You really need to read the information provided about GW150914. There is no direct observation of the event, irrespective of what LIGO might say about the matter, LIGO is an indirect methodology.

I have no doubt that something was observed, but what that was will take far more research and repeated events that can be backed up by other observational means before we have any real evidence before us.

The science is only settled for those who want certainty in their models and theories. For practical uses, one can believe that electrons exist and act in particular ways and we build "technology" based on those "beliefs". Yet, we still do not have any real handle on what these particular entities are.

I used to believe in "black holes" and other assorted entities. I had no problems with these things, until I started noticing the discrepancies. It made me take a longer look and I realised that we know far less than we think and we understand far less than we think we do.

I live country that experiences climate change, yet, what I find interesting is that if you have questions about whether or not it is anthropogenic, you are immediately classified as a denier. The same goes for many different areas in science. If you don't accept the dogma you have to be a "crank".

What science needs is a higher level of scepticism than what it currently has.

Too many of the "settled" things are not "settled" at all. We have barely scratched the surface of the universe around us and the major failing we have is this desire to be certain. There are huge amounts of experimental observations that are showing that we really have no clue and an enormous number of new models are being developed as the years go by.

Look, to do science you have to believe the world outside your head can be observed; and if you are ready to trust the rickety and convoluted stack that encodes pulses from a keyboard into photons from a screen to accurately convey information, then gravity waves have been observed and match predictions for black holes exactly.

If you want to stick to reading Gorgias of Leontini that is fine, but please don't bother the rest of us that do accept the world outside as real.

You miss the point of what I am saying. Observations are being made, but is the given explanation actually meaningful? The universe is real. This does not mean that our explanations or interpretations are "truth". The problem I have with the current mindset is that it trends to treating others with a different viewpoint, model or theory as being unworthy of consideration, to be treated as pariahs, imbeciles, crackpots, heretics, to be hunted down and assassinated.

We should be accepting that our models and theories are both incomplete and wrong, irrespective of how useful they are. Every model and theory has its points of failure. That should be expected and is not a problem. Starting from that basis, we keep investigating to get better models or theories that help us gain a better insight into the universe around us. If that means giving up one model for something completely else, then what's the problem. Our universe is beautiful, complex, a place of incredible wonder that we can have an exciting time exploring and discovery.

There is a vast difference between the reality of the universe and what our models and theories are. The first is the territory, the second is only a map and maps can be notoriously faulty.

In regards to your reference to Gorgias of Leontini, I had to look that up. I chuckled. Is it possible that some of the "superstars" of science today are modern students of him?