"Falsifiability means that a hypothesis is only true as long as no evidence has been found to disprove it. A proper scientific hypothesis must be capable of being disproved. This means that scientific theories are never absolutely proven, but the more evidence we have to support them, the more sure we are they are true. Hypotheses are often reviewed, and may be discarded, when new evidence is found. Of course, the process involves debate and counter argument as new struggles against old. Few experiments can be as clear-cut as we would like, and it takes time to build up conclusive evidence." http://www.nhm.ac.uk...ntific-process/
You keep accusing me of fallacies when I don't believe you understand what those fallacies are. Nothing I have said is an argument from ignorance at all.
When you claim that evidence will be found in the future, then that is an argument to the future fallacy.
When you make arguments relating to X person and how great X person is then that is an argument from authority
Now, you claimed the following...
Since falsifiability means that a hypothesis is only true as long as no evidence has been found to disprove it you would be a creationist hero.
In science it is standard practice to not claim something as true, (for the same reasons why you don't use proof as I mentioned to you earlier).
To claim something is true is to assume that there can be no new evidence which will change that position, hence to do so destroys the plasticity of science to incorporate new data. In fact it sets a paradigm whereby future evidence will only be viewed under the assumption that X is true...
Now when you claim that a hypothesis is true unless found to be false this is not true, a hypothesis is SUPPORTED, but not only that it is SUPPORTED after being TESTED by experimentation.. Experimentation that seeks to falsify the hypothesis. Hence your clumsy wording did amount to an argument from ignorance.
Had you said the following, (or something similar)
'a hypothesis is only supported as long as it is tested by experimentation and is not falsified by said test'
Then I'd have no problems with your claim...
Absolute dating methods could be falsified if you could show the rate of decay is not constant.
Then those methods are falsified
After poring over the data, engineers and physicists noted a recurring pattern 33 days long that affected the decay rates of the various radioactive substances. That’s a pattern that corresponds to the rotation of the Sun’s core. Which got the physicists to thinking that maybe the sun was involved. But the only explanation that makes sense would be solar neutrinos — which leads to a result that means, as one of the researchers observed, “What we’re suggesting is that something that doesn’t really interact with anything is changing something that can’t be changed.”
But that assumption was challenged in an unexpected way by a group of researchers from Purdue University who at the time were more interested in random numbers than nuclear decay. (Scientists use long strings of random numbers for a variety of calculations, but they are difficult to produce, since the process used to produce the numbers has an influence on the outcome.)
Ephraim Fischbach, a physics professor at Purdue, was looking into the rate of radioactive decay of several isotopes as a possible source of random numbers generated without any human input. (A lump of radioactive cesium-137, for example, may decay at a steady rate overall, but individual atoms within the lump will decay in an unpredictable, random pattern. Thus the timing of the random ticks of a Geiger counter placed near the cesium might be used to generate random numbers.)
As the researchers pored through published data on specific isotopes, they found disagreement in the measured decay rates – odd for supposed physical constants.
Checking data collected at Brookhaven National Laboratory on Long Island and the Federal Physical and Technical Institute in Germany, they came across something even more surprising: long-term observation of the decay rate of silicon-32 and radium-226 seemed to show a small seasonal variation. The decay rate was ever so slightly faster in winter than in summer.
Was this fluctuation real, or was it merely a glitch in the equipment used to measure the decay, induced by the change of seasons, with the accompanying changes in temperature and humidity?
"Everyone thought it must be due to experimental mistakes, because we're all brought up to believe that decay rates are constant," Sturrock said.
The sun speaks
On Dec 13, 2006, the sun itself provided a crucial clue, when a solar flare sent a stream of particles and radiation toward Earth. Purdue nuclear engineer Jere Jenkins, while measuring the decay rate of manganese-54, a short-lived isotope used in medical diagnostics, noticed that the rate dropped slightly during the flare, a decrease that started about a day and a half before the flare.
If this apparent relationship between flares and decay rates proves true, it could lead to a method of predicting solar flares prior to their occurrence, which could help prevent damage to satellites and electric grids, as well as save the lives of astronauts in space.
The decay-rate aberrations that Jenkins noticed occurred during the middle of the night in Indiana – meaning that something produced by the sun had traveled all the way through the Earth to reach Jenkins' detectors. What could the flare send forth that could have such an effect?
Jenkins and Fischbach guessed that the culprits in this bit of decay-rate mischief were probably solar neutrinos, the almost weightless particles famous for flying at almost the speed of light through the physical world – humans, rocks, oceans or planets – with virtually no interaction with anything.
Then, in a series of papers published in Astroparticle Physics, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research and Space Science Reviews, Jenkins, Fischbach and their colleagues showed that the observed variations in decay rates were highly unlikely to have come from environmental influences on the detection systems.
Reason for suspicion
Their findings strengthened the argument that the strange swings in decay rates were caused by neutrinos from the sun. The swings seemed to be in synch with the Earth's elliptical orbit, with the decay rates oscillating as the Earth came closer to the sun (where it would be exposed to more neutrinos) and then moving away.
So there was good reason to suspect the sun, but could it be proved?
Enter Peter Sturrock, Stanford professor emeritus of applied physics and an expert on the inner workings of the sun. While on a visit to the National Solar Observatory in Arizona, Sturrock was handed copies of the scientific journal articles written by the Purdue researchers.
Sturrock knew from long experience that the intensity of the barrage of neutrinos the sun continuously sends racing toward Earth varies on a regular basis as the sun itself revolves and shows a different face, like a slower version of the revolving light on a police car. His advice to Purdue: Look for evidence that the changes in radioactive decay on Earth vary with the rotation of the sun. "That's what I suggested. And that's what we have done."
Going back to take another look at the decay data from the Brookhaven lab, the researchers found a recurring pattern of 33 days. It was a bit of a surprise, given that most solar observations show a pattern of about 28 days – the rotation rate of the surface of the sun.
The explanation? The core of the sun – where nuclear reactions produce neutrinos – apparently spins more slowly than the surface we see. "It may seem counter-intuitive, but it looks as if the core rotates more slowly than the rest of the sun," Sturrock said.
All of the evidence points toward a conclusion that the sun is "communicating" with radioactive isotopes on Earth, said Fischbach.
But there's one rather large question left unanswered. No one knows how neutrinos could interact with radioactive materials to change their rate of decay.
"It doesn't make sense according to conventional ideas," Fischbach said. Jenkins whimsically added, "What we're suggesting is that something that doesn't really interact with anything is changing something that can't be changed."
"It's an effect that no one yet understands," agreed Sturrock. "Theorists are starting to say, 'What's going on?' But that's what the evidence points to. It's a challenge for the physicists and a challenge for the solar people too."
If the mystery particle is not a neutrino, "It would have to be something we don't know about, an unknown particle that is also emitted by the sun and has this effect, and that would be even more remarkable," Sturrock said.