Changes

::::::::Point.  Are you talking about the old debate with KSorenson here, where I pointed out, "So, we don't know that black holes do exist - that claim isn't falsifiable; we'd need to survey every <s>square</s>'''cubic''' millimeter of space and say 'there isn't a black hole here!'"?  It seems that's a somewhat academic point:  you could just as well say, "The existence of Jack Smith isn't falsifiable; you'd need to survey every square millimeter of the earth and say 'he isn't here'".  If you want to say their existence isn't falsifiable because of that, be my guest but please explain the reason in the article. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 10:49, 1 December 2009 (EST)

::::::::Point.  Are you talking about the old debate with KSorenson here, where I pointed out, "So, we don't know that black holes do exist - that claim isn't falsifiable; we'd need to survey every <s>square</s>'''cubic''' millimeter of space and say 'there isn't a black hole here!'"?  It seems that's a somewhat academic point:  you could just as well say, "The existence of Jack Smith isn't falsifiable; you'd need to survey every square millimeter of the earth and say 'he isn't here'".  If you want to say their existence isn't falsifiable because of that, be my guest but please explain the reason in the article. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 10:49, 1 December 2009 (EST)

::::::::The theory that extraterrestials might exist is a special case of scientific theory, with the burden of proof being on the proponents. They must produce one, or concede that they are just hoping. There's a longstanding battle between materialists and religious people about a number of scientific issues, and the [[burden of proof]] is often inconsistent. Is [[evolution]] falsifiable? What sort of evidence would make its proponents give up? (Note: if there is no way they would ever concede being wrong, then they are not engaged in [[science]] but in [[propaganda]]. This is a very serious point.) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] ^{[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]} 11:01, 1 December 2009 (EST)

::::::::The theory that extraterrestials might exist is a special case of scientific theory, with the burden of proof being on the proponents. They must produce one, or concede that they are just hoping. There's a longstanding battle between materialists and religious people about a number of scientific issues, and the [[burden of proof]] is often inconsistent. Is [[evolution]] falsifiable? What sort of evidence would make its proponents give up? (Note: if there is no way they would ever concede being wrong, then they are not engaged in [[science]] but in [[propaganda]]. This is a very serious point.) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] ^{[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]} 11:01, 1 December 2009 (EST)

::::::::: Well, first off, saying something might exist is really a scientific hypothesis versus an actual theory of science.  Extraterrestrial life might exist based on what we know of the universe, that doesn't mean they do (or do not).  One may believe they do (I believe they do) but that is simple speculation. Can a black hole be falsified?  Sure, find a stellar object that according to the theories of physics that should be a black hole but isn't (such as reflecting light, or thermodynamically not a perfect black body).  The claim black holes exist is through their interaction interaction with other matter, of course show that those interactions are caused by another stellar phenomenon and again you has falsified the theory. Of course black hole's may not be exactly what we believe they are either.  They may not contain a true singularity of infinite mass, gravity and yet no dimensions.  They simply may be degenerate matter with a measurable mass that happens to have enough gravitational force at the event horizon to pull any light back onto itself, yet not infinite.  That would also force the current theories to be reevaluated. --[[User:BMcP|BMcP]] 12:13, 1 December 2009 (EST)

::::::::: Well, first off, saying something might exist is really a scientific hypothesis versus an actual theory of science.  Extraterrestrial life might exist based on what we know of the universe, that doesn't mean they do (or do not).  One may believe they do (I believe they do) but that is simple speculation. Can a black hole be falsified?  Sure, find a stellar object that according to the theories of physics that should be a black hole but isn't (such as reflecting light, or thermodynamically not a perfect black body).  The claim black holes exist is through their interaction interaction with other matter, of course show that those interactions are caused by another stellar phenomenon and again you has falsified the theory. Of course black hole's may not be exactly what we believe they are either.  They may not contain a true singularity of infinite mass, gravity and yet no dimensions.  They simply may be degenerate matter with a measurable mass that happens to have enough gravitational force at the event horizon to pull any light back onto itself, yet not infinite.  That would also force the current theories to be reevaluated. --[[User:BMcP|BMcP]] 12:13, 1 December 2009 (EST)