Quote Originally Posted by holli4pirating View Post
I did state quite clearly that I myself was not convinced that back holes exist, so I don't disagree that there may be more than one explanation for indirect evidence. I'm simply saying that I don't think indirect evidence should be discounted or given less consideration simply because it is indirect.

Also, just because a theory seems wild or outlandish does not mean that it is not scientific. If you had solid evidence to support your hole in space statement, a theory describing holes and space and how they should behave, and testable predictions that were found to be correct, you would have a scientific theory (as we've defined science here thus far).
Holli4, I wasn't arguing with you on the subject, but rather just trying to make up an example for the sake of furthering the discussion.

Let me say this much: just because a statement is made by a scientist, that does not make it scientific.

I would say that wild outlandish statements that are not well supported are not scientifically valid.

My hole in space theory uses the observable swirl of water down the drain to show that it is exactly the same dynamic observable in galactic swirling to support my theory.

Indirect evidence certainly should be given less consideration.