What INow said is right nutron.
It is
NOT un-scientific to hypothesize that something unobservable does not exist, because it is a falsifiable hypothesis.
It
IS un-scientific to hypothesize that something unobservable DOES exist, because this hypothesis is not falsifiable.
It is as simple as that.
Quote:
Falsifiability (or refutability or testability) is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, that if it is false, then this can be shown by observation or experiment. Falsifiability is an important concept in science and the philosophy of science.
Some philosophers and scientists, most notably Karl Popper, have asserted that a hypothesis, proposition or theory is scientific only if it is falsifiable.
Not all statements that are falsifiable in principle are falsifiable in practice. For example, "it will be raining here in one million years" is theoretically falsifiable, but not practically. On the other hand, a statement like "there exist parallel universes which cannot interact with our universe" is not falsifiable even in principle; there is no way to test whether such a universe does or does not exist.
|
Falsifiability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Likewise the statement "God Exists" is not falsifiable even in principle; there is no way to test whether God does or does not exist.
