We can see exoplanets though, and we know there are trillions in just this galaxy. This is more like Planet X in our solar system; there’s some observations that might suggest the existence of a large planet in the Kuiper belt, but we have no direct evidence whatsoever. Hardly anything we see would change one way of the other, according to our current understanding of solar system development.
I am not entirely certain what point you’re making here. Is the premise that conclusions based on evidence that involves literally seeing the thing are stronger than any conclusions where we haven’t directly seen the thing? If so, then we better throw out a majority of our scientific hypotheses, since most of them have not are not based on evidence where we have directly seen the thing (most of quantum mechanics, most of general relativity, most of astronomy, etc.)
Human sight is a very restrictive window into observing our universe. We can only see a sliver of the light spectrum (visible light). We can expand this window slightly by using other senses to observe our universe (sound, taste, touch, scent). Where science shines is the practitioners ability to use abstract models and thought processes to draw conclusions about things we cannot observe. This expands our window into understanding our universe far more than leaning only on concrete models (things we can directly observed).
In simpler terms, most of science’s conclusions involve ones that are closer to Planet X rather than directly seeing an exoplanet. Therefore, we cannot cheapen these type of conclusions.
All science requires is models that make accurate predictions. For example, atoms. We have never seen an atom before, but we have used this model of the atom to accurately predict outcomes of experiments. Because of this, the atom still exists as a working hypothesis in science.
My oint is that we have a plethora of direct evidence of exoplanets, but only a small handfull of indirect evidence for other universes at best.
That’s not necessarily evidence against other universes, but when asked about exactly how much evidence for other universes we have, “The math suggests they are possible” isn’t very strong, especially when the math makes massively incorrect predictions elsewhere that we still haven’t explained.
What is the strongest piece of evidence for the existence of other universes, and the strongest piece of evidence for the existence of dark matter? There are serious theories attempting to explain the universe without dark matter right now, so jf the evidence for other universes is weaker than dark matter, people aren’t going to take it seriously.
We can see exoplanets though, and we know there are trillions in just this galaxy. This is more like Planet X in our solar system; there’s some observations that might suggest the existence of a large planet in the Kuiper belt, but we have no direct evidence whatsoever. Hardly anything we see would change one way of the other, according to our current understanding of solar system development.
I am not entirely certain what point you’re making here. Is the premise that conclusions based on evidence that involves literally seeing the thing are stronger than any conclusions where we haven’t directly seen the thing? If so, then we better throw out a majority of our scientific hypotheses, since most of them have not are not based on evidence where we have directly seen the thing (most of quantum mechanics, most of general relativity, most of astronomy, etc.)
Human sight is a very restrictive window into observing our universe. We can only see a sliver of the light spectrum (visible light). We can expand this window slightly by using other senses to observe our universe (sound, taste, touch, scent). Where science shines is the practitioners ability to use abstract models and thought processes to draw conclusions about things we cannot observe. This expands our window into understanding our universe far more than leaning only on concrete models (things we can directly observed).
In simpler terms, most of science’s conclusions involve ones that are closer to Planet X rather than directly seeing an exoplanet. Therefore, we cannot cheapen these type of conclusions.
All science requires is models that make accurate predictions. For example, atoms. We have never seen an atom before, but we have used this model of the atom to accurately predict outcomes of experiments. Because of this, the atom still exists as a working hypothesis in science.
My oint is that we have a plethora of direct evidence of exoplanets, but only a small handfull of indirect evidence for other universes at best.
That’s not necessarily evidence against other universes, but when asked about exactly how much evidence for other universes we have, “The math suggests they are possible” isn’t very strong, especially when the math makes massively incorrect predictions elsewhere that we still haven’t explained.
What is the strongest piece of evidence for the existence of other universes, and the strongest piece of evidence for the existence of dark matter? There are serious theories attempting to explain the universe without dark matter right now, so jf the evidence for other universes is weaker than dark matter, people aren’t going to take it seriously.