HarryRik9
no edit summary
m+61
Aschlafly
→Definition Of Black Hole Needs Revision: Do you have a concise proposed new definition to insert into the entry?
+164
HarryRik9
Suggested Change Definition of Black Hole
m+1,522
PatMc
→Concerning escape velocity of black holes
+98
PatMc
→Concerning escape velocity of black holes
+254
BradWhistance
→Concerning escape velocity of black holes
-26
BradWhistance
→Concerning escape velocity of black holes: new section
+773
Aschlafly
But the problem is that atheists and liberals misuse and distort science to pull students away from the Bible and God, and that needs to be exposed and stopped
+362
EvanW
→Reversion Anticipated: Is this what science does?
+799
Aschlafly
The concept of falsifiability is very effective in dealing with atheistic and liberal claims that are designed to distract people from the Bible and God.
+911
BenjaminS
→Reversion Anticipated
+389
Aschlafly
Under your approach EVERYTHING would be falsifiable. It would render the criterion of falsifiability a nullity
+184
BenO
no edit summary
+284
EvanW
→Impossible?: Mathematical v. actual
+833
BenO
no edit summary
+461
Aschlafly
→Impossible?: Have you really seen these events that you describe? Don't believe everything that liberals tell you, as we've just seen with climategate
+294
BenO
no edit summary
+521
BMcP
→Reversion Anticipated
+445
BMcP
→Reversion Anticipated
+1,203
Ed Poor
/* Reversion Anticipated */ This thread should be called →falsifiability
+704
EvanW
→Reversion Anticipated: Is this why?
+673
BMcP
→Reversion Anticipated
+208
Aschlafly
→Reversion Anticipated: Black holes are non-falsifiable for reasons beyond the inability of light to escape.
+389
EvanW
→Reversion Anticipated: Could you explain why?
+315
Aschlafly
I only changed the intro, which does not contain your phrase, but there are structural (intended?) theoretical barriers to testing claims about what is inside a black hole. It's speculation ad nauseu
+277
BMcP
→Reversion Anticipated
+710
EvanW
→Reversion Anticipated: Good point, but we need to tell why. How's this?
+926
Aschlafly
→Reversion Anticipated: that information should be in the introduction, not buried thousands of words later
+501
EvanW
Agreed - I thought I did it.
+507
Aschlafly
We don't fall for Wikipedia-style placement bias here, as in having to read through thousands of words and page screen pages before realizing that Bertrand Russell was a communist sympathizer
+388
KSorenson
no edit summary
+522
Jpatt
Reverted edits by BruceL (Talk) to last version by Aschlafly
m-472
BruceL
→Falsifiability
+472
Aschlafly
→Falsifiability: reply to KSorenson
+466
KSorenson
no edit summary
+1,555
Aschlafly
one key question is unanswered: if promoting black holes caused people to read the Bible less, would you want to promote them?
+519
EvanW
→Falsifiability: oops, sign...
m+74
EvanW
→Falsifiability: I think we've reached agreement
+933
Aschlafly
There's a broader point here. Why the big push for black holes by liberals, and big protests against any objection to them?
+1,110
Aschlafly
Reverted edits by MichaelHWC (Talk) to last version by KSorenson
m-471
MichaelHWC
→Falsifiability
+471
KSorenson
no edit summary
+1,461
MarkGall
no edit summary
+276
EvanW
→Falsifiability: General relativity - theoretically falsifiable, practically ??
+1,480
Aschlafly
Popper's personal views are irrelevant; no one here says that Popper was a genius who was always right.
+805
MarkGall
no edit summary
+782
Aschlafly
→Falsifiability: You make excellent points ...
+614