|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
 Posted - 09/14/2011 : 19:49:53 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Sebastian
Likewise, any measurements or predictions about dark matter or dark energy can be seen as errors in measurements according to the existing theory, prior to the postulation of the existence of dark matter.
It seems to me, to put it in a nutshell, that astrophysicists and astronomers, having discovered some serious flaws in their existing theories relating to the Big Bang, the consequent expansion of the universe, and the amount of matter in the universe, have invented or imagined a mythical substance (which they've called dark matter and dark energy), that makes their theories fit, and makes them correspond with the observed universe. |
Of course, that's why we're trying to make a new model. We're always wrong in some sense, but sometimes postulating something that works puts us closer to right. As someone mentioned, it's not an all-or-nothing proposition.
| This concept is in the back of my mind, I admit. I think there is an analogy here, however weak, but the analogy would only apply to agnosticism about God. In other words, "I don't know whether or not there is a God, but I have an open mind", which would be similar to "I don't know whether Dark Matter really exists, but I have an open mind." |
I suppose that is my position on God. I just tentatively assume there is not one as it's not sustainable intellectual practice to give credibility to something that doesn't produce testable hypotheses. Dark matter models, on the other hand, do this.
Well, Machi4vellie, you are certainly an excellent apologist for unsound scientific theories.  Your statement also fails to distinguish between hypothesis and verified theory.
You seem to be moving here from one extreme to another? Moving from a position where the existence of a mythical substance is predicated on the fact that it seems to correct errors in our measurements, to the fact that there is no absolute certainty in any scientific theory, however often such theory has been verified. |
What is a verified theory? To me it seems to be a set of hypotheses that are consistent with each other, have made predictions about the physical world, and have had these predictions confirmed.
They are still open to challenge. Consider Newtonian physics -- it works exceedingly well in the contexts in which we tested it and by any definition would be considered verified, but we unknowingly overextended it to all physics which ends up being quite wrong on very large or very small scales, so this "verified theory" has been drastically changed.
You seem to think we're all very confident dark matter exists and is correct, but all I am saying is that it makes good predictions, it's consistent with our other ideas, and seems a pretty useful model. As far as I'm concerned, hypothesized models are good as long as they make good predictions. Of course we are always be on the lookout for inconsistencies, simpler explanations, and generally more useful models.
| Generally, my view is, if we can't detect, capture and examine something, then it can't be claimed to exist. When I use the word invisible in this context, of course I don't just mean invisible to the naked eye. I know one can't use an electron microscope to see an electron (at least I think I know. I might be wrong). But one can use an electron microscope to view molecules. |
It's a matter of model fitting. We throw stuff against the wall and see what sticks. Researchers analyze tiny pieces at a time and reject this, add that, and generally push models toward better approximations of reality. At some point, we very well may need to reject rather large parts of the models, and we typically do.
| I've never heard of anyone using Dark Matter for any practical purpose whatsoever, except to correct massive errors in existing theories. |
So? Much is true and not useful. For example, the study of prime numbers was practically useless until rather recently (cryptology applications), but it was always true.
I don't typically like to compare pure math to science, but I imagine the same is true with quantum mechanics when it was new. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
 |
|
|
Sebastian
New Member
44 Posts |
Posted - 09/14/2011 : 21:57:55 [Permalink]
|
Dave W writes:
| Well, that's just bizarre. It's like you think that because you were surprised and unread regarding dark matter, the rest of us must be, also. |
Is that really so bizarre? Isn't this a common problem with the Golden Rule, a tendency to assume that what you like the other also likes. Since we are both skeptics (are we not?), why should this be bizarre? You're not a fundamentalist Moslem, are you, by any chance?
I'm making an assertion based upon my limited understanding of the issue (as of course anyone's understanding of any issue is limited), that not a single particle of Dark Matter or Dark Energy has ever been directly observed, captured or examined.
It's existence is purely hypothetical, as far as I understand. Now if you, Dave W, think I'm just plain ignorant on this matter, and that there's a lot of evidence for the existence of Dark Matter, then please point me to some evidence. Perhaps the labs at CERN have now discovered a few particles of Dark Energy.
Surely you understand that everyone without exception can only express views within his/her own experience and knowledge, however limited.
