Re: Testing the Laws of Intelligence

On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 11:50:12 -0400, Zoe wrote:

On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 18:22:16 -0500, Mark VandeWettering
<wettering@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 2007-08-14, Zoe <muze10@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 07:32:10 -0700, "R. Baldwin"
<res0k7yx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"Zoe" <muze10@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:qt3vb3tthbebpcaumt0g6f13bkkp13rc7i@xxxxxxxxxx
On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 16:58:13 -0700, "Bob T." <bob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

[snip]

black holes are a theory proposed by scientists, but the concept
itself is not science since it cannot be tested. I submit that there
is a difference between practical science and theories proposed by
scientists.

[snip]

Zoe, testing a theory does not require manipulation. Black holes can be and
have been tested.

I did not use the word "manipulation." Practical science can include
observation without manipulation. But from that observation, tests can
be performed on a small scale in a laboratory.

Black holes have not been observed, just concluded from an arrangement
of facts on paper. That arrangement of facts may indeed be correct,
but cannot be verified until observation of the real world is added.
Have scientists observed a black hole? Have they been able to
recreate one on a small scale in a laboratory? If not, then it
remains educated speculation, but not hard science.

I suspect that the electron will be brought forward as an example, but
saying that no one has ever seen an electron, doesn't apply here,
because we can see the effects of the electron's presence. What
effects of a black hole have scientists observed out there in the
universe -- not on paper, mind you, but in reality.

We can of course see the effects of a black holes presence. In
particular, we can look for associated X-ray and gamma ray bursts.
We can look for accretion disks and gas jets. We can look for
gravitational lenses. We can plot the course of objects orbiting
unseen massive objects. We can examine the centers of other
galaxies, both in visible and the radio spectrum.

and on what basis do scientists decide that X-ray and gamma ray
bursts, accretion disks and gas jets, gravitational lenses and orbits
must mean black holes and only black holes? Especially when they have
not yet harmonized general relativity and quantum mechanics?

snip>

Like everything else in science, the theory of black holes is tentative.
It's not gospel. The same is true of electricity and evolution. But
tentative means "can be refined", not "likely to be overthrown". The
observational evidence of black holes will have to be accounted for
regardless.

Perhaps another way of putting it is that black holes are currently the
simplest theory that matches the observations.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: LIGO.
    ... and specific meanings in experimental science. ... the evidence or 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. ... hypothesis of black holes were known, ... I am not criticizing scientists studying black holes nor those ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: LIGO.
    ... I clearly remarked two or three times that proof in science has no the ... No, there is none evidence. ... hypothesis of black holes were known, ... I am not criticizing scientists studying black holes nor those ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: thank goodness
    ... Not an easy language. ... >I really liked Kip Thorne's Black Holes and Time Warps: ... hypothesis put fwd in John Horgan's book The End Of Science? ... have been made by PhD scientists from the most reputable ...
    (alt.sports.basketball.nba.la-lakers)
  • Re: LIGO.
    ... Science is about modelling and disproof. ... neutron stars, ... You wrote "Objects once thought to be black holes ... hypothesis with proven facts. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Testing the Laws of Intelligence
    ... black holes are a theory proposed by scientists, ... itself is not science since it cannot be tested. ... saying that no one has ever seen an electron, doesn't apply here, ...
    (talk.origins)