Quote Originally Posted by holli4pirating View Post
Your point about black holes is an interesting one. I think we'd have to define directly observed to really get into it. There are lots of things that are found only by observing their interactions with other bodies. But when indirect evidence is strong and clear, I see no reason to discount it. That said, I'm not sure I'm totally convinced of black holes either.

Unless we are discussing the role of indirect evidence in science or pseudoscience, I'd like to stick to the topic at hand, which is how to define and distinguish between these two words.

It would be interesting to consider whether or not honing can be approached scientifically... but first we'd have to know what we mean by "scientifically."
The common understanding of what a black hole is (a super dense gravitational well) would fit the observable evidence.

But wouldn't also a physical hole in space? Not a collapsed star, but a big gaping hole in the barrier of our universe? Like when you pull the plug on a tub of water, everything swirls down the drain, it even has the same swirl that galaxies have, which is further indirect evidence of my newly hatched theory. So, I am launching my new thesis: NO black holes, they are hole holes...and we're all going down the drain.

See how easy psuedo-science is?