"Philosophy" is not univocal term. Generally, philosophy (of) can be taken to be thinking about the thinking about a subject matter, the of implying considerations bespoke to the subject matter.

You're an engineer. If you're building a bridge, you have for that exact task little or no need for any thinking about thinking; you merely need to think about the engineering. As to a "philosophy of" bridge building, that could cover anything and everything about the bridge and building it not part of the engineering. And that could cover a lot of ground.

As to science, as (I suspect) with engineering, science is not a thing but a method, a process with waypoints. The philosophy of science is thinking about the process(es) of science and its intermediate steps and purposes. A scientist who does science by following out appropriately the steps of his science has no immediate need of a philosophy of his science. But at some point he ought to reflect on what he is doing, else lacking that reflection, he become merely a cook following a recipe.

On the other hand, much so-called philosophy forgets to "bake bread." It can get lost in itself. Perhaps graphically, engineering (or science) has one over-all field of meaning, and philosophy a different field. To some degree they overlap, like circles in a Venn diagram. It is fitting to consider the area of overlap, at least at times and when appropriate. But to cross over into the other circle is a mistake if done in ignorance or without intention. A philosopher is not an engineer; an engineer not a philosopher, although engineers and all kinds of people can the more easily fool themselves into thinking they're philosophers.

But to be sure, if you're a student and wonder about the philosophy of your area of study, then best to approach your instructors or even your department. Someone there will be - had better be or you need a better school - willing to take you seriously and give you good information.

Still, I am interested more on the Philosophy of Science, I want to understand more the activity we call Science, why hypothesis like God's existence are not considered scientific. I do not feel confident to read Popper's The Logic of Scientific Discovery, but, after all, what is actually science? — Jorge

It depends who you ask, different people give different definitions for science. I'll try to explain why as best I can.

Many people have attempted to define precisely what science is, to find precise criteria that allow to say whether a hypothesis or theory or practice is scientific or not. But all the definitions they have found fail in some way: either they classify as 'scientific' some hypotheses or theories or practices that are widely considered to be unscientific, or they classify as 'unscientific' some hypotheses/theories/practices that are widely considered to be scientific. This is known in the philosophy of science as the "problem of demarcation".

Popper's criterion of falsifiability fails in that many theories which are widely considered to be scientific are in fact not falsifiable. This is because when an observation appears to contradict a theory, the theory doesn't have to be considered falsified, rather the theory can always be saved by assuming that the difference between observation and theory is due to an effect that wasn't accounted for in applying the theory. For instance, when Uranus was found to move in a way that didn't match Newton's theory of gravitation, Newton's theory could have been considered falsified, or it could be assumed that there was an unaccounted-for effect, an undetected planet that was responsible for the difference between prediction and observation.

As it turns out that undetected planet was eventually detected, it's called Neptune, but even if no such planet was ever found, it could still be assumed there was an invisible undetected planet that is responsible for Uranus' unusual motion, so even if that planet wasn't found the theory wouldn't have been falsified. We have a similar situation these days: stars in galaxies do not move in the way that Einstein's theory of general relativity predicts, but that doesn't falsify the theory, because the theory can be saved by assuming there is invisible matter that is responsible for the discrepancy, and this is what was done: they call it dark matter. And that invisible matter has never been detected.

So when you take that into account, you realize that it's not precise criteria that determine whether a theory is falsified or not, it is people themselves, so-called scientists, based on their own desires: if they want to continue working on the theory then they can always save it from falsification, and if they want to stop working on it they call it falsified and they move on to some alternative. Theories that are called scientific cannot be falsified if scientists decide to not consider them falsified. So if we say that a scientific theory is a theory that can be falsified, and an unscientific theory is a theory that cannot be falsified, then that means it is scientists themselves who decide whether a theory is scientific or not, not based on precise criteria but based on their own desires!

And so the state of affairs is that we have a group of people, who call themselves scientists, who decide more or less arbitrarily which hypotheses/theories/practices are scientific and which aren't, in other words which ones are worthy of consideration and which ones aren't. Which is quite far from the scientific ideal that is sold to people, wherein supposedly science is this precisely defined thing that has authority over non-science because it follows precise principles that non-science doesn't follow.

And then to answer your other question, the hypothesis of God's existence could be considered scientific, but the community of people who call themselves scientists choose to consider it unscientific, because they choose to consider that no observation or experience can be interpreted as evidence of God's existence. On the other hand they choose to consider the hypothesis of dark matter's existence to be scientific, because they choose to interpret some observations as evidence of it, even though one could very well choose to consider that no observation can be interpreted as evidence of dark matter's existence. There is a double standard there.

People who call themselves scientists choose to believe in dark matter but not in God, not because there is evidence for dark matter and not for God, but because they choose on their own to interpret observations as evidence of dark matter and no observation as evidence of God, that's all it boils down to. Then these people use their position of authority to tell others what to believe and what not to believe in, and to ostracize/ridicule those who believe differently. That's the scientific attitude.

Is "scientific" the right term for the attitude of people who think that there are reasons why things work the way they do, and that with careful examination and experimentation those reasons can be determined?

I think I have a scientific attitude, even though there is a VAST amount of science I don't know anything about. But my attitude is that effects have causes. Things don't "just happen" without something happening somewhere.

Read Feynman's the Character of Physical Law. There are videos on it as well I will post later along with a few other observations

I understand your point. It is true that philosophy is something quite far from engineering, and that it is dangerous, if not incorrect, to go into the other field without knowledge and the appropriate way of thinking. But the point in the Venn Diagramm where they both overlap is what I consider philosophy of science and philosophy of engineering, i. e. engineering ethics and similar. As to science, I think what I mean is in fact that "recipe" you mentioned on how to do science. I have a relatively low background on science, questions like what science aims, the Demarcation Problem of Popper and similar issues are I think important for a more scientific way of thinking for me.

Still, I am interested more on the Philosophy of Science, I want to understand more the activity we call Science, why hypothesis like God's existence are not considered scientific. I do not feel confident to read Popper's The Logic of Scientific Discovery, but, after all, what is actually science? — Jorge

Science is every proposition that can be justified by experimental testing.

Science is an epistemic domain, i.e. all knowledge that can be reached and justified with a particular epistemic method. God's existence is considered not a scientific question, in the sense that the scientific method cannot reach it in order to justify an answer.

Every epistemic method generates its own epistemic domain that does not intersect with other epistemic domains: mathematics, science, history, epistemology itself, and possibly other methods.

The "scientific method." It's pretty straight forward.

God's existence is considered not a scientific question, in the sense that the scientific method cannot reach it in order to justify an answer. — alcontali

I mentioned above how that idea is flawed. Any observation has to be interpreted in order to say whether it is evidence of something. Scientists would say that the existence of subatomic particles is a scientific question, even though they don't see these particles, they only interpret observations in terms of these particles, while assuming their existence. They could very well interpret observations in terms of God, while assuming his existence, they simply choose not to, based on their personal desires/beliefs.

