Science consists of:

* the search and the systematic acquisition (or not systematic) for knowledge on the objects, the systems and the world which surrounds us,

* the organization and the synthesis of this knowledge per application of general principles a priori (theories, models, laws, measurements, methods, experiments, etc),

* diffusion of the results of these steps.

According to the philosopher Karl Popper, a theory scientifically acceptable only if it can be refutable, i.e. is subjected to experimental tests. Scientific knowledge is thus the whole of the theories which hitherto resisted the refutation. Science is thus by nature subjected permanently to the handing-over in question.


If a trick is unverifiable, he is not a scientist.
If a trick is verifiable and that that sticks to the facts, that gives a theory.
Then one tests further until where the theory can go: if it resists in spite of the experiments, it is a scientist and it forms a provisional whole of knowledge, like Relativity, Quantum Mechanics...

If a theory presents at least only one fault (sufficient compromising) that new facts reveal, it more valid and is not replaced by another concept, and the cycle starts again.

If concepts have in themselves of the verifiable and/or unverifiable faults from the beginning, they are pseudo-sciences.
If verifiable concepts present perceptible faults that after a certain number of experiments, they constitute scientific theories.


Popper's discovery : a scientific proposal is not a checked proposal, but a refutable and not yet refuted proposal.
The step of conjectures and refutations makes it possible to make grow scientific knowledge.

A theory is a scientist if it is divided into two subclasses of basic statements:

* the class of the statements which contradict it, called potential falsifieurs (if these statements are true the theory is false);
* the class of the statements with which it agrees (if these statements are true, they corroborate it).

According to this criterion, astrology, metaphysics or the psychoanalysis do not concern science, since one can draw no testable predictive statement from it and that consequently no experiment makes it possible to establish (or not) the refutation of it - and thus a confirmation either, to see the vintage and cooks it. Physics of leaves not unscathed for all that, since it provides laws corresponding virtually to an infinity of experiments of which only a part was actually carried out, and remains constantly refutable. It is precisely what allows its evolution. And of course no real scientific step, out mathematics, is possible without the induction, which underlined Bertrand Russell.


Quotations:

"A theory which is not refutable by any event which can be conceived is deprived of scientific nature"

"What makes the man of science, it is not the possession of knowledge, of irrefutable truths, but the which been obstinated search and boldly criticizes truth"

Karl Popper


The refutability is an important concept of epistemology. An assertion is refutable if it is possible to consign an observation, or to undertake an experiment which shows that the assertion is false.

It is the goal of my step and my epistemological base of the criticist mind.




"There is not any certainty. There is not Truth, but there is only one infinity of fallible representations of the Truth by the man, from where need for the doubt, from where vanity to believe." Pulstars

I tried to translate the sentence of Pulstars vica versa and one can see that it is very difficult to maintain the same meaning of the sentence.

"There is not any certainty. There is not Truth, but there is only one infinity of fallible representations of the Truth by the man, from where need for the doubt, from where vanity to believe." Pulstars

You translate "de l'homme" into : of the man,better is "by man" the first translation shows a differance between the man and the woman,the latter shows generally "man" as a human being!!
This is the simpler example;the meaning of the last five or six words in your translation is unclear,however I understood what you meant!

Man has one certainty: Somedays man will/shall die and will decay to dust,to where his ghost will go is a great mystery for man!

There is not any certainty. There is not Truth, but there is only one infinity of fallible representations of the Truth by humanity, from where need for the doubt, from where vanity to believe.