Space/Science — HabitableZone

Space/Science » in reply to not exactly, the burden is to Offer a BETTER theory

Nick's right
TB — (archived)

At this level of science, where observation is almost impossible, things operate at the hypothetical and theoretical level. A theory is proposed that answers all the observations, and it is generally accepted unless someone proposes either a better one that fits the facts better or more simply, shows how an observed fact conflicts with the theory, or both. This is going on all the time in many fields of science.

Jacob mentioned geocentric cosmology, aether, and such in another post. We tend to sneer at these now, but intelligent people accepted these theories at the time because, AT THE TIME, they fit the known observations.

The Oort Cloud may end up obsolete some day, but it isn't yet.

There's also human nature. The level of proof required to accept a hypothesis as true depends on how important it is to our lives. Jacob's example of a murder trial is critical to defendants and victims. A hypothesis that milk causes cancer would require some extraordinary proof.

Frankly, it wouldn't make one bit of difference to most people whether there's an Oort Cloud or not, so why not take it as a given barring further evidence? Works for me.

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (35 posts)