3 ms·

Yeah, but we also do not know whether there is an giant mass-less invisible teapot shaped like an unicorn circling the outer rim of the solar system. The probl

by atoav 3y ago

Yeah, but we also do not know whether there is an giant mass-less invisible teapot shaped like an unicorn circling the outer rim of the solar system. The problem with theories that cannot be tested is, that once you accept them arbitrary things follow from them. That teopot could influence the thoughts of our politicians for example. While I have nothing against a little bit of fantasy, it is always important to keep the understanding that those are in fact stories and that they appeal to certain people precisely because they are literally detached from this harsh reality. Don't get me wrong, you can also be fascinated with the possibility of there being aliens without having to believe in them being already here.

mbgerring 3y ago
It’s also important to acknowledge that there are things we cannot yet measure which are no less real than things we can. Believing a non-falsifiable hypothesis is dumb, sure, but so is believing that the only things that are real are those that we can currently measure. And it requires some curiosity verging on pure fantasy to motivate us to learn to measure the things we currently cannot.
- k8svet 3y ago
  Oh I'm perfectly motivated to be open minded and curious without giving credence to every imaginary conspiracy that pops in my head. You can dress it up however you like but it's unsubstantiated fictive speculation 100% either way.
GoblinSlayer 3y ago
It's called Planet 9, actually subject of scientific research, because we barely see anything at all.
- atoav 3y ago
  I know (have even used tlit as a metaphor for our lack of knowledge in my MA thesis), but the existence of planet 9 is a falsifiable theory. Maybe not today, and not with the technology/funds we have to look at it, but if we wanted to get on top of that, we could, unless it is a primordial black hole the size of a tennisball that is. But my point was that in this case we can say: yeah, there is some unaccounted mass (observation) let's form explainations about what it could be (theory). There are only so many things with mass we know in our solar system, so it being a other planet is a reasonable assumption. It being a invisible giant unicorn-shaped teapot is not. If you have a theory without an observation it is called a story. And now someone would bring up eyewitness accounts or declassified airforce videos and call them observations. The point here is that you need to go from observation to theory and not the other way around. If every unidentified flying object is extraterrestrial life you are gonna be wrong a lot of times, just because there is a big likelihood of unidentified flying objects being of terrestrial origin (or them not even be objects in the first place). That means you got a needle/haystack problem there and front-loading the theory like that isn't gonna help.
  - GoblinSlayer 3y ago
    If a planet can be invisible, why a teapot can't?
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - atoav 3y ago
      Both can be, but the teapot is an arbitrary enough stand-in that the idea behind what I said should be clear. Because we do not know what it is we could assume it is anything, it could also be Kurt Cobain, Elvis Presley and Jim Morrison in a pink whirlpool in space. But just because we can't as of now disprove that theory, doesn't mean it is a good one, unless we judge entertainment value. White spots on the map of knowledge seem to have an attraction on people that feel the need to put the most colorful, most exciting things there.
  - actionfromafar 3y ago
    Maybe we could somehow triangulate the hypothetical black hole too, with enough probes. If it has mass, it can in principle be detected.
sugarkjube 3y ago
> whether there is an giant mass-less invisible teapot shaped like an unicorn circling the outer rim of the solar system. seems easy to check - just send an HTTP request, and see if you get an HTTP 418 back.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- iGovernment 3y ago
  lol... This made my morning...
1letterunixname 3y ago
It would help to first to deal with reality and stop abusing words that have specific meanings. Law > theory > prediction / hypothesis > conjecture > crazy people shit Entertaining crazy people shit, while entertaining to some people, is little more than word salad bullshit.

by atoav 3y ago

mbgerring 3y ago

It’s also important to acknowledge that there are things we cannot yet measure which are no less real than things we can. Believing a non-falsifiable hypothesis is dumb, sure, but so is believing that the only things that are real are those that we can currently measure. And it requires some curiosity verging on pure fantasy to motivate us to learn to measure the things we currently cannot.

k8svet 3y ago
Oh I'm perfectly motivated to be open minded and curious without giving credence to every imaginary conspiracy that pops in my head. You can dress it up however you like but it's unsubstantiated fictive speculation 100% either way.

GoblinSlayer 3y ago

It's called Planet 9, actually subject of scientific research, because we barely see anything at all.

atoav 3y ago
I know (have even used tlit as a metaphor for our lack of knowledge in my MA thesis), but the existence of planet 9 is a falsifiable theory. Maybe not today, and not with the technology/funds we have to look at it, but if we wanted to get on top of that, we could, unless it is a primordial black hole the size of a tennisball that is. But my point was that in this case we can say: yeah, there is some unaccounted mass (observation) let's form explainations about what it could be (theory). There are only so many things with mass we know in our solar system, so it being a other planet is a reasonable assumption. It being a invisible giant unicorn-shaped teapot is not. If you have a theory without an observation it is called a story. And now someone would bring up eyewitness accounts or declassified airforce videos and call them observations. The point here is that you need to go from observation to theory and not the other way around. If every unidentified flying object is extraterrestrial life you are gonna be wrong a lot of times, just because there is a big likelihood of unidentified flying objects being of terrestrial origin (or them not even be objects in the first place). That means you got a needle/haystack problem there and front-loading the theory like that isn't gonna help.
- GoblinSlayer 3y ago
  If a planet can be invisible, why a teapot can't?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - atoav 3y ago
    Both can be, but the teapot is an arbitrary enough stand-in that the idea behind what I said should be clear. Because we do not know what it is we could assume it is anything, it could also be Kurt Cobain, Elvis Presley and Jim Morrison in a pink whirlpool in space. But just because we can't as of now disprove that theory, doesn't mean it is a good one, unless we judge entertainment value. White spots on the map of knowledge seem to have an attraction on people that feel the need to put the most colorful, most exciting things there.
- actionfromafar 3y ago
  Maybe we could somehow triangulate the hypothetical black hole too, with enough probes. If it has mass, it can in principle be detected.

sugarkjube 3y ago

> whether there is an giant mass-less invisible teapot shaped like an unicorn circling the outer rim of the solar system. seems easy to check - just send an HTTP request, and see if you get an HTTP 418 back.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
iGovernment 3y ago
lol... This made my morning...

1letterunixname 3y ago

It would help to first to deal with reality and stop abusing words that have specific meanings. Law > theory > prediction / hypothesis > conjecture > crazy people shit Entertaining crazy people shit, while entertaining to some people, is little more than word salad bullshit.