I mentioned above how that idea is flawed. Any observation has to be interpreted in order to say whether it is evidence of something. — leo

Arbitrary observations cannot be used for the purpose of validating scientific theories. It is not possible to establish causality between input and output without strictly controlling input. Furthermore, other researchers must be able to repeat the experimental tests in order to verify the claim. That is why only observations in a laboratory setting may be used in such experimental test reports.

Your views are far outside what is supported by the scientific method.

If rationality, which is hopefully everyone's goal, is a picture of a group of models, science is basically the most beautiful one among them.

Why?

There's a harmony in her form.

Arbitrary observations cannot be used for the purpose of validating scientific theories. It is not possible to establish causality between input and output without strictly controlling input. — alcontali

How do you address my comment about subatomic particles, are you implying scientists strictly control subatomic particles?

Furthermore, other researchers must be able to repeat the experimental tests in order to verify the claim. That is why only observations in a laboratory setting may be used in such experimental test reports. — alcontali

That doesn't address what I said. Sure researchers can see repeatedly that stars do not move the way they should according to Einstein's theory, that doesn't imply dark matter exists. If you say it does, then people can equally say that such or such repeated observation implies that God exists, because they have a theory that says that we wouldn't make this observation in the absence of God.

Your views are far outside what is supported by the scientific method. — alcontali

I don't agree there is such a thing as "the scientific method". Whatever method you have in mind, there are plenty of examples of scientists who didn't follow that method when they built their theory (yet their theories are considered to be 'scientific'), or there are plenty of examples of theories/practices that follow that method and yet are considered to be 'unscientific'.

Try something like Philosophy of Science: The Central Issues, edited by Curd, Cover and Peacock. You might want to see if you can get it from a library, though. As something primarily used as a textbook, it's not cheap to buy, although it's actually not priced bad compared to typical textbook prices.

How do you address my comment about subatomic particles, are you implying scientists strictly control subatomic particles? — leo

Can you link to any particular publication in order to clarify what it is about?

I don't agree there is such a thing as "the scientific method". — leo

The scientific method is an empirical method of acquiring knowledge that has characterized the development of science since at least the 17th century. It involves careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation. It involves formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations; experimental and measurement-based testing of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings. These are principles of the scientific method, as distinguished from a definitive series of steps applicable to all scientific enterprises.

Knowledge, as a justified belief, is justified with standard epistemic methods, whereunder the scientific one.

Whatever method you have in mind, there are plenty of examples of scientists who didn't follow that method when they built their theory (yet their theories are considered to be 'scientific'), or there are plenty of examples of theories/practices that follow that method and yet are considered to be 'unscientific'. — leo

Can you give concrete examples for your view?

Can you link to any particular publication in order to clarify what it is about? — alcontali

You're saying the existence of God is not a scientific question, based on some criteria, I'm saying that by the same criteria the existence of subatomic particles is not a scientific question, yet as you must know they are fundamental constituents in theories of fundamental physics, so there is a double standard in saying one is scientific and the other isn't.

The scientific method is an empirical method of acquiring knowledge that has characterized the development of science since at least the 17th century. It involves careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation. It involves formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations; experimental and measurement-based testing of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings. These are principles of the scientific method, as distinguished from a definitive series of steps applicable to all scientific enterprises. — alcontali

Great, a copy-paste from Wikipedia where some dude has written a definition for "the scientific method". The question isn't whether people out there have given a definition for "the scientific method", the question is whether all that we call science follows "the scientific method", and all that we call non-science doesn't follow "the scientific method", whether "the scientific method" characterizes what we call science. I say there is no such thing as "the scientific method" in the sense that it doesn't characterize what we call science, because it also characterizes some of what we call non-science.

With this definition of "the scientific method", you can very well consider the existence of God as a scientific question, by "formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on careful observations; experimental and measurement-based testing of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings".

You're saying we can't observe God, well we can't observe subatomic particles or dark matter either. However some people interpret some observations as evidence for subatomic particles or dark matter, and some other people interpret some observations as evidence of God.

I'm saying that by the same criteria the existence of subatomic particles is not a scientific question, — leo

It depends what subatomic particles it is about.

Chemistry makes extensive use of the subatomic structure of electrons, and atom nucleus in terms of protons and neutrons. It is ancient stuff that dates back to the 19th century. It is considered solid stuff at the chemical scale.

The closer you get to the Planck scale, the less solid the theories, which are often merely conjectures. However, that does not mean that all subatomic theories are just fantasies that have never been tested experimentally.

Great, a copy-paste from Wikipedia where some dude has written a definition for "the scientific method". — leo

It is equivalent to the definition in Encyclopaedia Britannica and elsewhere. There is certainly a consensus that the scientific method requires experimental testing.

Science is the collection of all statements that can be tested experimentally. Science is an epistemic domain.

With this definition of "the scientific method", you can very well consider the existence of God as a scientific question — leo

Propose an experiment that you will carry out and that other people will be able to repeat. If it is possible to do that, then the question is within reach of the scientific method. Otherwise, it isn't. For example, you cannot propose an experiment to figure out in a laboratory in what year Napoleon's Battle of Waterloo took place. That question is simply not within reach of the scientific method.

I say there is no such thing as "the scientific method" in the sense that it doesn't characterize what we call science, because it also characterizes some of what we call non-science. — leo

If it can be tested experimentally, then it is science. Can you give an example of a theory that can be tested experimentally and that is not considered science?

You're saying we can't observe God — leo

I did not say that. I just don't see what laboratory-based, experimental test would say anything worthwhile on the matter. Science is not the only epistemic domain. If your only tool is a hammer, then the whole world will soon start looking like a nail.

Chemistry makes extensive use of the subatomic structure of electrons, and atom nucleus in terms of protons and neutrons. It is ancient stuff that dates back to the 19th century. It is considered solid stuff at the chemical scale. — alcontali

Electrons have no subatomic structure in chemistry, they are already subatomic. Anyway have you ever seen an electron? Has anyone ever observed an electron? No? Then what makes you think the question of their existence is scientific?

The closer you get to the Planck scale, the less solid the theories, which are often merely conjectures. However, that does not mean that all subatomic theories are just fantasies that have never been tested experimentally. — alcontali

Here we start getting into why that kind of talk about "the scientific method" angers me, because people associate what is labeled 'unscientific' with fantasies, with irrelevant stories we should not believe or rely on, whereas supposedly we should believe what is labeled as 'scientific'. The whole problem is hypotheses/theories/practices are often labeled 'unscientific', and thus as 'fantasies', not because they don't follow "the scientific method" but simply because scientists don't like them.

