A. The scientific method requires confirmation by others. Who will confirm this claim?
B. Scientists tell their peers of achievements in journals and at conferences. Give some thought to reasons why these people are using popular media.
Tom, I don't feel that I'm qualified enough to confirm or rebut any of these two theories but neither do I think all scientists are pseudoscientists for coming down on one side or the other.
Thanks for the link.
Stephen, UK English and USA English appears to differ in small ways, one of which I learned in a course on mathematical logic.
An exclusive ‘or’ (A or B but not A and B) distinguishes scientists from pseudoscientists.
An inclusive ‘or’ (A or B or A and B) does not distinguish the two.
I didn’t know there were two kinds of “or’ until I took that course.
I’m happy to see that you are suspending judgment, a scientist’s option.
Pseurodscientists could never claim anything in a discipline where it takes team work in case of investigating black holes. Telescope time, the staff, the engineers, the students, you think a pseudoscientist will even get in the front or back door? The papers to be presented, the plan, the outline, the thesis-theorem- have to be assessed before time is even allocated to have a look at a black hole. And how will your pseudoscientist get their degree in stay astrophysics in the first place? The day of a single individual being what you claim was no longer extant by the later nineteenth century. And your knowledge of the scientific method is rather woeful because science and scientists admit when a theory is unfeasible or superseded due to verifiable evidence duplicated independently elsewhere.
If scientists are using popular media- that is because the populace would not be able to find academic papers posted at university sites globally for those in this discipline. In fact the problem has been that scientists are not media obsessed. Too reluctant to make their science known apart from the fact it takes a lot of work and discipline to do the work they do. Your header is in itself unscientific. It can neither be verified or confirmed. As well as rather vague given the amount of black holes in the universe. So this 'a' sort of is too general to know what it is you are actually asking there.
I've heard some theoritical physisist say that their a mini black holes all around us popping up and popping out.
Membrain theory - The latest is there are 13.
People watch too much star Treck and read too much Science fiction - in my opinion.
the mini black holes--- I first read about them decades ago about 'virtual space' as in that out space is a medium with 'virtual particles' popping in and out of space. this exchange of information-energy evens out and is what is what we know as space. When 'out' there is a void. when 'in' there is energy back and so the minus and the plus becomes evened out. now someone said the space-physical that is- between these particles has tiny black holes. all over the place. I think he means this in a mathematical forumlation rather than the real thing itself. to explain some anomality I cannot remember. but that is science- try this try that and when the evidence comes in delete what makes no sense .[as opposed to religion that tries to hang on no matter what]-called saving appearances.
yes StarWreck is crap. SF has lost it recently. Like the last 15 years. part to do with publishers as well. I am going to blog on this later
A number of people I worked with moved to Berkely Livermore Lab. They were working on interesting stuff with nuclides and brain cancer.