Little purpose is served in simply telling someone they are ignorant, or don't know what they are talking about, unless such is accompanied by links or explanations to evidence that the claimed ignoramus is unaware of.
Such a process results in education. The ignoramus has learned something.
So far, Dave W, your examples of evidence for the existence of Dark Matter is not convincing.
| You haven't provided any evidence that electrons exist, Sebastian. Working through that exercise will help you understand. |
Both electrons and Dark Matter exist in some peoples' minds. The question is, do they both exist in reality, assuming of course that there is an external reality independent of our imagination.
There is a case to be made that nothing exists outside of our imaginations. What we perceive to be reality is just an experience in our own minds and that 'possibly' there is no external reality.
For example, we know that color exists only in the viewer's mind. The green of a leaf on a tree is not a property of the leaf. It's a response in our brain to the particular frequency of light that the leaf reflects, and that particular frequency of light, or range of frequencies, will not only produce slightly different responses in different individuals, but significantly different responses in people who are color blind, and even more significantly different responses in other creatures, some of which see only in black and white.
One could go one step further with this concept and claim that all our knowledge of atoms, electrons and molecules, and even our philosophical attempts to justify that there is an external reality that persists beyond and separate from our own existence, is in fact just a figment of our imagination.
Now I don't claim to know whether or not this is true. I am making a distinction between that which demonstrably exists only in the imagination, such as the color green, and that which has an external reality such as the frequency of light that is reflected from the green leaf.
My understanding is, from my terribly ignorant perspective, that Dark Matter and Dark Energy currently exist only in certain individual's minds. There is no proof of external reality.
| If someone told you that dark matter is a type of matter we know nothing about whatsoever, that person would be wrong. |
Wow! I'm so exited. Please tell me what we know about Dark Matter, as opposed to what we have speculated about Dark Matter. As a fellow skeptic I'm assuming you understand the difference betweeen 'knowing' and 'speculating' or 'hypothesising'.
| Then it must be strange to you that Einstein's Relativity is an accepted correction to Newtonian physics. The process of correcting models to match reality better as time goes on is science. |
Not strange at all. Theories are continually being modified in the direction of greater precision. What is interesting and relevant here is that Einstein's first attempt at the Theory of Relativity was predicated upon a static universe, and Einstein deliberately modified the mathematics, introducing a constant into the equations, to make his theory fit his assumptions.
There is a striking analogy here with the dark matter issue. Einstein doctored his equations to fit an erroneous conception about the universe. Modern astrophysicists have created a mythical substance to preserve the validity of their equations and perceptions of the universe.
| But you don't have an open mind. No matter how people try to correct your mistakes, you keep on going as if they'd said nothing to you. You might be reading the words, but you're not learning anything. |
C'mon, Dave. Really! I'm the first person to admit my mistakes in the face of convincing counter evidence.
Look! If someone makes a case that white bread is superior to wholemeal bread because it's purer and softer and cleaner and nicer tasting, then someone else counteracts with 'No, you're wrong', I would expect such person to be able to explain why I'm wrong.
Such explanations might refer to various studies examining the fibre content of wholemeal bread, and the quantity of various vitamins and minerals, compared to white bread.
One might also expect references to studies which explain why the greater fibre, vitamin and mineral content of wholemeal bread, is more beneficial for one's health than the contents of white bread.
As regards taste, there's no accounting for that of course.
| It's a shame, isn't it, that not all knowledge leads to something practical? The Cosmic Microwave Background exists, but we can't use the damn thing for anything. The center of the Sun exists, but is completely closed off to us for all practical purposes. |
The Cosmic Microwave Background is at least something that has been detected. It's a very low energy radiation. It supports the theory of the Big Bang. The existence of Dark matter also supports our theory of the Big Bang and the rate of expansion of the universe, but we have never detected it as we've detected the presence cosmic background radiation. But please correct me if I'm wrong. If we have detected Dark Matter, point me to the results. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 09/15/2011 : 07:29:39 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Sebastian
In other words, the following two statements mean essentially the same thing. (1) The core of the earth consists of a completely unknown substance. (2) We don't know what the core of the earth consists of. |
Actually, there is quite a big difference between statement 1 and statement 2. In order do make the first one, you would have to had examine the core and compare it with all known substances before drawing the conclusion.
