…people without a fundamental agreement as to the essential necessity of falsifiability and the inherent willingness to concede one’s position based on the provision of substantive evidence cannot come to agreement.

I have never seen this complex idea stated so concisely before (though I had to read that sentence a couple times before I understood it!)

Thank you for putting into words an idea I could barely formulate, let alone put in writing.

This is very important, particularly in conversations like this one. Without everyone’s agreement on a logical foundation, the conversation will get nowhere. I fear that’s what this discussion has evolved into.

Andy

it identifies this set of distinct observations as a class of phenomena, and

makes assertions about the underlying reality that brings about or affects this class.

In the scientific or empirical tradition, the term “theory” is reserved for ideas which meet baseline requirements about the kinds of empirical observations made, the methods of classification used, and the consistency of the theory in its application among members of the class to which it pertains. These requirements vary across different scientific fields of knowledge, but in general theories are expected to be functional and parsimonious: i.e. a theory should be the simplest possible tool that can be used to effectively address the given class of phenomena.

You solidify my point with each post. I was born and raised a Christian.  I have studied the bible and early Christian history.  I have studied evolution including reading Darwin and Dawkins extensively (among others).  Many in my family, including my most cherished loved ones are Christians and some would consider themselves creationists.  I make an effort to never preconceive or judge.  My point is that we cannot discuss this because your reality and mine are not in the same realm.   My facts are not your facts.  But what is certain, is that you are not up to date with the facts of evolution – and Dawkins, I dare say, would shutter to hear you imply in the way that you have, that he is open to the idea of an intelligent designer.  Well, that’s not completely correct, I’m guessing that his mind is open to the notion, but he could make an extensive list of examples of stunningly unintelligent designs. Have you read The Greatest Show on Earth? Clearly not. Regardless, we are all prone to cognitive errors: thus the role of science.  To quote Carl Sagan: “…the reason science works so well is partly that built-in error-correcting machinery.  There are no forbidden questions in science, no matters too sensitive or delicate to be probed, no sacred truths. That openness to new ideas, combined with the most rigorous, skeptical scrutiny of all ideas, sifts the wheat from the chaff.  It makes no difference how smart, august, or beloved you are. You must prove your case in the face of determined, expert criticism. Diversity and debate are valued. Opinions are encouraged to contend – substantively and in depth.” Indeed! Again I must emphasize the importance of the notion that people without a fundamental agreement as to the essential necessity of falsifiability and the inherent willingness to concede one’s position based on the provision of substantive evidence cannot come to agreement.  What is substantive? – Ah, therein lies the rub.