statement that contains no logical inconsistencies and which can not be
falsified by empirical evidence.
Not exact matches
Empirical: The truth must be supported by sufficient empirical evidence, can not ignore any empirical evidence and can not falsify supporting
Empirical: The truth must be supported
by sufficient
empirical evidence, can not ignore any empirical evidence and can not falsify supporting
empirical evidence, can not ignore any
empirical evidence and can not falsify supporting
empirical evidence and can not
falsify supporting
evidence.
Gathering
empirical evidence and / or performance of reproducible experimental tests of the predictions
by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments, in order to either validate the hypothesis, including seeking out data to
falsify the hypothesis and scientifically refuting all falsification attempts.
It has been said that CAGW, as outlined
by IPCC in its AR4 report, is impossible to
falsify or corroborate with
empirical scientific
evidence from actual physical observations or reproducible experimentation.
I appreciate your telling me that the mechanisms for the projected cooling are known but, being a rational skeptic, I'd like to see them corroborated (or
falsified)
by empirical evidence.
So I really do not see why those like Pekka Pirilä or Vaughan Pratt are so opposed to simply TESTING the hypothesis, to see if it is
falsified or corroborated
by empirical evidence.
The IPCC hypothesis that AGW, caused principally
by human CO2 emissions, has been the primary cause of past warming and that it represents a serious potential threat to humanity or our environment is an «uncorroborated hypothesis» at this time, unless one agrees with Pielke that the recent decadal lack of warming of the atmosphere (surface plus troposphere) as well as the upper ocean despite record increase in CO2 levels has
falsified it, in which case it has become a «
falsified hypothesis», until such time that the falsification can be refuted with
empirical evidence.