Likewise, any measurements or predictions about dark matter or dark energy can be seen as errors in measurements according to the existing theory, prior to the postulation of the existence of dark matter. |
If you were to stand on the bathroom scales and it said 1000Kg, would you chalk that up as an error in measurement, or would you conclude that the scale is measuring something more than just you?
Measurements and calculations aren't wrong by an order of magnitude unless something big (like what we have come to call dark matter and dark energy) is being overlooked.
| It seems to me, to put it in a nutshell, that astrophysicists and astronomers, having discovered some serious flaws in their existing theories relating to the Big Bang, the consequent expansion of the universe, and the amount of matter in the universe, have invented or imagined a mythical substance (which they've called dark matter and dark energy), that makes their theories fit, and makes them correspond with the observed universe. |
The same was said about the atomic theory when Demokritos first hypothesized it. It took 2000+ years before this imagined mythical substance was put to the test and found to be real.
Today, we know that it's so much than nanoscopic marbles flying around.
We can infer that there is something huge out there that we cannot see, but it makes an awfully large impact on what we see.
The Big Bang theory isn't fundamentally flawed. Too many predictions has been found accurate for it to be. It needs tweaking, not to be discarded.
If I do have some ulterior motive here, it is to point out a 'too-ready' acceptance, even amongst skeptics, of consensus views amongst scientists. |
If any, skeptics know that science is a constant work in progress. When consensus among scientists exist, we know that it currently represents the best model of reality available. There may be better models and explanations, but they are under beta-testing, and once they gather evidence to surpass the old model for accuracy, consensus among scientists will shift, and then we will adopt it as the standing model for reality.
Pragmatism dictates that we accept consensus views amongst scientists, because it works. But don't mistake this pragmatism as a 'too-ready' accpetance...
This concept is in the back of my mind, I admit. I think there is an analogy here, however weak, but the analogy would only apply to agnosticism about God. In other words, "I don't know whether or not there is a God, but I have an open mind", which would be similar to "I don't know whether Dark Matter really exists, but I have an open mind."
|
I don't know if Dark Matter exist, but consensus view indicates there is something out there. I'm excitedly awaiting confirmation and theories about its substance.
"I don't know whether or not there is a God, but we should device experiments which can confirm or disprove the hypothesis.",
"I don't know whether Dark Matter really exists, but we should device experiments which can confirm or disprove the hypothesis.",
Generally, my view is, if we can't detect, capture and examine something, then it can't be claimed to exist. |
So electrons and neutrinos didn't exist before the 20th century?
Neutrinos are very elusive and almost impossible to detect, to the point of being only partially there. Should we say they only barely exist?
When I use the word invisible in this context, of course I don't just mean invisible to the naked eye. I know one can't use an electron microscope to see an electron (at least I think I know. I might be wrong). But one can use an electron microscope to view molecules. |
In the sub-atomic realm, other rules of reality apply than the ones you and I live by. That's why we can use an electron microscope in the first place.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 09/15/2011 07:31:23 |
|
|
|
Sebastian
New Member
44 Posts |
Posted - 09/15/2011 : 17:57:33 [Permalink]
|
Dr. Mabuse has written:
| Actually, there is quite a big difference between statement 1 and statement 2. In order do make the first one, you would have to had examine the core and compare it with all known substances before drawing the conclusion. |
Having examined the core and compared its properties with other known materials, the substance can no longer be described as unknown, unless one is very sloppy with language. The mere observation that the substance is unlike all other know materials becomes an attribute of the substance, a property of uniqueness.
"Ladies and gentlemen, I am now going to present an unknown substance." "Oops! I can't find it. Where is it?"
A loud voice from the audience: "Of course you can't find it. It's unknown."
| If you were to stand on the bathroom scales and it said 1000Kg, would you chalk that up as an error in measurement, or would you conclude that the scale is measuring something more than just you? |
I would almost certainly consider the scales were faulty. Even if I were standing on them holding a 20kg suitcase in each hand, the reading would not even nearly be 1000Kg.
| The same was said about the atomic theory when Demokritos first hypothesized it. It took 2000+ years before this imagined mythical substance was put to the test and found to be real. |
Yes, there's a very lucky similarity in concept there, but we should bear in mind that we haven't been applying the scientific method during those 2,000 years. Whilst the origins of our modern concept of the scientific method can be traced back to antiquity, we only formulated the method and started applying it fairly recently, around the time of Galileo, Decartes and Newton, and maybe a bit before. The Moslem, al-Haytham might be considered one of the first true scientists.
