>Not sure why this comment got downvoted, but after all this is HN: very pro-tech while at the same time anti-science. Computers do everything so knowledge doesn't matter.
Whether there's any particular method right now, next week or next year for such "detection" isn't relevant in this context for several reasons:
1. Sagan's example was a metaphor for an unfalsifiable hypothesis;
2. Dragons (okay, kimodo dragons do, but that's orthogonal to the discussion) don't actually exist;
3. Even if dragons with the properties posited by Sagan actually do exist, Evidence must be provided to confirm the "garage dragon" hypothesis or it's irrelevant. If it cannot be detected, it may as well not exist.
While it's true that "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," not being able to verify the non-existence of something doesn't confirm its existence.
I suggest you use the rest of the tools provided in Sagan's "Baloney Detection Kit" (helpfully linked above) to help you get the point.
I'd also point out that the guidelines[0] say:
Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good,
and it makes boring reading.
>It IS relevant to me and to most scientists. And you sound like someone who stops giving up at the first obstacle.
QFT posits that the graviton (as a particle-like excitation in a "gravity field") exists.
We do not currently (although there are some potential future experiments that might be able to confirm the existence of the graviton) have the means to detect gravitons.
Does the graviton exist? I don't know and neither do you. And we won't, unless and until we have the ability to detect gravitons. While we have a theoretical basis for gravitons, we have no experimental or observational evidence. Does that mean we should stop looking? No.
How about dark matter. What exactly is dark matter? We have a bunch of evidence that something that doesn't interact via the photon (the particle-like excitation of the EM field), but does interact gravitationally with itself and other fermions and bosons.
We don't know what that "dark matter" might be, but we continue looking for it, as there is both theoretical and observational evidence of its existence.
As for the "garage dragon," there is no theoretical, experimental or observational evidence for it.
There is also none of that for my claim of the absolute existence of a gremlin living inside your skull chowing down on your brain. But we should definitely saw open your skull to prove it, right? I'm partial to circular saws, but we can go with a chainsaw if you like.
>you sound like someone who stops giving up at the first obstacle.
It's not clear what ad-hominem attack you're making against me here as the words, as strung together don't make sense, but who I am or what I will or won't do is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
Are you unable to make a better argument and so attack me personally instead?
>> I'd also point out that the guidelines[0] say:
>I had already removed it by the time you commented, so that's on you.
Did you? Thanks for finally following the site guidelines. Perhaps next time you won't need to be reminded.
