Science: Is X true? Are we certain? Lets try and find evidence counter to X.
Actually that's not the definition of science, it's a definition of science, and whether it is a complete definition of science depends heavily on one's thoughts on philosophy of science. Falsification as the central concept has at times been popular and at times unpopular; right now, it is less popular than it was, say, about eighty years ago.
If the very definition of science is subject to a vote, then by winning the vote you can throw out whatever principles you disagree with and redefine it to mean whatever you believe it to mean, right?
Luckily it doesn't work like that at all. Science progresses when incorrect theories are falsified. No army of philosophers will ever be able to change that with a silly meta argument.
It seems to me that you are the one pontificating philosophy here.
Besides, not all scientific progress is made by falsifying incorrect theories. Quoting Max Planck:
> A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
(Of course, whether to call this a "scientific progress" is a matter of debate, but frankly if it advances mankind's state of understanding nature then that's good enough for me.)
If you are claiming that "new scientific truth" in that context does not presuppose new evidence disproving an outdated theory (or a simpler explanation for existing evidence, which falsifies the outdated theory by making it superfluous), then what does it mean? Just any old idea from someone who happens to be younger?
In the context of this thread, I'm saying that scientific progress is being made (in some sense) as more and more people accept the reality of AGW, which "falsified" the previous theory of "We have no idea what's going on." Scientists not being enthusiastic to disprove the core tenet of a very successful theory is not an evidence of laziness. Not everyone can be Einstein, and being Einstein requires you to be actually right (and the previous theory to have a fault that cannot be easily explained, e.g., Michelson-Morley experiment).
The definition of science has never been settled. There are things which, broadly speaking, are accepted as scientific or not, but providing a rigorous grounding of and definition for the concept of "science" is a centuries-old open question, thanks largely to the problem of induction.
Falsificationism is one possible solution that's been proposed, but it is not the only one, is not universally accepted, and you really should probably do some background research on the topic before arrogantly spouting off about how you have the one true answer that some "army of philosophers" with "silly meta arguments" can't manage to come up with.
Actually that's not the definition of science, it's a definition of science, and whether it is a complete definition of science depends heavily on one's thoughts on philosophy of science. Falsification as the central concept has at times been popular and at times unpopular; right now, it is less popular than it was, say, about eighty years ago.