Have you also considered the 25,476,231 examples of hypotheses postulated in ancient times which have proved to be total bunkum? Democritus was just lucky.
One interesting theory of light and the way we see, which was accepted by many ancient Greeks, even by Aristotle I believe, wasn't thoroughly debunked until around 1,000 AD, due to a lack of the application of the scientific method.
The ancient Greeks had the idea that we are able to see, partly because our eyes project a beam of light onto what we look at. I'm guessing that the origin of the idea is associated with the observation that eyes can appear to shine or sparkle, and that cats' eyes in particular appear to glow in the dark, even.
One wonders why they took so long because a very simple experiment could have falsified the hypothesis. For example, make a large room as dark as possible so that no-one can see anything because the beam from his eye is too weak, then one by one introduce new people into the room, after a period of acclimatisation in an adjoining and similarly dark room.
As more and more people fill the dark room, the combined light from dozens of pairs of shining eyes should allow everyone to see. If it doesn't, then the hypothesis could reasonably be said to be wrong.
| Pragmatism dictates that we accept consensus views amongst scientists, because it works. But don't mistake this pragmatism as a 'too-ready' accpetance... |
Because it works, is the only reason for accepting any scientific theory. The verification of the theory lies in the existence and the efficacy of the product which is based upon the application of the theory, or the accuracy of the prediction based upon the application of the theory.
A consensus of opinion amongst the experts in the field have always existed to some extent, but the proof of the pudding is always in the eating.
So electrons and neutrinos didn't exist before the 20th century?
Neutrinos are very elusive and almost impossible to detect, to the point of being only partially there. Should we say they only barely exist? |
It is reasonable to suppose that there is an external reality which is independent of our own existence, our ideas and our imaginings. Our concepts of electrons, neutrinos and atoms etc are imperfect models of reality which we have created to explain and control our environment.
In this sense, the 'stuff' which we now call electrons and neutrinos, we have to presume existed before the 20th century.
However, our current models, descriptions and understanding of the properties of that 'stuff', did not exist prior to the 20th century. We should not confuse external reality with our perception and understanding of that reality. They are not one and the same thing. Hope that is clear.
| In the sub-atomic realm, other rules of reality apply than the ones you and I live by. That's why we can use an electron microscope in the first place. |
Indeed! Quantum weirdness is truly weird, from our everyday perspective. Even Eistein wouldn't have a bar of it. But despite it's weirdness, the application of the theory of Quantum Mechanics really does work. I believe it's one of the most sucessful theories of all time. Again, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 09/15/2011 : 19:50:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Sebastian
Is that really so bizarre? Isn't this a common problem with the Golden Rule, a tendency to assume that what you like the other also likes. |
No, the Golden Rule does not suggest that you should think that others think like you do. Quite the opposite, actually.| Since we are both skeptics (are we not?)... |
I am not yet able to confirm that that adjective is applicable to you.| ...why should this be bizarre? |
Because if you are a skeptic, you should understand that other people may have become convinced by evidence of which you are not aware. Continually acting as if this evidence just doesn't exist doesn't make you skeptical, it makes you a contrarian.| You're not a fundamentalist Moslem, are you, by any chance? |
 | I'm making an assertion based upon my limited understanding of the issue (as of course anyone's understanding of any issue is limited), that not a single particle of Dark Matter or Dark Energy has ever been directly observed, captured or examined. |
And not a single particle of the core of the Earth has ever been directly observed, captured or examined. Do you doubt that it exists?| It's existence is purely hypothetical, as far as I understand. |
Yes, you understand incorrectly.| Now if you, Dave W, think I'm just plain ignorant on this matter, and that there's a lot of evidence for the existence of Dark Matter, then please point me to some evidence. |
Wikipedia's list of observational evidence for dark matter would be a good place for you to start. It's got lots of references.| Perhaps the labs at CERN have now discovered a few particles of Dark Energy. |
What do you want, exactly? Evidence that dark matter exists, or evidence about what it's made of?
