17
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 96:
Line 96: + +
no edit summary
:::::In addition to Addison's comments, note that some theories ''are'' [[falsifiable]] (such as Newton's theory of gravity), while other theories are ''not'' falsifiable, such as the theory that black holes must exist or [[string theory]]. And when a theory is not falsifiable, it is not science. If BMcP proposes an alternative definition of science, then let's hear it, but I doubt he'll do better than [[Karl Popper]] in making [[falsifiability]] part of the definition.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:45, 1 July 2009 (EDT)
:::::In addition to Addison's comments, note that some theories ''are'' [[falsifiable]] (such as Newton's theory of gravity), while other theories are ''not'' falsifiable, such as the theory that black holes must exist or [[string theory]]. And when a theory is not falsifiable, it is not science. If BMcP proposes an alternative definition of science, then let's hear it, but I doubt he'll do better than [[Karl Popper]] in making [[falsifiability]] part of the definition.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:45, 1 July 2009 (EDT)
Guys, this is becoming quite the argument; however, it is unnecessary because the idea that black holes exist ''is'' falsifiable. If NASA sends probes out to nearby black holes (which would take a long time, but it's possible), and they all turn out to be ancient Spartans in spaceships or whatever, then scientists will conclude that black holes don't exist and start working on how Spartans came to be in space and why they have accretion disks, etc. So black holes are falsifiable, and this argument is a source of unnecessary tension. [[User:BlueMoon|BlueMoon]] 12:55, 8 July 2009 (EDT)