Propose an experiment that you will carry out and that other people will be able to repeat. If it is possible to do that, then the question is within reach of the scientific method. Otherwise, it isn't. For example, you cannot propose an experiment to figure out in a laboratory in what year Napoleon's Battle of Waterloo took place. That question is simply not within reach of the scientific method. — alcontali

Why do you keep talking about a laboratory, the whole universe is a laboratory, astrophysicists and cosmologists don't physically put planets and stars into a box here on Earth to study them, geologists do not put mountains into a laboratory to observe them, observations happen everywhere, they are an essential part of the so-called scientific method. Any act is an experiment, if you jump and you observe that you fall back to the ground that's an experiment.

How would you figure out what year the battle of Waterloo took place if not through observations and hypotheses?

If it can be tested experimentally, then it is science. Can you give an example of a theory that can be tested experimentally and that is not considered science? — alcontali

What does it mean to test experimentally? It simply means that you do something and expect some result, and compare the result with what you expected.

You can have the theory that the position of planets in the sky has a specific influence on your life that depends on when you were born. You can test experimentally whether what you observe matches what the theory predicts. Is that theory considered science?

I did not say that. I just don't see what laboratory-based, experimental test would say anything worthwhile on the matter. — alcontali

Do you consider like scientists that experiments say anything worthwhile about the existence of dark matter? If you do then that's a double standard, because the situation is parallel with that regarding the existence of God.

Again, scientists decide what they should observe if dark matter exists, and then they carry out experiments to decide about the existence of dark matter. We can just as well decide what we should observe if some God exists, then carry out experiments to decide about the existence of God.

Then when they say that dark matter exists, that it really is out there, but that God doesn't exist or that experiments can't say anything about its existence, that's really quite hypocritical. What it boils down to is they are pushing their belief of what exists and what doesn't, of how the world is and how it isn't, of what we should believe and what we shouldn't, they're simply pushing their world view onto others.

To say that the existence of dark matter is a scientific question but not the existence of God is hypocritical. Either both of them are scientific questions, or neither. But what I say here also applies to the existence of subatomic particles, to the questions of what we are made of, of what we are, of what the universe will be like in the distant future. Scientists do not discover the answers to these questions, they decide them, and then push them as "scientific truth", in other words as what people ought to believe. That's the problem.

the subatomic structure of electrons, and atom nucleus in terms of protons and neutrons — alcontali

Electrons have no subatomic structure in chemistry, they are already subatomic. — leo

Well, I meant to say the subatomic structure [consisting] of ...
Sorry, I did not realize that it sounded so ambiguous.

Why do you keep talking about a laboratory, the whole universe is a laboratory, astrophysicists and cosmologists don't physically put planets and stars into a box here on Earth to study them, geologists do not put mountains into a laboratory to observe them, observations happen everywhere, they are an essential part of the so-called scientific method. — leo

You actually pointed out a real problem. In his seminal publication, Science as Falsification, Karl Popper explicitly allows for predictive models in science:

We all—the small circle of students to which I belong—were thrilled with the result of Eddington's eclipse observations which in 1919 brought the first important confirmation of Einstein's theory of gravitation.

Now the impressive thing about this case is the risk involved in a prediction of this kind. If observation shows that the predicted effect is definitely absent, then the theory is simply refuted. The theory is incompatible with certain possible results of observation—in fact with results which everybody before Einstein would have expected.

I think that this view may be too liberal. Even a broken clock gives the time correctly twice a day.

If predictive power were enough and experimental control of input variables unnecessary, then even so-called technical analysis of stock exchange data would be science. Stock-market technical analysis judiciously enrols previous, historical data to minimize future prediction errors.

I think that predictive modelling may be useful, but it must not be confused with experimental testing. Predictive modelling does not establish causality by strictly controlling inputs. Therefore, it must be considered another epistemic method. Predictive modelling is not science.

Still, I agree with Karl Popper that there was risk involved in Eddington's observation. They did put skin in the game. So, it is not mere cheap conjecturing either.

people associate what is labeled 'unscientific' with fantasies — leo

Agreed. A large number of people, undoubtedly the vast majority, believes in the existence of one single epistemic method, the scientific one. That view is utter nonsense, but nonetheless widespread, especially in the West. The more shoddy the scientific training of a western person, the more likely he will glorify scientism:

Scientism is an ideology that promotes science as the only objective means by which society should determine normative and epistemological values. The term scientism is generally used critically, pointing to the cosmetic application of science in unwarranted situations not amenable to application of the scientific method or similar scientific standards.

The absolutely most stupid people on the globe live in the West. The populace in the West may be moderately more knowledgeable than in third-world countries, but is also much more beholden to patently false beliefs. Combine that with rampant arrogance and the practice of claiming credit for other people's work, who were real intellectuals while they are not, and then you probably understand one of the many reasons why these people are hated by the rest of the planet.

Any act is an experiment, if you jump and you observe that you fall back to the ground that's an experiment. — leo

You still need to write your experimental test report in such a way that another person can repeat your experiment and verify that he obtains the same results. Seriously, there is no experiment if you do not produce a reproducible experimental test report.

How would you figure out what year the battle of Waterloo took place if not through observations and hypotheses? — leo

Claims that historical events really took place are not justified by the scientific method, but by the historical method, which revolves around corroborating witness depositions. There is absolutely no expectation that a third party should be able to reproduce the same event/observation (like in the scientific method):

Gilbert J Garraghan and Jean Delanglez divide source criticism into six inquiries:
When was the source, written or unwritten, produced (date)?
Where was it produced (localization)?
By whom was it produced (authorship)?
From what pre-existing material was it produced (analysis)?
In what original form was it produced (integrity)?
What is the evidential value of its contents (credibility)?

The justification and validation of historical witness reports are dealt with using a very specific, epistemic method: the historical method. I do not see how anybody could confuse this method with the scientific method, which is applied in other circumstances and has other requirements.

You can have the theory that the position of planets in the sky has a specific influence on your life that depends on when you were born. You can test experimentally whether what you observe matches what the theory predicts. Is that theory considered science? — leo

No, because you must put the planets by yourself in a particular position and measure the quantified impact on your life. Next, someone else must put the planets by himself in a particular position and see if he gets another impact.

You first need to find a way to painstakingly move the planets in any arbitrary position of your choice, before scientific theories could be feasible.

Again, scientists decide what they should observe if dark matter exists, and then they carry out experiments to decide about the existence of dark matter. — leo

At this stage, dark matter is merely a conjecture. It is not a theory backed by experimental testing.

Then when they say that dark matter exists, that it really is out there — leo

No, it is just a hypothesis. It is something that they would like to test experimentally, but they haven't figured out how yet.