Wait a minute... particles of dark energy? When did the subject change?| Surely you understand that everyone without exception can only express views within his/her own experience and knowledge, however limited. |
Yes, but when presented with corrections, skeptics change their expressed views.| Little purpose is served in simply telling someone they are ignorant, or don't know what they are talking about, unless such is accompanied by links or explanations to evidence that the claimed ignoramus is unaware of. |
If you're going to make the very strong claims that dark matter is "unknowable" or "mythical," the burden of proof is on you. No scientific critique of these hypotheses would use such words, because they're flat-out wrong.| Such a process results in education. The ignoramus has learned something. |
If you were just asking questions, I'd have been happy to answer them. But you took an adversarial stance to the current best science, so I mistakenly assumed that you knew it and rejected it.| So far, Dave W, your examples of evidence for the existence of Dark Matter is not convincing. |
The best evidence, of course, is that our previous models were wrong. Something was causing our models' predictions to be wrong, and because the discrepancies couldn't be satisfactorily explained by any other known model, the most parsimonious explanation was that that something was real, has mass, and neither reflects nor emits light. Hence, "dark matter."| You haven't provided any evidence that electrons exist, Sebastian. Working through that exercise will help you understand. |
Both electrons and Dark Matter exist in some peoples' minds. The question is, do they both exist in reality, assuming of course that there is an external reality independent of our imagination. |
Oh, please. The exercise was not about solipsism, it was about scientific modeling. Try again.| My understanding is, from my terribly ignorant perspective, that Dark Matter and Dark Energy currently exist only in certain individual's minds. There is no proof of external reality. |
Yes, your understanding is wrong.| Wow! I'm so exited. Please tell me what we know about Dark Matter, as opposed to what we have speculated about Dark Matter. |
We know it has mass, doesn't emit or reflect light, and doesn't interact very much with baryonic matter. We can tell where some big gobs of the stuff exist, apart from baryonic matter.| As a fellow skeptic I'm assuming you understand the difference betweeen 'knowing' and 'speculating' or 'hypothesising'. |
Yes. Are you going to tell me what you think 'hypothesis', 'theory', 'fact' and 'law' mean, like I asked?| There is a striking analogy here with the dark matter issue. Einstein doctored his equations to fit an erroneous conception about the universe. Modern astrophysicists have created a mythical substance to preserve the validity of their equations and perceptions of the universe. |
Yeah, the striking analogy being that modern astrophysicists are doing the exact same thing Einstein did: fixing their models when they don't agree with observations.| C'mon, Dave. Really! I'm the first person to admit my mistakes in the face of convincing counter evidence. |
We have yet to see if that's true.| Look! If someone makes a case that white bread is superior to wholemeal bread because it's purer and softer and cleaner and nicer tasting, then someone else counteracts with 'No, you're wrong', I would expect such person to be able to explain why I'm wrong. |
So by analogy, you think that scientific theories are just a matter of taste? Studies can't tell a person whether softer, purer, cleaner and/or nicer are "superior," after all.
Objectively speaking, when you claim that dark matter is posited by scientists to be "unknowable," you are flatly wrong. No scientist says that, and I certainly can't provide evidence that nobody is saying some particular thing. It's up to you to provide evidence that they are saying that, or else retract your assertion.| The Cosmic Microwave Background is at least something that has been detected. It's a very low energy radiation. It supports the theory of the Big Bang. |
It still has no practical use. It just exists. If you're going to suggest (as you did) that scientific discoveries need practical applications, you're in for a world of disappointment.| The existence of Dark matter also supports our theory of the Big Bang and the rate of expansion of the universe, but we have never detected it as we've detected the presence cosmic background radiation. |
This is untrue.| But please correct me if I'm wrong. If we have detected Dark Matter, point me to the results. |
Wikipedia has lots of them. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 09/15/2011 : 20:00:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Sebastian
In this sense, the 'stuff' which we now call electrons and neutrinos, we have to presume existed before the 20th century. |
What's funny is that neutrinos are an example of "hot" dark matter. "Hot" in the sense that they move very fast. The dark matter clustering around galaxies can't be moving as fast as neutrinos do, because it wouldn't be clustering. So dark matter particles are probably much more massive than neutrinos. We have a name for these things: WIMPs (Weakly Interacting Massive Particles). And there are a half-a-dozen or so current experiments looking for them right here on Earth. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Sebastian
New Member
44 Posts |
Posted - 09/16/2011 : 18:48:04 [Permalink]
|
C'mon Dave. Let's be sensible and distinguish between evidence for an inference, and evidence for the actual existence. Your avatar suggests you are too young to have your bottom spanked.
