Creationists, Flat-Earthers, Anti-Vaxxers.... People who reject science.

those examples youve presented are merely dodging the issue and you know it. The point was what makes you accept a round earth v d enial of the bases for Continental Drift(when each are easily proven from available evidence)

You worked yourself into that corner and Id like to keep you there until you answer the actual question on the table.

Quote:

Reason and logic and mechanics and critical thinking are more important than fact-memorization. Lots of people can pass a science class by memorizing facts and choosing the right multiple-choice answer; or by applying a mathematical formula correctly; but that doesn't mean they are thinking scientifically or that they ever will, for that matter

Might I say that, speaking on the side of science. Neither Fact memorization and critical thinking hve nothing in common without UNDERSTANDING.

Quote:

I've read Karl Popper on falsificationism.

It can be a powerful tool whether or not you think Popper was off his feed or not.
"Falsification" (Or , more often, "field testing" our hypotheses) has shown to be especially powerful in paleontology an understanings of evolution of species .

For example, one of the best recent examples of the application of "Field testing a hypotheses" was the following,
TWO paleo scientists asked the question that
"If specific types of fishes were the common ancestors of amphibians, then , there should be fossils of these common ancestors located in geological strata in a very tight time zone of the mid Devonian and they should be located in a shallow fresh water sedimentary environment"
So they tested the hypothesis by identifying three specific environment types of this type of sedimentary rock. Three years after they began the search, they did find such a fossil that represents one of several species of proto amphibians . Later, more species of similar fish were found in the same environment and rock dates. The combined fetures of these types of fish are unique to environments that were seasonally drying sorts of pre Carboniferous "strut" formations. The evidence of evolutionary adaptation to a more arid or swampy environment was a valid conclusion.

Not finding such species would have been harmful to the hypotheses because
either
1The whole hypothesis was incorrect (hence it was found to be false)

2OR, fossilization didnt occur in those typs and /or dates of these specific formations.

Consequently, I think, for achieving some better understanding about the "engines" of Continental Drift you could be helped a gret deal by looking at all the data objectively rather than drawing conclusions from a story that you cooked up yourself and are a bit too proud to abandon. THEN , treat this data (especially isothermal maps) as a "field test". Make a working statement that starts with

"If my hypothesis is so then I should see the following ..."

Have you seen A Fish Called Wanda? Otto has read Nietzsche, but he's still a bloody idiot.

you can go on deriving falsifiable tests from a theory in a way that will fail so you can claim that the theory has stood up to falsifiability repeatedly. In other words, you can claim that a theory has withstood falsification repeatedly to achieve the same effect as deriving tests to support it repeatedly.

I am applying the laws of thermodynamics to inductively search for ways that energy moves through the Earth system

Let's say I took something that I speculated about, such as the possibility that sludge pushed under the continental shelf by the subducting plate is pushed beyond the volcanic veins that lead to the surface and ends up flowing laterally and/or downward where the rock pressure above it is too strong for it to force material upward as occurs at the volcano sites.

Thus deflecting criticism away from the company who are the real culprits.

Quote:

you can go on deriving falsifiable tests from a theory in a way that will fail so you can claim that the theory has stood up to falsifiability repeatedly. In other words, you can claim that a theory has withstood falsification repeatedly to achieve the same effect as deriving tests to support it repeatedly.

What you hve no clue about is that the process of falsification procedures are NOT YOURS TO CLAIM VALIDITY. You may propose anything you wish, but theres a gazillion real scientists out there who can open a discussion and rach a conclusion about what it is you propose. Dont get too full of yourself.

Quote:

I am applying the laws of thermodynamics to inductively search for ways that energy moves through the Earth system

All you are doing is using the word Thermodynamics to sound scientistic. You have presented NOTHING that even is in the same nighborhood as real thermo. PUHLEESE stop trying to sound like yo even know how to go about it.

Quote:

Let's say I took something that I speculated about, such as the possibility that sludge pushed under the continental shelf by the subducting plate is pushed beyond the volcanic veins that lead to the surface and ends up flowing laterally and/or downward where the rock pressure above it is too strong for it to force material upward as occurs at the volcano sites.

Youre just talking gibberish do you know that? . As far as asking me to validate your "method of falsification", Youre just back making up a hash of semi technical sounding terms.
You're so far from understanding the mechanisms that go on and how we know (and, how you SHOULD know if yo wish to sound half smart).
Im not gonna waste any further words on giving your word crap any credibility. If you cant take time to learn the facts , then why not jut hang out in your basement and play e-games. You are getting very close to doing double talk like some old comedians. Im not your foil and by even answering you I think people may think that Im giving you cred and Im not.

Youve got too much to learn to be able to discuss things that dont occur and the data that shows it as so.

Maybe someone else will be kinder, I hate defiant ignorance.

When someone doesnt know shot about a subject but maks believe they do and then tries to play with a few illogically arranged technical terms (just so they sound like they would have us believe that your a boy genius in the subject).

Ive been grading too many "blue books" in grad school comps to know where its obvious that the correspondent is bluffing their way through a test. YOU are bluffing your way through this entire discussion. Please Go away , or start reading a beginning text in Physical Geology and then take up a library copy of Continents and Supercontinents nand pleeeeeze read it (at least chapters 1 through 6. Itll be eye opening to you and youll be really embarrassed at how dumb youve sounded herein.