To say that the existence of dark matter is a scientific question but not the existence of God is hypocritical. — leo

What both questions have in common, is that you would need to design an experimental test setup in order to turn them into scientific theories. Since there is nothing to test, nor any test to repeat by someone else, in order to validate that they get the same results as in your test, there is no legitimate scientific activity possible in either realm.

A scientist is a glorified tester, who carries out his work in a laboratory. If you refuse to say what exactly he should test and how he should test it, there will be nothing to test, and therefore no work to do for a scientist.

In his seminal publication, Science as Falsification, Karl Popper explicitly allows for predictive models in science — alcontali

In my first post I explained how a scientific theory can be not falsifiable if scientists decide not to falsify it, no matter the apparent evidence against it. We have a bunch of scientific theories that are not falsifiable, yet scientists go on and claim that other theories are 'unscientific' because they are not falsifiable. Double standard again.

Even if Eddington's observations could not be doubted, even if there was no possible errors in his measurements, even if his measurements didn't match what the theory predicted, scientists could have still saved Einstein's theory by assuming whatever is needed to save it, for instance that there is dust around the Sun or some undetected thing responsible for the difference between observation and theory. If scientists so decide, whatever theory they like can never be falsified.

You still need to write your experimental test report in such a way that another person can repeat your experiment and verify that he obtains the same results. Seriously, there is no experiment if you do not produce a reproducible experimental test report. — alcontali

I don't agree with that, life is a continuous experiment, people didn't need to write reproducible experimental test reports to come up with tools that allowed them to hunt more easily or to start agriculture, they didn't need test reports to make experiments and create technology.

Even reproducibility is not mentioned in the definition of "scientific method" you quoted. Scientists often talk about the need of an experiment to be reproducible, the funny thing is a lot of experimental results in sciences are reported and taken at face value without ever being reproduced, then a long time later someone decides to try it too and they realize they don't get the same result, but in many cases the experiment doesn't get repeated and scientists assume that they would get the same result if they repeated it.

Also there are some so-called scientific experiments that cannot be reproduced. Think of the large hadron collider, the thousands of people who have worked on it, the numerous models and computer programs and assumptions involved, and as a result the gigantic number of variables needed to describe precisely that experiment, how could that whole experiment ever be precisely reproduced? Then think of the OPERA experiment and their supposed detection of faster-than-light particles, it took them a whole year to realize that they got this result because of a fiber optic cable that was attached improperly, think of all the possible sources of errors in the much more complex large hadron collider and the impossibility of reproducing it precisely, yet scientists call it a scientific experiment.

Also there is an irreducible lack of reproducibility in that by the time an experiment is done again, the universe has changed, nothing forces us to assume that there is such a thing as eternal laws of nature that are valid everywhere forever. The requirement of reproducibility leads to discard a lot of personal and collective reports, to dismiss them as if they never happened, to do so is to wear blinders and focus on a part of the whole, then when they say that their theories describe the whole it's such a hypocrisy.

And consider there are things that are scientifically accepted even though many people do not experience them, for instance tinnitus. The only reason it is accepted is that there are too many people who report having it, if there were only a few it would be much easier to dismiss it as a fantasy.

Scientists are totally inconsistent in the way they label theories as 'scientific' or 'unscientific', they apply the rules they want when it suits them and not when it doesn't, they call 'scientific' the theories they want to keep and 'unscientific' the ones they want to eliminate. Reproducibility and falsifiability are red herrings, they are not what determines why a theory is labeled 'scientific', scientists are the ones who decide that based on their own desires and prejudices. Then they call the 'unscientific' ones fantasies and other derogatory terms (crackpottery, pseudoscience, fairy tales, wrong, ridiculous, bullshit), and scoff at those who want to believe in them or entertain them.

Claims that historical events really took place are not justified by the scientific method, but by the historical method, which revolves around corroborating witness depositions. There is absolutely no expectation that a third party should be able to reproduce the same event/observation (like in the scientific method):

When was the source, written or unwritten, produced (date)?
Where was it produced (localization)?
By whom was it produced (authorship)?
From what pre-existing material was it produced (analysis)?
In what original form was it produced (integrity)?
What is the evidential value of its contents (credibility)?

The justification and validation of historical witness reports are dealt with using a very specific, epistemic method: the historical method. I do not see how anybody could confuse this method with the scientific method, which is applied in other circumstances and has other requirements. — alcontali

To determine when and where the source was produced, by whom, from what, in what form, you have to make observations and hypotheses, and test these hypotheses by comparing them with other observations, I don't see how the requirements are different. The historical event is not what is demanded to be reproduced, but rather the observational and thought process that leads to saying that the event really took place. But then again even the requirement of reproducibility is not applied consistently at all by scientists.

No, because you must put the planets by yourself in a particular position and measure the quantified impact on your life. Next, someone else must put the planets by himself in a particular position and see if he gets another impact.

You first need to find a way to painstakingly move the planets in any arbitrary position of your choice, before scientific theories could be feasible. — alcontali

I don't agree with that, Newton and Einstein didn't need to move the planets in any arbitrary position of their choice to build a theory of how planets influence one another. People can agree on where celestial bodies are in the sky, scientists already do. Scientists model the influence of the Moon and Sun on the tides here on Earth, in what way are they moving the Moon and the Sun?

Why would a theory that models the influence of celestial bodies on Earth tides be scientific, and not a theory that models the influence of celestial bodies on people's lives?

At this stage, dark matter is merely a conjecture. It is not a theory backed by experimental testing. — alcontali

Many scientists say it exists.

Example from Scientific American https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-dark-matter-theory-or/ : "Dark matter is known to exist through the gravitational effect it exerts on visible matter in the universe."

Example from the NASA website https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/review/dr-marc-space/dark-matter.html : "there is more than 50 times more dark matter than bright matter in the universe" , "what exactly is the dark matter made of?"

No, it is just a hypothesis. It is something that they would like to test experimentally, but they haven't figured out how yet. — alcontali

Actually they have done many experiments, and they have failed to detect it. But they don't say the theory is falsified, no no, they say it does exist and they need to make some other experiment to detect it. They could keep going like this forever, and still say it exists, and never falsify it, and still call it science. See the hypocrisy?

What both questions have in common, is that you would need to design an experimental test setup in order to turn them into scientific theories. Since there is nothing to test, nor any test to repeat by someone else, in order to validate that they get the same results as in your test, there is no legitimate scientific activity possible in either realm. — alcontali

But precisely they have designed experiments and performed them, look how many there are! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Experiments_for_dark_matter_search

And again they could do the very same thing with God: say what we should observe in such or such experiment if God exists, and carry out the experiment. But they don't, because double standard, they want to believe in a material universe without God, so they frame their research and theories and reasonings in that way, and that way they're sure to always find matter and never God.

