good science?

[ncel]

	If you can separate "philosophy of science" from "science, " 
there must be something wrong with either the philosophy or the science. 
The examples you quote are cases where scientific inquiry has led to 
results that are almost certain (99.999%, for example). They could, 
nevertheless, be falsified (in the Popperian sense) by one new finding, 
which in these cases, of course, is less likely than winning that 500 
Million dollar prize. Take evolution, for example, which people have 
claimed to be non-falsifiable. Nonsense. Every time a paleontologist 
diggs for fossils, there is a chance that he might find dinosaur 
footprints together with human ones (as is falsely claimed by some 
of our detractors). Everytime, this does NOT happen (or something 
similarly incongruent), evolution "theory" gets another boost and 
increases the likelihood of its correctness which, by now, is 
overwhelming. But I must agree with "Saint" Popper that scientific 
knowledge is never 100% sure, but that it approaches that ideal in 
many cases by only an infinitimely small fraction of 1%. What other human 
endeavor can you say that about?? Therefore, here is to Science!!!
           Ted Diener