Plaga's evasion argument
The argument
Because linked claim, stellar-survival observations would carry no signature of such objects even if they were dangerous; and because linked claim, the bounds leave the relevant region of parameter space unconstrained, so the claim follows.
Does it work?
Not yet evaluated.
Premises
- ContradictedThe evidence, examined directly, weighs against the claim.constitution →Eddington-limited accretion by metastable micro black holes would evade existing astrophysical observations.
- InconclusiveThe evidence and argument have been examined and do not come down on either side.constitution →Published LHC black hole risk analyses do not establish that catastrophic risk is negligible.
Where it is made
Passages where sources make, criticize or mention this argument. They record where it appears, not how strong it is, and none has precedence over another.
No source is recorded as making it.
Earlier ratings
- Jul 19, 2026
The inference would go through if its premises held, but its load-bearing premise, the evasion of astrophysical observations by Eddington-limited micro black holes, is contradicted: the Eddington argument is inapplicable at the relevant radii and the radiated power rests on an inconsistent application of the Casadio-Harms model. The companion premise, that published risk analyses do not establish negligible risk, remains contested but concerns the epistemology of risk analyses generally, not the physics of the stellar-survival bounds, so it cannot carry the argument alone. As it stands the argument does not establish the claim.