I think there are a bunch of scientific attitudes:
1) let's make sure it's what we think it is by eliminating other possibilities
2) let's do it a lot to make sure it isn't change
3) maybe if this is true then that is true, and that's interesting
4) I wonder what could make it seem that way I haven't thought of
5) I wonder if this and that and those are true, which they seem to be, what is a good way of talking about the whole set of things (iow what's a good model=
6) I love taking things apart and seeing what the pieces do
7) I love putting things together and seeing what happens
8) I love doing things many times
9) I wonder if this pattern follows a formula
10) Anomolies itch like heck and you must scratch them. You can't just let them sit there unexplained.
11) You are curious at least within your area.
12) You need to know if anything is being assumed
13) you enjoy testing things in the minds simulator

[deleted]

On reflection, what I had to say is not on-topic. :blush:

I don't agree with that, life is a continuous experiment, people didn't need to write reproducible experimental test reports to come up with tools that allowed them to hunt more easily or to start agriculture, they didn't need test reports to make experiments and create technology. — leo

This is one of Nassim Taleb's pet peeves:

Theory is born from (convex) practice more often than the reverse (the nonteleological property)

Science is much more about systematizing existing discoveries inside a framework that guards consistency than about making new discoveries.

Scientific research most often just documents what is going on already. In that respect, Taleb writes:

This makes us live in the contradiction that we largely got here to where we are thanks to undirected chance, but we build research programs going forward based on direction and narratives. And, what is worse, we are fully conscious of the inconsistency.

Still, in my opinion, this rigorous systematization and documentation practice is useful in itself.

in many cases the experiment doesn't get repeated and scientists assume that they would get the same result if they repeated it. — leo

Yes, that is the scandal that plagues modern scientific research. Most experimental test reports are not reproducible when someone attempts to. That is one reason why a lot of modern scientific research needs to be taken with a grain of salt. I suspect that the majority of published scientific research is simply not serious.

Scientists are totally inconsistent in the way they label theories as 'scientific' or 'unscientific', they apply the rules they want when it suits them and not when it doesn't, they call 'scientific' the theories they want to keep and 'unscientific' the ones they want to eliminate. — leo

The less the audience understands about the epistemology of science, the easier it is to mislead them. Therefore, the propensity to deceive is not a property innate to scientists but to their audience. If you see a herd of sheep, the wolves cannot be far away. If you see a gang of manipulable people, you will see the manipulators automatically materialize in their neighbourhood, out of the fricking blue.

Scientists model the influence of the Moon and Sun on the tides here on Earth, in what way are they moving the Moon and the Sun? — leo

That amounts to predictive modelling.

In some cases, I will accept it as serious, but in many cases, I will not. Again, the problem is that you can also do that kind of predictive modelling with the stock market. It is obvious that not all predictive modelling is unserious, but the safe approach is to refuse to grant it scientific status; a status which should be limited to experimental testing only.

Why would a theory that models the influence of celestial bodies on Earth tides be scientific, and not a theory that models the influence of celestial bodies on people's lives? — leo

The one is serious predictive modelling with a real risk associated -- in terms of Karl Popper's article -- while the other is not. In my opinion, neither is science. I consider Karl Popper's definition for science, which includes predictive modelling, to be simply too permissive.

Example from Scientific American https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-dark-matter-theory-or/ — leo

I was going to read the article, until I saw its title: "Is dark matter theory or fact?"
Sorry. I am not reading that. Opposing "theory" (bad) to "fact" (good) can only be an exercise in stupidity.

But they don't say the theory is falsified, no no, they say it does exist and they need to make some other experiment to detect it. They could keep going like this forever, and still say it exists, and never falsify it, and still call it science. See the hypocrisy? — leo

Give them time to design an experiment for their conjecture. In the meanwhile, their hypothesis should be considered to be merely an interesting research topic.

But precisely they have designed experiments and performed them, look how many there are! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Experiments_for_dark_matter_search — leo

I have had a look at the Axion Dark Matter Experiment.

The experiment (written as "eXperiment" in the project's documentation) is designed to detect the very weak conversion of dark matter axions into microwave photons in the presence of a strong magnetic field. If the hypothesis is correct, an apparatus consisting of an 8 tesla magnet and a cryogenically cooled high-Q tunable microwave cavity should stimulate the conversion of axions into photons.

The hypothesis is certainly interesting, and most likely an ambitious research topic, undoubtedly worth exploring, but none of the wording suggests that the experiment would be conclusive at this point.

And again they could do the very same thing with God: say what we should observe in such or such experiment if God exists, and carry out the experiment. But they don't, because double standard, they want to believe in a material universe without God, so they frame their research and theories and reasonings in that way, and that way they're sure to always find matter and never God. — leo

Would you want them to use something like an axion haloscope to that effect? The fact that they do not believe that searching for God with an axion haloscope is a suitable approach, does not necessarily mean that "they want to believe in a material universe without God".

It is also not because someone is not interested in searching for God by looking for him with a telescope, that he would be an atheist. I think that such view on science, scientists, and scientific research is flawed.

That amounts to predictive modelling.

In some cases, I will accept it as serious, but in many cases, I will not. Again, the problem is that you can also do that kind of predictive modelling with the stock market. It is obvious that not all predictive modelling is unserious, but the safe approach is to refuse to grant it scientific status; a status which should be limited to experimental testing only. — alcontali

How do you differentiate predictive modelling from experimental testing?

In the stock market technical analysis doesn't take into account the fact that those who move the markets adapt their strategy to take money from others, so if there is a predictive model that works and many people start using it then the big pockets can take money from these people by moving the market against them and then obviously the predictive model stops working. When we deal with celestial bodies presumably we don't have planet movers who act deliberately to make our models stop working after a while.

Can you give an example of what you consider as experimental testing? And how do you differentiate it from comparing observations with what some theory predicts?

The one is serious predictive modelling with a real risk associated -- in terms of Karl Popper's article -- while the other is not. In my opinion, neither is science. I consider Karl Popper's definition for science, which includes predictive modelling, to be simply too permissive. — alcontali

I think you might have misinterpreted Karl Popper there. In the quote you mentioned earlier, he wasn't saying that a predictive model is risky in the sense that it is not as serious or as certain as something else, but in the sense that a model that makes a prediction that can be checked experimentally is at risk of being falsified, in case the observation doesn't match the theory's prediction. Popper saw that risk as a good thing, he saw it as a necessary part of scientific theories.

If you say that there are theories with no such risk associated, then such theories would be absolutely certain, they would be verified, do you have examples of that? Popper himself said that theories cannot be verified, only falsified (but as it turns out he was wrong on that, strictly speaking theories cannot be falsified either).

