On the reverse side of that it has the most number of arbritatry omission of observations of any theory I have ever seen.

It's basic tennant appears to be if an observation does not match the theory then clearly the observation is wrong and we dismiss it ... as I said that isn't science you don't get to pick and choose observations :-)

You may care to read (http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html)

Specifically look at point 7

Quote:

Some genuinely testable theories, when found to be false, are still upheld by their admirers — for example by introducing ad hoc some auxiliary assumption, or by reinterpreting the theory ad hoc in such a way that it escapes refutation. Such a procedure is always possible, but it rescues the theory from refutation only at the price of destroying, or at least lowering, its scientific status. (I later described such a rescuing operation as a "conventionalist twist" or a "conventionalist stratagem.")


Conventionalist twist is an apt description of your argument with your theory.

Last edited by Orac; 10/13/11 08:10 AM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.