It would probably be kinder to let this thread quietly die but...

Shimrod
When I think about "falsifiability", though, I seem to end up 'chasing-my-own-tail' - which probably means that I don't understand it(?)

Steve Shaw
I challenge Snail to pick out and précis the aforementioned words of wisdom in plain English. I won't be holding my breath.

It's quite simple really. In order to be considered valid science, a theory must be testable. It must be possible to be able to think of a test that could prove the theory wrong i.e. it must be falsifiable. The classic example is "All swans are white.", a perfectly reasonable assumption by someone in the Northern Hemisphere up to a few hundred years ago. This is a perfectly respectable scientific statement because it is easy to think of a way of disproving it; find a swan that isn't white. The fact that travel broadens the mind and Europeans did discover that not all swans are white is not really the point, it is simply that the test was conceivable.

I have had this sort of thing drummed into me throughout my scientific education and I'm rather surprised that the two of you seem to find it such a mystery. As far as I am concerned, it is not, as Steve would have it, "in the land of the philosophical airy-fairies" but central to the scientific method.

For further reading, this Falsifiability looks quite good. The Wikipedia page it refers to is flawed but has its heart in the right place.

Shimrod
Nevertheless, I see the primary point of this thread, and its predecessor, to be about challenging the Creationist world view. And that should be challenged not primarily because it is ascientific (which it most definitely is!) but because it poses profound dangers to freedom - freedom of thought and freedom of action; it's a narrow-minded (understatement of the year!), deeply restrictive and deeply unimaginative view of the world. Because it is so appealing to certain politicians in the West (particularly in the US)it poses a great danger to us all. I suspect that a world dominated by a Creationist world view would be a profoundly oppressive one.

Fair enough, but I'm a little unclear as to what you are going to challenge creationism with if you consider the philosophy of science to be a bit of a side issue. Steve Shaw seems to think that personal abuse, sarcasm and scorn are sufficient. This particular strand of thought began when TIA said "what sets science apart from religion is that science is *always* provisional.", a statement that Steve Shaw describes as "woolly". What, may I ask, sets science apart from religion as far as you are concerned? (Either of you.)

" ... or continually asserting the "truth" of evolution."

As if that were a bad thing to do (leaving aside Snail's Popperian objections, that is)!

Previously from Shimrod
Science is not a dogmatic assertion of faith and 'absolute truth' but a method for exploring and understanding the Universe, based on experiment and evidence.

Well, I suppose we're all allowed to change our minds. Unfortunately, if you leave aside the "Popperian objections", (not mine) then youi invalidate the scientific evidence in the McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education trial of 1982 (ref. here http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mclean-v-arkansas.html in case you missed it.) allowing the creationists to win. Is that what you want?