Siteadmin, Check users, Administrators
6,631
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 78:
Line 78: + + + +
no edit summary
Actually in science we cannot prove with 100% certainty that ''anything'' does not exist, you cannot prove a negative. This opening sentence needs to be rewritten first for that reason, also for the fact that black holes have been indirectly observed via Accretion disks, gas jets, gravity lensing, radiation emissions, and other orbits of other stellar bodies. Also there is no other valid explanation in science for the aforementioned effects of a black hole that we observe. --[[User:BMcP|BMcP]] 17:00, 1 July 2009 (EST)
Actually in science we cannot prove with 100% certainty that ''anything'' does not exist, you cannot prove a negative. This opening sentence needs to be rewritten first for that reason, also for the fact that black holes have been indirectly observed via Accretion disks, gas jets, gravity lensing, radiation emissions, and other orbits of other stellar bodies. Also there is no other valid explanation in science for the aforementioned effects of a black hole that we observe. --[[User:BMcP|BMcP]] 17:00, 1 July 2009 (EST)
:No, that's the point- to be scientific, something has to be able to be proven wrong. That is a major part of the scientific method. For example, God is not a scientific concept, because you cannot disprove God. But to be science, one of the criterion is that the idea be able to be disproven.
:Falsifiability is not the ''only'' criterion for whether something is scientific, so perhaps black holes are not ''unscientific.'' But that opening is pretty much accurate. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 17:50, 1 July 2009 (EDT)