Please give a definition for science with your intuition

Science explains things

Science is the study of our environment to better understand it.

Religion explains things in its own way.
So religion is science?

Depends Ori on what's meant by "explains"

I immediately thought of the word "falsifiable", which (if it does nothing else) means my time spent reading Karl Popper was not entirely wasted.

Of coarse it's 'falsifiable.' That's the reason science is dependable; it continues to correct misinformation of the past.

You can try to correct any scientific theory; please present your evidence of any present scientific finding that you can falsify?

That was exactly my point. The philosopher of science Karl Popper stressed the problem of demarcation (distinguishing the scientific from the unscientific) and makes falsifiability (or verifiability) the demarcation criterion, such that what is unfalsifiable is classified as unscientific, and the practice of declaring an unfalsifiable theory to be scientifically true is pseudoscience.


This is not what I was saying. You are missing the point. Popper was saying that a theory which can conceivably be disproved can be classified "scientific". It doesn't have to be "right". 'Intelligent Design' would be classed as scientific, because it has a falsifiable hypothesis, however weak.


It seems to me (see above) that you possibly did not understand what I wrote.

In your context (and Popper's), you really didn't share anything new. Your lone statement that it's 'falsifiable' didn't reveal anything new, but gave the impression all science was falsifiable. It isn't.

Like what, for example?

That science is falsifiable is inherent in science. Any scientific theory that can be 'falsified' is revised as needed. We can only rely on the most current investigations that have revised past scientific theories that were found to be false.

Here are some examples.
http://www.famousscientists.org/10-most-famous-scientific-theories-that-were-later-debunked/

No indeed; Popper began grappling with the brawl between “when is theory scientific” and “what is the criteria for the scientific character of theory” in the fall of 1919.

Once again you reveal how comprehensively you are missing the point. You seem to be barking up the wrong tree, or rather, up a lamp post under the impression it is a tree.

For an overview you could read:

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Thomas M Kuhn 1962)
The Logic of Scientific Discovery (Karl Popper 1934)

When you post on a public forum, and don't make it clear what you mean, the readers are going to assume the message from the one sentence message that you post. Ten year olds know better!

Never heard of Popper, and don't care to read up on Kuhn. Why don't you go **** yourself!