You don’t need to disprove the Omphalos or any unfalsifiable premise to talk about microwave background radiation or any other physical phenomena, and I never said so. Assuming X is false, implicitly or explicitly, does not mean X is disproven.
So the incorrect fact score remains 0-4. The one with the lowest score wins. Not sure if you’re going to make it....
You don’t need to disprove the Omphalos or any unfalsifiable premise to talk about microwave background radiation or any other physical phenomena, and I never said so
Wow, your memory is worse than your scorekeeping.
You said unequivocally that an unfalsifiable would have to be proven false in order for something falsifiable to be proven true.
This is just flat out wrong.
The idea of "proving an unfalsifiable false" is raw nonsense.
What fact is being predicated?
You understand I directly linked to your comment, with a highlighted exert and everything 3 messages ago.
Is your reading comprehension and memory that bad?
I mean, I’m not predicating anything.
You don’t need to disprove the Omphalos or any unfalsifiable premise to talk about microwave background radiation or any other physical phenomena, and I never said so. Assuming X is false, implicitly or explicitly, does not mean X is disproven.
So the incorrect fact score remains 0-4. The one with the lowest score wins. Not sure if you’re going to make it....
Wow, your memory is worse than your scorekeeping.
You said unequivocally that an unfalsifiable would have to be proven false in order for something falsifiable to be proven true.
This is just flat out wrong.
The idea of "proving an unfalsifiable false" is raw nonsense.