Scientific Method question

Is Scientific Method falsifiable?

that's a pretty loaded question and can be difficult to answer.
is the scientific method falsifiable as in being able to prove that the entire concept is bogus? no. the scientific method can be used explicitly to prove that something is wrong, but when applied to itself, it doesn't disprove the whole kit-and-kaboodle. the scientific method can be used to identify flaws in the methods used to gather data and analyze it, but the overall premise of the scientific method remains sound.
if it where possible to disprove the scientific method then it would have happened by now. it's been under development and revision for hundreds of years in its more modern form, and for thousands of years before that.
at some point in the future we may discover a property of the universe that will revolutionize our scientific understanding, but this wouldn't serve to disprove the scientific method either. we'd just have to adapt our methodology and change our preconceptions.

that's a pretty loaded question and can be difficult to answer.
is the religion falsifiable as in being able to prove that the entire concept is bogus? no. the religion can be used explicitly to prove that something is wrong, but when applied to itself, it doesn't disprove the whole kit-and-kaboodle. the religion can be used to identify flaws in the methods used to worship and pray, but the overall premise of the religion remains sound.
if it where possible to disprove the religion then it would have happened by now. it's been under development and revision for hundreds of years in its more modern form, and for thousands of years before that.
at some point in the future we may discover a property of the universe that will revolutionize our religious understanding, but this wouldn't serve to disprove the religion either. we'd just have to adapt our methodology and change our preconceptions.

>>2
>>"no. the scientific method can be used explicitly to prove that something is wrong"

this is not entirely accurate.

The scientific method sets aside bias and self-interest apart from a given experiment in order to observe what DOES happen in order to include what DOES NOT instead of what is right and wrong (which is the nature of bias).

That's why science is intended as a non-judgmental process where religion is all about judging even though they say, "judge not...blah blah blah...your a dirty bitch." people trying not to be people...wtf?

And that's about it folks!

:/

The scientific method can't prove anything. What it can do, is classify specific conditions and show that something works in those conditions.

Science itself can't prove anything. It can, however, disprove everything.

Newtons gravitational theory have been proven false by Einstein's theory of relativity. Now, until that theory is proven false, it will stand.

>>5
you're logic is full of retard.
Using science to disprove proves existence of ignorance instead of promotion of wisdom. That's why you are wretched and nasty and still can't pinpoint your one true enemy.

Go flog yourself until you hear him screaming in silence.

>>5
Poo-per sucks. It's not immune to infinite ad hocs.
It's faaaaaaaaaar more simple than this, just stick to the first line of your porst.

Here's a simple answer for ya,

it was designed by human beings...something about it is fallible.