4 ms·

You can do spectroscopy on the light emitted from stars and see what elements it's made of. This, combined with our understanding of physics, both offer overwh

by tjohns 10y ago

You can do spectroscopy on the light emitted from stars and see what elements it's made of. This, combined with our understanding of physics, both offer overwhelming support for the notion that stars are powered by nuclear fusion.

Razengan 10y ago
> support for the notion So it's a theory, not a proven "fact." Can we know for 100% sure before we replicate a sun and see the expected behavior and output? I'm just taking issue with the liberal use of the word "fact" in my comment's parent. It seems to have become as diluted as "literally."
- azrazalea 10y ago
  With that definition of fact, very very few facts actually exist at all.
- dbenhur 10y ago
  Curious you drop the adjective "overwhelming" in your quote and confuse scientific theory with hypothesis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory "In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science. Such theories are described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand and either provide empirical support ("verify") or empirically contradict ("falsify") it. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge, in contrast to more common uses of the word "theory" that imply that something is unproven or speculative (which is better characterized by the word 'hypothesis')."
- alphapapa 10y ago
  Seems like a fair point to me. If science is really about reproducibility, then this is a fair question. How can we say with absolute certainty until we run a falsifiable experiment? Note that I'm not disputing our understanding of how stars work. The point is whether our understanding is based on reproducibility.

by tjohns 10y ago

Razengan 10y ago

> support for the notion So it's a theory, not a proven "fact." Can we know for 100% sure before we replicate a sun and see the expected behavior and output? I'm just taking issue with the liberal use of the word "fact" in my comment's parent. It seems to have become as diluted as "literally."

azrazalea 10y ago
With that definition of fact, very very few facts actually exist at all.
dbenhur 10y ago
Curious you drop the adjective "overwhelming" in your quote and confuse scientific theory with hypothesis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory "In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science. Such theories are described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand and either provide empirical support ("verify") or empirically contradict ("falsify") it. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge, in contrast to more common uses of the word "theory" that imply that something is unproven or speculative (which is better characterized by the word 'hypothesis')."
alphapapa 10y ago
Seems like a fair point to me. If science is really about reproducibility, then this is a fair question. How can we say with absolute certainty until we run a falsifiable experiment? Note that I'm not disputing our understanding of how stars work. The point is whether our understanding is based on reproducibility.