Comment: Science is the tool

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: call me mr. nitpicky :D (see in situ)

Science is the tool

and the body of knowledge gained by that tool. Some knowledge depends on exactly how the tool is used, they are inseparable, IMO.

By question science(the tool and the information), I'm sure not suggesting we toss the tool altogether, but, perhaps use or make a better one for the task.

If someone says "an atom is 'x' big", but they used a microscope, well, that's a bit suspect. Now, if they used an electron microscope, that's different. It does beg the questions, "what is an electron microscope and how does it work? Can it measure an atom? How?"

Technology is the application of that body of knowledge.

The methodology of science is how it follows strict guidelines to be acceptable and reproducible, but even a scientists methodology needs to be analyzed.

You missed the "Hawking Radiation"? That was like 40 years ago, so it's hardly surprising. It's quite fascinating.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation

The term "evaporation" may be a bit of an extrapolation (not mine), but its an easier interpretation than the math. And, since Hawking is a theorist, "shown" will only ever mean, mathematically.

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-09/hawking-radiat...

These folks claim to have shown it, non mathematically. Obviously, this would be subject to verification, inspection of the tools they used, their methodology and duplication before its acceptable.

There are certainly some issues with Hawking's equations, and not all theorists are fully on board. I'm happy to debate some of the points of his theory, the controversy seems centered on how he dealt with the shorter than the plank length wavelength of a photon. As you know, when you get that small, all bets are off. ;)

I can't say I fully agree with all of Hawking's conclusions, but possible experimental evidence is certainly interesting. Took them long enough. ;)

Just open the box and see