5 ms·
It's not so uncommon in science to come to a strange conclusion by excluding all "reasonable" alternatives. For example, black holes have a similar status: no o
by alfiopuglisi 2y ago
It's not so uncommon in science to come to a strange conclusion by excluding all "reasonable" alternatives. For example, black holes have a similar status: no one has conclusively seen one, but we know of no mechanism for matter to support itself beyond a certain density, so black hole it is.
- fallingsquirrel 2y agoHave we not pointed telescopes into space and seen the way light bends around a black hole? I guess in a way it's true that nobody has conclusively "seen" one (since they don't emit light), but by that logic nobody has conclusively seen the hole in the middle of a donut either.
- ruthmarx 2y ago> but by that logic nobody has conclusively seen the hole in the middle of a donut either. Not quite..we can see the donut hole very clearly, put things through it, measure it, interact with it. We can measure and observe and test it however we like. Not so with a black hole. Yet.
- jawilson2 2y agoI guess I don't understand...what is going on here? https://eventhorizontelescope.org/ https://eventhorizontelescope.org/
- prewett 2y agoMy understanding is that the EHT images are a result of a lot (like, months) of data processing, not an image from the telescope. So arguably still not a direct observation.
- ruthmarx 2y agoExactly this.
- Asraelite 2y agoDigital photographs are just the result of processing the sensor readings of photodiodes. It seems quite arbitrary to say one is an "image" and the other isn't just because the processing step is more complicated. Both accurately represent what you would see if you were there in person (ignoring false color etc.).
- davorak 2y ago> It's not so uncommon in science to come to a strange conclusion by excluding all "reasonable" alternatives. That is not what happen in the article, or to my understanding in this field of research. > For example, black holes have a similar status: no one has conclusively seen one, but we know of no mechanism for matter to support itself beyond a certain density, so black hole it is. Comparing the equation based methods of physics, often called a "hard" science, to neurology or biology, often called a a "soft" science, is not going to be an apples to apples comparison.
- ruthmarx 2y ago> neurology or biology, often called a a "soft" science, Neurology and biology are absolutely hard sciences, just as hard as physics.
- 77pt77 2y ago> Neurology and biology are absolutely hard sciences Sometimes. > just as hard as physics. No. Not even close.
- anthk 2y agoNeurology maybe, specially with the book "The Rhythms of The Brain". Still far from pure Physics. Biology it's more about classification/sorting than Math.
- ruthmarx 2y ago> Sometimes. No, always. No exceptions. > No. Not even close. It's exactly equal because it's a category not a scale and certainly not a competition. Hard sciences are those that can be tested and verified. Biology, neurology and physicals all meet that criteria, and thus are all hard. Soft sciences are those that are harder to test, like economics and psychology.
- dekhn 2y agoNo, absolutely not. (my phd is in biophysics; I've worked across many different fields)
- drowsspa 2y agoThis sounds like the whole "we've never seen a species evolving". Much like fossils, radioactive dating, geology come together to give us a picture of evolution, we have tons of real evidence for black holes. But we even have two actual pictures now.
- dekhn 2y agoyes, but in this case, nobody has excluded all the more probable alternatives.