SkipCaptcha
710
edits
Changes
no edit summary
::::::You make excellent points, particularly in your last paragraph above. The introductory paragraph to [[black hole]] would benefit from this, and please feel free to edit it again (I apologize if others deleted your work). Note, however, that it is not very practical to devise a test that could falsify General Relativity, and falsifying General Relativity would not falsify the claim that [[black holes]] exist. Black holes are far too popular in science magazines and liberal publications like the New York Times to "go away" that easily.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:52, 13 November 2009 (EST)
::::::You make excellent points, particularly in your last paragraph above. The introductory paragraph to [[black hole]] would benefit from this, and please feel free to edit it again (I apologize if others deleted your work). Note, however, that it is not very practical to devise a test that could falsify General Relativity, and falsifying General Relativity would not falsify the claim that [[black holes]] exist. Black holes are far too popular in science magazines and liberal publications like the New York Times to "go away" that easily.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:52, 13 November 2009 (EST)
:::::::On Popper and relativity, Christoph von Mettenheim (http://elm.eeng.dcu.ie/~tkpw/tcr/volume-01/number-03/node3.html) writes: "Most of you will know of Popper's admiration for Einstein, and how he was inspired by the theory of relativity (and by its high refutability in contrast to the irrefutability of psychoanalysis) more than by anything else to develop the criterion of falsifiability as a demarcation between science and metaphysics (Popper 1976, pp. 37-38)." As KSorenson has already noted, relativity was the theory that inspired the notion of falsifiability in the first place. The claim that "it is not very practical to devise a test that could falsify General Relativity" is absurd on the face of it. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 10:02, 13 November 2009 (EST)