>Theories don't get "falsified" except in rare cases and in the idealized fanciful histories of some philosophers of science
>None of these examples are of theories like our current hot Big Bang model
In your first post you're fine with lumping together well established theories with loads of evidence like Big Bang and a philosophers zero evidence theories based on their intuition alone. The two extremes of theory legitimacy.
In your second post you're strongly rejecting the middle of some-to-little-evidence theories to back up your original easily refuted claim that theories rarely if ever get ruled out by evidence.
I think you just didn't think through or spell out your original argument very carefully.
> In your first post you're fine with lumping together well established theories with loads of evidence like Big Bang and a philosophers zero evidence theories based on their intuition alone.
I don't know where you're getting this from. It should be clear from the post you refer to that by "theories" I meant models like our current hot Big Bang model, not "zero evidence theories based on intuition alone".
>None of these examples are of theories like our current hot Big Bang model
In your first post you're fine with lumping together well established theories with loads of evidence like Big Bang and a philosophers zero evidence theories based on their intuition alone. The two extremes of theory legitimacy.
In your second post you're strongly rejecting the middle of some-to-little-evidence theories to back up your original easily refuted claim that theories rarely if ever get ruled out by evidence.
I think you just didn't think through or spell out your original argument very carefully.