argumentA line of reasoning from premises to a conclusion. Like a claim, it belongs to no one who makes it.constitution →
Residual metastable-scenario gap
forThis argument, if it holds, bears in favour of the claim.constitution →Published LHC black hole risk analyses do not establish that catastrophic risk is negligible.
The argument
Because linked claim and linked claim, a hazardous scenario would remain outside the scope of the published exclusions, and analyses that leave such a scenario unaddressed do not establish that catastrophic risk is negligible.
Does it work?
Not yet evaluated.
Premises
- ContradictedThe evidence, examined directly, weighs against the claim.constitution →Astrophysical bounds from stellar survival do not exclude metastable collider-produced black holes.
- ContradictedThe evidence, examined directly, weighs against the claim.constitution →A metastable black hole accreting matter at the Eddington limit would emit hazardous Hawking radiation.
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.