798
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 83:
Line 83: − + + + + +
→Impossible?
: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)
: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)
:: Black holes are falsifiable as a theory, because the observations generally accepted as caused by black holes ''could'' be causes something else, however there is no alternative theory ''at present'' to explain the phenomenon. However you cannot prove that a black hole ''could never'' exist just as you cannot prove atoms, or anything, could never exist. God is not a scientific theory not because it is impossible to absolutely disprove God (although it is impossible to prove that God could never possibly exist) but because the supernatural cannot be shown to exist through science, which deals only with the natural universe, if you could, that god would no longer be supernatural by definition.
:: Black holes are falsifiable as a theory, because the observations generally accepted as caused by black holes ''could'' be causes something else, however there is no alternative theory ''at present'' to explain the phenomenon. However you cannot prove that a black hole ''could never'' exist just as you cannot prove atoms, or anything, could never exist. God is not a scientific theory not because it is impossible to absolutely disprove God (impossible to prove that God could never possibly exist) but because the supernatural cannot be shown to exist through science, which deals only with the natural universe, if you could present a theory God existed in science, that god would no longer be supernatural by definition.
:: Honestly I don't understand the objection to black holes, there is no conservative reason for it. --[[User:BMcP|BMcP]] 19:04, 1 July 2009 (EST)
:: Honestly I don't understand the objection to black holes, there is no conservative reason for it. --[[User:BMcP|BMcP]] 19:04, 1 July 2009 (EST)
:::The existence of black holes is ''not'' falsifiable. Surely you agree with that. Black holes cannot be observed either. Addison explained the flaw well above, but you seem intent on sticking with your beliefs. Believe what you like, but black holes do not satisfy any sensible definition of science.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:37, 1 July 2009 (EDT)
:::The existence of black holes is ''not'' falsifiable. Surely you agree with that. Black holes cannot be observed either. Addison explained the flaw well above, but you seem intent on sticking with your beliefs. Believe what you like, but black holes do not satisfy any sensible definition of science.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:37, 1 July 2009 (EDT)
:::: The possible existence of anything is not falsifiable, black holes, quarks, gods, even godzilla, only theories are falsifiable, such as the theory that explain what black holes are and how they work. The present theories of black holes are falsifiable, but so far no one has successfully debunked them, or offer an alternate scientific theory for the phenomenon attributed to the effects and properties of black holes. We cannot observe an isolated quark directly, but we accept that theory.
:::: However I cannot change one's mind, that is fine, I made my objections known, I am not going to step on people's toes by attempting to change the page, I just believe it is scientifically incorrect in it's proclamation and could stand to be improved for a better article. I have said what I believe needed to be said and will end my part here, anyone feel free to respond with the last word or contact me privately. --[[User:BMcP|BMcP]] 21:07, 1 July 2009 (EST)