Miklausen's 1997 book

[John Grehan]

Ken Kinman

>     Most of Miklausen's speculations may be "resoundingly falsified", but I
>still find them interesting and hope to eventually find something of
>botanical value in there somewhere.
>    As to whether lateral transfers cannot be falsified or whether they are
>just "very difficult" to falsify, perhaps that is a matter of differing
>philosophies.  I would only say, viva la difference.

I would tend to concur. The idea of falsification tends to get impossed as
the ultimate
criterion for doing science (but as I keep mentioning, witchcraft
apparently meets all the
criteria for falsification), but there are other ways. Even if simple
falsification (do an
experiment, reject the hypothesis/theory) is the most popular authority for
science, that
does not necessarily mean its the only way. It is possible that some
aspects of Miklausen's
theory are not falsificable, but if the theory were able to make some novel
prediction about
the systems that are in question, and these predictions were later
corroborated, I would
suggest that the theory might have someting going for it - at least it
works, whether or not
its falsifiable.

John Grehan