Inflation invictus
Let us examine the words. First I say ...
It seems to me that Mozina has an extremely restrictive view of how science should be done: "Anything that cannot be done in a controlled laboratory experiment is not science" certainly seems to be his fundamental view of how science should be done.
To which the worthy adversary responds ...
That is actually more of a strawman than an accurate reflection of my statements.
OK, "
strawman":
... an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. Of course I can only guess from the words, which is why I say it "seems" to me, but we now have it explicitly from the source that it is a misrepresentation of his position to declare that he accepts
only controlled laboratory experiments as a criterion for determining what is or is not
scientific. Fair enough.
So I go on ...
Inflation is a testable hypothesis. ...
To which my worthy adversary responds (emphasis is
mine) ...
False. It's gone now, so no experiment on Earth will ever verify it, and nothing could possibly falsify it. All it's "predictions" were all postdictions, and every "failure" just results on a new inflation model. It's the ultimate in unfalsifiable theories.
Well, the strawman rises like a phoenix from the fire, but this time it's not me who is saying it. By your own words to declare that you will accept only an Earth bound, controlled laboratory experiment to determine the scientific validity of inflation. So you now explicitly adopt the strawman of yourself as yourself?
But the remainder of my own statement from above continued ...
Your assertion to the contrary, as an excuse for declaring it unscientific is a factually false statement. See, i.e.,
Mikheeva, 2008;
Lesgourgues & Valkenburg, 2007;
Alabidi & Lyth, 2006;
Lidsey & Seery, 2006 ...
Liddle, 1999.
So I provide you with
explicit and
specific references to the testability of the inflation hypothesis, in keeping with
your own declared source for the scientific method ...
Note that the necessity of experiment also implies that a theory must be testable. Theories which cannot be tested, because, for instance, they have no observable ramifications (such as, a particle whose characteristics make it unobservable), do not qualify as scientific theories.
You ignore the references as if they did not even exist, and simply declare your hard position that an Earth bound laboratory experiment is an absolute requirement. But I note for the record that your own declared source for your own interpretation of the scientific method does not say what you say it says. It requires
testability, but it does not require
testability only in an Earth bound laboratory experiment.
I can only conclude from this that you have successfully misrepresented yourself. I expect you will now post a message taking yourself to task severely for this egregious strawman argument?
I stand by what I said, until there is a better reason than this to change my mind:
Inflation is a testable hypothesis. That is a solid and immutable fact that no amount of squirming can escape. Indeed, not only is it testable,
it has been tested, and it has thus far passed the tests.
