(Atheism = no belief in god) -Vs- (Atheism = naturalist outlook)

pH

It's you who is missing the point here. Electromagnetism exists, gravity exists, whether we understand how and why (our theories) is irrelevant.

In the same way blackholes exist (a clump of matter so dense the escape velocity is > c). Our theories as to why and how they exist are not pertinent to the issue at hand.

Let's take a simple example - the Sun - it exists!
It existed when man thought it was a God, it existed when man thought it was a ball of fire and now when man thinks it is a large fusion reactor in space.
- It still exists (and did exist) if we're totally wrong and it's really something else.

Are you really saying - "They[black holes] may not exist because our our understanding of how/what causes them is wrong!"?

Again we observe effects and we infer the existence of black holes from these effects. Unless we physically observe a black hole we cannot say for sure it exists.

And on and on you go - black holes have been observed physically, via the effects they have on light and other stellar objects. And I have no wish to play silly word games that end up defining the words 'observe' and 'physically'. Science is does by scientists, following the scientific method, philosophers have as I have said many times before - have absolutely nothing at all to add.

Playboy

Look pH .. you are entitled to your opinion about philosophy and philosophers. I'm not going to waste large amounts of energy explaining something to you which you obviously have no interest in and do not think has any value. There is a wealth of material out there on this topic which supports my position. If you ever find yourself interested then you can find it yourself.

Scofflaw

There seems to be a certain amount of confusion here as to what constitutes evidence.

1. Black holes are a postulate. There is a theoretical thing called a black hole, and the the theory predicts certain characteristics.
2. Phenomena have been observed that match the predicted characteristics of black holes.

Does this mean black holes have been directly observed? No, it doesn't. There is a suggestion, for example, that what are currently believed to be black holes may be thin collapse shells around neutron stars. This theory predicts the same observed characteristics as black hole theory - that is, it explains the same phenomena.

If two theories explain all the observed characteristics of a phenomenon, and both are plausible, then neither is known to be right. To determine which one is correct, you need to look at where the predicted characteristics differ, and observe those.

regards,
Scofflaw

Son Goku

Scofflaw wrote:

1. Black holes are a postulate. There is a theoretical thing called a black hole, and the the theory predicts certain characteristics.
2. Phenomena have been observed that match the predicted characteristics of black holes.

Well I meant observed to nearly the same degree of accuracy as a Neutron Star. A black hole is only a certain collection of characteristics, in fact it is defined in terms of its orbits.

Does this mean black holes have been directly observed? No, it doesn't.

I also only meant observed in the same way an electron has been observed, by the effects it leaves. We've also narrowed down other possible explanations, so that the normal General Relativistic one is the only one still standing.
(I also know that one day a better explanation could come along.)
In this sense it has been proven, just as much as most Standard Model particles. It's not as much at a "human level" direct proof as most things in the other sciences, but it falls within what is called proven in Cosmology.

I think this is an effect of the subtleties of the word observed as it is used in physics which, because I'm used to thinking in those terms, I'll just say without expanding on.
This will naturally seem like I'm saying things are more definitive than I intend to.

It's a language problem. For instance to a geologist, black holes don't sound confirmed because they aren't anywhere near as concretely observed as geological phenomena.
However they have gained the level of proof standard for the kind of object they are in physics.

Scofflaw

Son Goku wrote:

It's a language problem. For instance to a geologist, black holes don't sound confirmed because they aren't anywhere near as concretely observed as geological phenomena.
However they have gained the level of proof standard for the kind of object they are in physics.

Oh alright, I admit it, I'm a geologist, although non-practicing these days.

Actually, geologists probably are more disputatious about this kind of thing, because we deal with very concrete phenomena that could have been produced in very large numbers of ways, and there's money in getting it right. Granites, for example, are undeniably real, but we're still arguing about how they get emplaced. Our most recent massive paradigm shift is only about 40 years back (plate tectonics). Most geology now uses observational classifications rather than genetic classifications, because the genetic classifications rely on theories, which get revised or struck down - hence my differences with Wicknight over the term "ghosts".

Nevertheless, the objects considered to be black holes are still not directly observed (and given their expected properties, may never be), but the probability that they are something radically different is now very low (it walks like a black hole, it quacks like a black hole, etc). That's what I meant when I said that all we had are probabilities - science does not provide eternal and absolute verities, merely a very high probability that something is true, at the current state of knowledge.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Son Goku

Scofflaw wrote:

Nevertheless, the objects considered to be black holes are still not directly observed (and given their expected properties, may never be), but the probability that they are something radically different is now very low (it walks like a black hole, it quacks like a black hole, etc). That's what I meant when I said that all we had are probabilities - science does not provide eternal and absolute verities, merely a very high probability that something is true, at the current state of knowledge.

Yeah, thats pretty much the kind of thing I meant.

pH wrote:

Science is does by scientists, following the scientific method, philosophers have as I have said many times before - have absolutely nothing at all to add.

Don't you feel that science would be a lot more "loose" and prone to over-confidence if it were not for the philosophy of science?

pH

Son Guko wrote:

Don't you feel that science would be a lot more "loose" and prone to over-confidence if it were not for the philosophy of science?

Absolutely not, the whole "philosophy of science" can be summed up as pointless postulating by men who believe they're much cleverer than they actually are.

It's a clear case of the emperor's clothes, no one dares to speak this truth because they fear that they are missing something and looking stupid, and of being out of step with the current fashion of post-modermism in 'intellectual' circles.

It offers no insight or help for anyone engaged in science, nor is it useful in any way for the so called 'man on the street'.

Scofflaw

Absolutely not, the whole "philosophy of science" can be summed up as pointless postulating by men who believe they're much cleverer than they actually are.

It's a clear case of the emperor's clothes, no one dares to speak this truth because they fear that they are missing something and looking stupid, and of being out of step with the current fashion of post-modermism in 'intellectual' circles.

It offers no insight or help for anyone engaged in science, nor is it useful in any way for the so called 'man on the street'.

A couple of questions, then:

1. are you a scientist?
2. do you know anything about the philosophy of science?
3. are you sure you're not just referring to the post-modernist "oh, science is just a culturally determined way of....blah blah my arts thesis" stuff?
4. you're aware that science has, and requires, theoretical underpinnings?

regards,
Scofflaw

Morbert

pH wrote:

Absolutely not, the whole "philosophy of science" can be summed up as pointless postulating by men who believe they're much cleverer than they actually are.

It's a clear case of the emperor's clothes, no one dares to speak this truth because they fear that they are missing something and looking stupid, and of being out of step with the current fashion of post-modermism in 'intellectual' circles.

It offers no insight or help for anyone engaged in science, nor is it useful in any way for the so called 'man on the street'.

I have to disagree. Though remember that, although the philosophy of science is important and valuable, it does not mean science is just a philosophy/worldview.

The philosophy of science is the reasoning which carves out concepts such as laws, theories, models, testabilitly, reputability, instrumentalism, predictions etc. which are all important when conducting scientific investigations.

Science is a method applied to the natural world. But a sound understanding of the philosophy of science is necessary to make sure the method is implemented correctly.

P.S. I agree that intellectuals/arts students who try to trivialise science are idiots.

Dades

pH wrote:

Absolutely not, the whole "philosophy of science" can be summed up as pointless postulating by men who believe they're much cleverer than they actually are.

pH, perhaps your feelings are more to do with the "science of philosophy" than the "philosophy of science"?