Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Re: Proof

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Chris Nicholl on November 8, 2000 19:30:41 UTC

Theories are meant to explain something that is not directly observable, or to predict its behavior.

For an item that one can observe, there is no need to theorize. You can see it, it is there.

This may seem like it begs the question, but really you're trying to apply a framework to something for which it isn't applicable.

A theory would suggest, for example, that Pluto will be in a certain position at a certain time. You can disprove the theory, obviously, if Pluto isn't in that spot at that time. But once you can observe Pluto, you don't then need to "prove" that observation.

So, you "prove" a theory, but you don't "prove" an observation.

Follow Ups:

    Login to Post
    Additional Information
    Google
     
    Web www.astronomy.net
    DayNightLine
    About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
    Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2020 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
    Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
    "dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
    are trademarks of John Huggins