I was going to read the article, until I saw its title: "Is dark matter theory or fact?"
Sorry. I am not reading that. Opposing "theory" (bad) to "fact" (good) can only be an exercise in stupidity. — alcontali

Yea I didn't say it was a good article, but it shows that scientists believe dark matter exists, they mostly don't treat it as a hypothesis.

Give them time to design an experiment for their conjecture. In the meanwhile, their hypothesis should be considered to be merely an interesting research topic. — alcontali

They don't treat it as a hypothesis but as something that exists.

I have had a look at the Axion Dark Matter Experiment.

The experiment (written as "eXperiment" in the project's documentation) is designed to detect the very weak conversion of dark matter axions into microwave photons in the presence of a strong magnetic field. If the hypothesis is correct, an apparatus consisting of an 8 tesla magnet and a cryogenically cooled high-Q tunable microwave cavity should stimulate the conversion of axions into photons.

The hypothesis is certainly interesting, and most likely an ambitious research topic, undoubtedly worth exploring, but none of the wording suggests that the experiment would be conclusive at this point. — alcontali

They have never detected it and still they say that it exists, that's the thing. If you look for instance at the article for the Large Underground Xenon Experiment:

Despite the wealth of (gravitational) evidence supporting the existence of non-baryonic dark matter in the Universe, dark matter particles in our galaxy have never been directly detected in an experiment.
The detector was decommissioned in 2016.

Would you want them to use something like an axion haloscope to that effect? The fact that they do not believe that searching for God with an axion haloscope is a suitable approach, does not necessarily mean that "they want to believe in a material universe without God". — alcontali

You misinterpreted me. I didn't say they should look for God with an "axion haloscope", I didn't say that they should carry out the same experiments to detect dark matter than they would to detect God.

I say that their whole premise that what they would detect in their experiments is objectively "dark matter" is flawed. They might detect something at some point. It does not follow that what they would detect is "dark matter". Their reasoning is that "if we make this observation in that experiment, then dark matter exists". I say that this is pure belief. And that similarly, they could design some other experiment and say "if we make this observation in that experiment, then God exists". In both cases they would interpret some observation as evidence of the existence of something. That interpretation is their own, they are the ones who impose it on what they see.

I say they want to believe in a material universe without God, because they are looking to interpret observations as evidence for the existence of matter, not as evidence for the existence of God.

Why do they believe some observation would be evidence of the existence of dark matter? Because they assume that dark matter exists and that it has such and such properties which would manifest in such and such ways. They could equally assume that God exists and that he has such and such properties which would manifest in such and such ways.

They are choosing to assume the existence of dark matter, not the existence of God, which to me is a sign that they believe in a material universe without God. Sure some scientists believe in God, but they separate him from science, and in science they replace him with Matter, the invisible Matter which is everywhere and shapes the universe.

How do you differentiate predictive modelling from experimental testing? — leo

In experimental testing, you must be able to strictly control the inputs:

outputs = theoretical_function ( inputs )

When you feed the inputs into the experiment, it will act like a function that maps it on the outputs. Good examples can be found in chemistry experiments:

Hot Ice is a name given to sodium acetate, a chemical you can make by reacting vinegar and baking soda. A solution of sodium acetate can be supercooled​ so that it will crystallize on command. Heat is evolved when the crystals form, so although it resembles water ice, it's hot.

sodium acetate = f ( vinegar, baking soda)

You strictly control the inputs, i.e. vinegar and baking soda, and then the experimental function will map them onto sodium acetate. Chemistry, with its formula system, allows for rigorously calculating input and output quantities along with energy absorbed or produced.

Without complete input control, you do not have a legitimate experiment, and therefore, you would not be doing science.

And how do you differentiate it from comparing observations with what some theory predicts? — leo

Predictive modelling does not require input control. We do not control the forces that generate the weather, but the weather forecast will still model and predict future weather reports. This is not science, because they are not in control of the inputs that go into the weather process in order to output any particular weather. It is merely predictive modelling. No matter how accurate the predictions may be, I do not wish to include it in the scientific method. If it is allowed in, the stock-market charlatans will call their predictions also science.

Yea I didn't say it was a good article, but it shows that scientists believe dark matter exists, they mostly don't treat it as a hypothesis. — leo

They don't treat it as a hypothesis but as something that exists. — leo

They have never detected it and still they say that it exists, that's the thing. — leo

They observe more gravitation in the universe than can be accounted for by the existing total quantity of matter (that they can observe). A lot of things could go wrong in this hypothesis, if only, the accounting of total quantity of matter.

So, now they are looking for something that they believe should cause the excess amount of gravitation that they observe, code-named "dark matter", which is something matter-like, because it causes gravity -- as the standard model believes that matter causes gravity -- but not matter itself, because that would be visible, which it isn't.

What is your problem with these people conducting experiments to figure out where the catch is? Let them try to figure it out, no?

They could equally assume that God exists and that he has such and such properties which would manifest in such and such ways. — leo

Abrahamic religions are adamant that God, creator of the universe, has no physical incarnation, and without which, observations are obviously pointless. Hence, whatever physical phenomenon anybody discovers anywhere, Abrahamic religion is adamant that it will not be a physical incarnation of God, because God is not a physical object or a physical being.

Scientific experiments are exclusively about physical inputs that produce physical outputs. How do you reconcile that with the rule that God does not have a physical incarnation? How could the scientific method ever be able to reach the answer to this question?

They are choosing to assume the existence of dark matter, not the existence of God, which to me is a sign that they believe in a material universe without God. — leo

They assume the existence of a problem, i.e. the mismatch between total matter and total gravitation. These things have a physical incarnation. God does not have a physical incarnation and cannot be reached by experimentally testing anything in a laboratory. Seriously, you will not find a physical God by using a telescope or any other device for observation. All of that is contrary to religion itself. Looking for God in a physical way with devices that measure physical things would just be some kind of heresy.

In experimental testing, you must be able to strictly control the inputs:

outputs = theoretical_function ( inputs )

When you feed the inputs into the experiment, it will act like a function that maps it on the outputs. Good examples can be found in chemistry experiments.

sodium acetate = f ( vinegar, baking soda)

You strictly control the inputs, i.e. vinegar and baking soda, and then the experimental function will map them onto sodium acetate. Chemistry, with its formula system, allows for rigorously calculating input and output quantities along with energy absorbed or produced.

Without complete input control, you do not have a legitimate experiment, and therefore, you would not be doing science.

Predictive modelling does not require input control. We do not control the forces that generate the weather, but the weather forecast will still model and predict future weather reports. This is not science, because they are not in control of the inputs that go into the weather process in order to output any particular weather. It is merely predictive modelling. No matter how accurate the predictions may be, I do not wish to include it in the scientific method. — alcontali

Honestly I don't think this is a valid distinction. Here you are basically saying that fundamental physics isn't science.

