No, I understand just fine thanks. That his claims are true in X cases but not i

No, I understand just fine thanks. That his claims are true in X cases but not in Y cases simply demonstrates that the system is incomplete. It’s not that it’s pseudoscience so to speak (as some call it) but it’s certainly a case of ‘it sure looks like applying a rule outside of the limits of it’s explanatory power’.

Attempting to claim an insufficient theory beyond it’s explanatory or evidentiary power is in fact pseudoscience. Because what does science mean? The production of testifiable testimony about that which is beyond our intersubjectively verifiable apprehension.

Look at what I wrote already. Seek to understand. Don’t assume you are correct. Always seek to falsify yourself just as much as. you seek to falsify others. And put falsification ahead of justification in your investment in the potential of a concept.

-Affections.

Reply addressees: @controscience