<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Galaxy rotation curves with log-normal density distribution · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1502.02949/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1502.02949/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Galaxy rotation curves with log-normal density distribution — mentioned by nonbel</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12675185</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1502.02949:12675185</guid><pubDate>Mon, 10 Oct 2016 05:14:47 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;One thing that bugs me about dark matter is that all the assumptions being made do not seem to have been fully investigated before &amp;quot;accepting&amp;quot; the idea as mainstream: &amp;quot;The Duhem–Quine thesis, also called the Duhem–Quine problem, after Pierre Duhem and Willard Van Orman Quine, is that it is impossible to test a scientific hypothesis in isolation, because an empirical test of the hypothesis requires one or more background assumptions (also called auxiliary assumptions or auxiliary hypotheses). In recent decades the set of associated assumptions supporting a thesis sometimes is called a bundle…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1502.02949/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>astro-ph.GA</category></item></channel></rss>