A theory is basically: predictions = theoretical_function ( past observations )

When you carry out an experiment to test a theory, you test whether the predictions of the theory match what you observe.

In your example you have: quantity of sodium acetate created = theoretical_function ( quantities of vinegar and baking soda that are mixed )

That's a predictive model all the same. In Newton's gravitation you have: gravitational acceleration = theoretical_function ( mass, distance). You can't really control the mass of a planet but you can check whether that function works for various masses and distances. Which is what you are doing in your example, you check whether the function works for various quantities of vinegar and baking soda. I honestly don't see why you make a difference.

If it is allowed in, the stock-market charlatans will call their predictions also science. — alcontali

As I said, the difference in the stock market is that you don't have: stock price = theoretical_function ( past prices ). Well maybe such a function exists, but it depends on what people do and that's too complex, you can't predict everything that everyone is going to do, we don't have such a function. And if we did, and many people used it, then it would stop working because not everyone can win, if everyone is betting that it's gonna go up then deep pockets can crash the price and make people panic sell to buy back lower, if there are winners there has to be losers at some point. Technical analysis doesn't work because deep pockets know people use it and they use it against them, they want people to believe it works so they can steal their money.

The fact that we don't have a theoretical function that works well for the stock market or for predicting the weather precisely because there are too many variables involved, does not imply that there aren't theoretical functions that work well for some other things. A theoretical function is a predictive model, and your example with sodium acetate is a predictive model too: "if such quantity of vinegar is mixed with such quantity of baking soda then we get such quantity of sodium acetate". Another example is "if the Moon and the Sun are in such and such position then we get such and such tides at such and such location".

They observe more gravitation in the universe than can be accounted for by the existing total quantity of matter (that they can observe). A lot of things could go wrong in this hypothesis, if only, the accounting of total quantity of matter.

So, now they are looking for something that they believe should cause the excess amount of gravitation that they observe, code-named "dark matter", which is something matter-like, because it causes gravity -- as the standard model believes that matter causes gravity -- but not matter itself, because that would be visible, which it isn't.

What is your problem with these people conducting experiments to figure out where the catch is? Let them try to figure it out, no? — alcontali

They infer from observations that stars in galaxies move at a different velocity than their theoretical model predicts. That doesn't imply in any way that there is a lot of dark matter everywhere that we can't see. All that says is that observations don't match the predictions of the theory. Maybe there is a lot of invisible matter out there, or maybe the theory is simply not accurate?

I don't mind that they believe their theory is correct and that they're looking for invisible matter, my problem with these people is that they say again and again that a theory is 'unscientific' if it is not falsifiable, and they use the label 'unscientific' to dismiss and ridicule people, and what are they doing here? They're treating their 'scientific' theory as unfalsifiable! If the theory doesn't match observations, it's not that the theory is falsified, it's that there is invisible matter everywhere! If we can't find that matter after dozens of experiments and billions spent then we need to make more experiments! By their own criterion their theory is unscientific, yet they treat it as scientific. The double standard is my problem with these people, and the way they treat other theories they don't like and the people who believe in them or research them.

Abrahamic religions are adamant that God, creator of the universe, has no physical incarnation, and without which, observations are obviously pointless. Hence, whatever physical phenomenon anybody discovers anywhere, Abrahamic religion is adamant that it will not be a physical incarnation of God, because God is not a physical object or a physical being.

Scientific experiments are exclusively about physical inputs that produce physical outputs. How do you reconcile that with the rule that God does not have a physical incarnation? How could the scientific method ever be able to reach the answer to this question? — alcontali

You misunderstood me again. Some people believe that there cannot be life or even a universe without God, so to them, evidence of life or of the universe is evidence of God. My point is that this is no less scientific than saying that some particular observation is evidence of dark matter. In both cases, an observation is interpreted as evidence, in a way that suits the beliefs of the person doing the interpretation.

My problem then again, is when scientists say there is evidence of dark matter but not of God. What they are doing in saying that is pushing their own interpretation, as if it was any more valid than the interpretation of people who see God in life or in the universe. They push their interpretation as if it was objective, as if it couldn't be questioned, because it is Science and people ought to believe in Science, and if people don't believe in Science then they believe in fairy tales and it is fair to ridicule them. What they are doing is pushing their beliefs and trying to impose them onto the world.

Honestly I don't think this is a valid distinction. Here you are basically saying that fundamental physics isn't science. — leo

Fundamental physics can be tested experimentally. If a hypothesis cannot at this point, then it is a topic of scientific research, in which they will make attempts to finally test it experimentally.

Topics in scientific research are not yet science. They are merely scientific hypotheses. Dark matter is such hypothesis with merely pending scientific status, awaiting the successful conclusion of the experiment that they need to justify the hypothesis as a fully-fledged theory.

A theoretical function is a predictive model, and your example with sodium acetate is a predictive model too — leo

It is more than just a predictive model, because unlike the weather, you can also experimentally test it.

If the theory doesn't match observations, it's not that the theory is falsified, it's that there is invisible matter everywhere! — leo

Well no, you refuse to give them enough time to finally, successfully set up the experiment that will justify the hypothesis of black matter. The hypothesis is still in research, and does not have full scientific status, in absence of a successful experimental test.

If we can't find that matter after dozens of experiments and billions spent then we need to make more experiments! By their own criterion their theory is unscientific, yet they treat it as scientific. — leo

They have spent billions on trying to set up a successful experiment, but all attempts have failed up till now. The hypothesis is not unscientific. If an experimental test really exists that will justify it as a theory -- still to be discovered -- then it will have acquired full scientific status.

It does not make sense to reject scientific research trying to develop an experimental test, on grounds that it has not yet managed to develop such test. This should rather be a reason to look harder and not to stop looking. Seriously, what makes you believe that they should give up the search already?

My problem then again, is when scientists say there is evidence of dark matter but not of God. — leo

Scientist say that there is a calculation issue in their models. The total amount of visible matter and the total amount of gravitation are out of sync. There is too much gravitation, according to their models.

Maybe they should not call it "dark matter" but rather "calculated excess gravitation".

The claim that God has no physical incarnation is not a decision made by scientists, but simply part of religious doctrine. In absence of a physical incarnation, there cannot be physical evidence; which is a requirement for the scientific method. Hence, verifying the existence of God is not within reach of the scientific method.

The scientific method cannot determine if "1+1=2" because, as abstract language objects, numbers do not have any physical incarnation either. The proposition is provable, however, from number theory, by using the axiomatic method.

Again, demanding application of the scientific method where it does not apply, is called scientism:

Scientism is an ideology that promotes science as the only objective means by which society should determine normative and epistemological values. The term scientism is generally used critically, pointing to the cosmetic application of science in unwarranted situations not amenable to application of the scientific method or similar scientific standards.

