Moved discussion to talk page.

George F. Thomson is a Civil Engineer specialized in most basic Civil Engineering, with some elective subjects of Roads and Sanitary Engineering. His life's practice were limited to 'house construction', computers and software business sales, insurance sales, knowledge in legal civil latin-american law, 20 years more or less experience in Christian Religion studies, knowledge of Science and Evolution.

Lately I have developed interests and activity in 'Logic', and the proposal of Scientific hypothesis contrary to Evolution. I support a lot of Scientific studies, excluding religion, of the Creation Research Society (www.creationresearch.org) and Intelligent Design of (www.discovery.org). I currently have my own websites also.

Mostly all the Bible does not comply with pure logic also!

My "Logic" development (studies on my own) includes 'argumentation theory', 'logical argument' and 'informal logic', with 'artificial intelligence' analysis studies, to fully develop the definitions and concepts of my logic of 'pure logic' complying with most Science. The management of my 'excessive and mostly logic mind' has been a life's challenge, that has been fully developing as recently as year 2005. My theorization capabilities are complemented with others that can put up mathematics - chemistry - physics science compliant hypothesis, theories and/or models.

For your analysis and criticism of Intelligent Design in their published papers of great interest, eliminating of course all reference of religion or the Bible, you can refer to: Available archives on CD at www.creationresearch.org , and online archives at www.answersingenesis.org. Some articles are very convincing from these creationists PhD's. Of course they would hardly be published in "Nature" or "Science" magazines, as some are quite revealing of what evolutionists do to cover up other evidence that doesn't comply with Evolution and natural selection. GeorgeFThomson 13:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I am founder of the new unifying religious/philosophical/scientific movement denominated: Pure Logic Areopagus. Now this movement has been changed to Pure Logic Parthenon !

I give full compliance to Wikipedia Encyclopedia that it is administered correctly to fully comply with correct data and knowledge source, in what is the most possible.

To contact me my emails are: jointquest@gmail.com ; http://www.jointquest.com ; https://sites.google.com/site/jointquest2/

What is first? Science or Logic?

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Logic#What_is_first.3F_Science_or_Logic.3F

Merriam-Webster Dictionary Main Entry: logic 1 : a science that deals with the rules and tests of sound thinking and proof by reasoning;

2 : sound reasoning

3 : the arrangement of circuit elements for arithmetical computation in a computer

http://dictionary.reference.com/ 1. the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference. 2. a particular method of reasoning or argumentation: We were unable to follow his logic. 3. the system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study. 4. reason or sound judgment, as in utterances or actions: There wasn't much logic in her move. 5. convincing forcefulness; inexorable truth or persuasiveness: the irresistible logic of the facts.

What is first or of higher level as to which is needed first? Is it the problem of the Hen and the Egg? Can Science be without logic? Yes it can, though it should not happen! Can logic be without Science? No and Yes! Logic and true "sound" reasoning, is Science! But good reasoning logic can be by itself, and not be Academic recognized Science! Though generally good sound reasoning logic, does proceed from much Science, theoretical and practical learning!

So half truths and half logic, or not complete logic, can or have been made Science in a few cases! But this does not happen to true complete(pure) logic!

Hence I would establish LOGIC and "complete/pure logic", thought, ideas, imagination, to be first, as the "software" and "hardware" of a computer! That then can be established in firm accepted Academia Science, with "strict" Rules and Laws developed(particular specific sciences) and that can be experimented and proven!

Much of Logic and "metaphysics", does not have to be proven as Science might apparently require! The power of Inference and Deduction enter into the game of sound reasoning or illogical reasoning!

If this is helpfull, please feel free to use it! Thanks! (--General concensus2012 (talk) 05:04, 28 March 2013 (UTC)) [[[User:GeorgeFThomson|GeorgeFThomson]] (talk) 05:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)]

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/General_concensus2012 (--General concensus2012 (talk) 05:04, 28 March 2013 (UTC))

I differ in your WORD meanings

"Testability, a property applying to an empirical hypothesis, involves two components: (1) the logical property that is variously described as contingency, defeasibility, or falsifiability, which means that counterexamples to the hypothesis are logically possible, and (2) the practical feasibility of observing a reproducible series of such counterexamples if they do exist. In short, a hypothesis is testable if there is some real hope of deciding whether it is true or false of real experience. Upon this property of its constituent hypotheses rests the ability to decide whether a theory can be supported or falsified by the data of actual experience. If hypotheses are tested, initial results may also be label(l)ed inconclusive." General concensus2012 (talk) 19:18, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Contrary or specifically, falsifiability 1, has the root word from "falsifiable" and "false". Meaning that it can be made or proven to be false. And has a general meaning in that, it can be a false/falsifiable belief, or falsifiable by instrumentation. This means it can be studied by either the Scientific Methods or by logic analysis.

Testability is the specific definition from root words of a "test" and "testable". And of what can be testable or not. Something can be or cannot be testable solely by instrumentation and scientific observation by the senses. Testability does not denote persee anything to do with it being false, falsifiable or falsifiability, by the mere word root definition. A test is a test and specific. A test does not mean in its word roots that it can be falsifiable.

What can be falsifiable is hence, a test or a logic statement or belief. And thus has these two components. It is not Testability that has these two components.

It is for wikipedia to decide over this. General concensus2012 (talk) 19:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/General_concensus2012 (--General concensus2012 (talk) 05:04, 28 March 2013 (UTC))

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Logic

GeorgeFThomson (talk) 22:55, 22 December 2015 (UTC)