With the scientific method not even applicable to numbers, why would it be applicable to every possible question? Why would anybody try to determine the existence of God using something like the scientific method?

If your only tool is a hammer, the whole world will soon start looking like a nail.

It seems like you're not making the effort to attempt to understand what I repeatedly try to explain as clearly as possible, so I'm not sure there is much point in continuing the discussion.

I gave examples where scientists say that dark matter exists, you keep saying that they treat it as a hypothesis. I explained why we can test predictive models (you know you can check whether it's sunny and compare that with what the weatherman said right?), you keep saying that we can't. I explained why experiments won't prove the existence of dark matter, even if they detect what they're trying to detect, you keep saying that they would. I explained why I don't mind that they research dark matter, I explained what bothers me with the scientific attitude, you keep implying that I said they should stop looking. I explained that some people see evidence of God in life or in the universe, that they see evidence of divine creation in what they see, just like some other people see evidence of invisible matter in the motion of stars, you keep ignoring it. I explained that theories cannot be verified, even Popper said that, you keep implying that the "scientific method" can verify theories. You're not replying to what I said, you're replying to your own mistaken idea of what I said. So unless you want to go back and think some more about what I am talking about, it's best to leave it at that, because we're just talking past each other.

I gave examples where scientists say that dark matter exists, you keep saying that they treat it as a hypothesis — leo

The journalist whom you referred to is not a scientist.

He is just some kind of sycophant.

Furthermore, only when authoring experimental test reports, in which he reports on the experiments he has done, a person actually operates as scientist. There are no scientists outside the strict confines of experimental test reports.

That problem rarely occurs in Wikipedia, because they actively enforce their "no original research policy":

Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[a] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source, even if not actually attributed.

The persons you mentioned were not authoring an original experimental test report nor sticking to the requirements of a "no original research" policy. Therefore, the source was simply not reputable.

Furthermore, there was no reason to believe that these people had ever authored any original experimental test report. Therefore, on what grounds do you call them scientists?

I explained why we can test predictive models — leo

Of course, you can.

Still, that does not make any difference because you cannot freely choose the input to feed into the test. Without that ability, the test is not "experimental". Other people will not be able to reproduce the test either.

I explained why experiments won't prove the existence of dark matter, even if they detect what they're trying to detect, you keep saying that they would. — leo

I cannot guarantee that their scientific research efforts will yield a successful experiment. I never did. In fact, I do not even care, because I am personally not involved in these efforts.

I explained that some people see evidence of God in life or in the universe, that they see evidence of divine creation in what they see, just like some other people see evidence of invisible matter in the motion of stars, you keep ignoring it. — leo

The scientific method can possibly handle the issue of invisible matter -- not sure -- but it cannot handle evidence of God, simply because God has no physical incarnation. That is an epistemic issue that you keep ignoring.

I explained that theories cannot be verified, even Popper said that, you keep implying that the "scientific method" can verify theories. — leo

Yes, the scientific method can verify scientific theories by experimentally testing them. Popper never said that scientific theories cannot be verified. It is not possible to prove scientific theories, but that is not even required in the scientific method. A scientific theory only needs to withstand repeated experimental testing.

You're not replying to what I said, you're replying to your own mistaken idea of what I said. — leo

I reply from an epistemic point of view on what you said. The answer may not be what you expect, but that is again caused by a difference in epistemic views.

The scientific method can possibly handle the issue of invisible matter -- not sure -- but it cannot handle evidence of God, simply because God has no physical incarnation — alcontali

I have a number of objections to this...
1) it depends on the deity, some versions do interacti with or even encompass the physical. Nearly all have effects on the physical. Whatever, regardless of qualities, that science determines is real, gets called physical. It is a term with metaphysical baggage but not longer with content.
2) the physical is a placeholder term. Sure, theists have tended to be dualists, but since the physical now covers fields, massless particals, things in superpostion and potentially the rest of the multiverse, as some examples, theologians might say, oh, well, if you expand the physical to such things, then what we refer to as the spirit might well be part of something that you will one day call the physical.
3) it seems to me science sometimes deduces the presence of things that cannot be detected (now). The multiverse is believed by a large percentage of scientists despite us currently not being able to detect this, because it solves problems related to what seems like fine tuning and also retains determinism.

1) it depends on the deity, some versions do interacti with or even encompass the physical. — Coben

Well, other religions may have physical gods, but the Abrahamic ones, i.e. Rabbinic Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, clearly don't.

Nearly all have effects on the physical. — Coben

The creator of heavens and earth, in his capacity of first cause, is deemed to be the ultimate reason for every physical and non-physical effect in the universe. Therefore, extracting one such effect out of the many does not produce any interesting or useful information.

since the physical now covers fields, massless particals, things in superpostion and potentially the rest of the multiverse, as some examples, theologians might say, oh, well, if you expand the physical to such things ... — Coben

These things, no matter how small, are still physically observable in one way or another.

it seems to me science sometimes deduces the presence of things that cannot be detected (now). The — Coben

All long as their existence is treated as a hypothesis awaiting the production of a successful experiment that confirms it, there is nothing wrong with such hypothetical research subjects.

The journalists -- sycophants really -- who report on scientific research activity seem to be exceedingly inept at distinguishing between hypotheses and confirmed theories.

Well, other religions may have physical gods, but the Abrahamic ones, i.e. Rabbinic Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, clearly don't. — alcontali

But they have interventionist gods, with interventions with physical effects. They also have communicative gods. Both these phenomena, should they be real, could potentially be tracked by scientific research. This is not me taking a stand on what the results will be.

The creator of heavens and earth, in his capacity of first cause, is deemed to be the ultimate reason for every physical and non-physical effect in the universe. Therefore, extracting one such effect out of the many does not produce any interesting or useful information. — alcontali

Right, though see above. But further we really cannot predict what future science will decide was necessary for creation or what is indicated by, say, things prior to what we can now examine in the Big Inflation time period.

These things, no matter how small, are still physically observable in one way or another. — alcontali

The phrase 'physically observable' contains a redundancy. Effects are detected. And 'things' are posited. What their qualities are keeps expanding. Or are not.

All long as their existence is treated as a hypothesis awaiting the production of a successful experiment that confirms it, there is nothing wrong with such hypothetical research subjects.

The journalists -- sycophants really -- who report on scientific research activity seem to be exceedingly inept at distinguishing between hypotheses and confirmed theories. — alcontali

Scientists, not just journalists, take as real things that have not been directly confirmed. They draw conclusions about what happens inside Black Holes due to relativity, since this holds in other places. Most astrophysicists believe in dark matter and energy because the effects have been observed. And in fact a lot of observations are observations of effects. We don't observe quarks or particles in superposition. We observe effects, sometimes effects of effects or machine interpretations of effects.