Rather than engage in a tit for tat, point scoring, game of one-up-manship, I'll selectivly quote from the Wikipedia article to which you kindly provided a link in support of the evidence for Dark Matter.
I've highlighted certain words so it's less easy for you to gloss over them.
| Dark matter's existence is inferred from gravitational effects on visible matter. |
Now that's quite clear from a start, isn't it?
| Dark matter was postulated by Fritz Zwicky in 1934 to account for evidence of "missing mass" in the orbital velocities of galaxies in clusters. |
Definition of a 'postulate': A hypothesis advanced as an essential presupposition or premise of a train of reasoning.
| As important as dark matter is believed to be in the cosmos, direct evidence of its existence and a concrete understanding of its nature have remained elusive. |
One could debate to what extent the expression 'have remained elusive' is a euphemism for "don't bloody well know".
| Although dark matter is the most popular theory to explain the various astronomical observations of galaxies and galaxy clusters, there has been no direct observational evidence of dark matter. |
Now what could be clearer than that?
| In a 2004 study at the University of Mainz in Germany, it has been found that if one applies just a standard quantum mechanical approach to Newton's Gravitational constant at various scales within the astrophysical realm (i.e. scales from solar systems up to galaxies), it can be shown that the Gravitational constant is not so constant anymore and actually starts to grow. The implication of this is that if the Gravitational constant grows at different scales, then dark matter is not needed to explain galactic rotational curves. |
This quote essentially encapsulates the problem. If our current theories of reality and the universe are correct, then Dark Matter needs to exist in order to support the correctness of such theories.
The problem also is that even Einstein was deeply troubled about the ultimate correctness of his theory of relativity. We know he was at odds with the emerging theories of Quantum Mechanics (God does not play dice.)
Here's a quote from Einstein towards the end of his life.
All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?' Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken. … I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures.
In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics. |
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 09/16/2011 : 19:34:25 [Permalink]
|
Let's be "sensible" he says. Then he throws out an quote from an embittered Einstein suggesting that all of modern physics needs to be thrown out.  |
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 09/16/2011 : 19:37:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Sebastian
C'mon Dave. Let's be sensible and distinguish between evidence for an inference, and evidence for the actual existence. |
Okay, put forth your evidence that dark matter is "mythical" and "unknowable." No inferences, only direct evidence that those adjectives are applicable to dark matter will suffice.| Your avatar suggests you are too young to have your bottom spanked. |
One of the first things that wise people learn is that looks can be deceiving.| Rather than engage in a tit for tat, point scoring, game of one-up-manship... |
Yet you continue, anyway (see your previous sentence). Why do these forums seem to attract such hypocrites?
Look, if you learn something about dark matter or science (two subjects about which you are obviously ignorant) from this, we both win. If you don't learn anything, we both lose. This isn't a zero-sum game, bub.| ...I'll selectivly quote... |
From the looks of it, you selectively read the article, too....from the Wikipedia article to which you kindly provided a link in support of the evidence for Dark Matter.
I've highlighted certain words so it's less easy for you to gloss over them. |
No, the words you've highlighted are essential. But thanks for the display of prejudice.| Dark matter's existence is inferred from gravitational effects on visible matter. |
Now that's quite clear from a start, isn't it? |
Since all scientific theories are inferences, yes, it's quite clear and quite important.| Dark matter was postulated by Fritz Zwicky in 1934 to account for evidence of "missing mass" in the orbital velocities of galaxies in clusters. |
Definition of a 'postulate': A hypothesis advanced as an essential presupposition or premise of a train of reasoning. |
Note the word "essential." Note the year 1934.| As important as dark matter is believed to be in the cosmos, direct evidence of its existence and a concrete understanding of its nature have remained elusive. |
One could debate to what extent the expression 'have remained elusive' is a euphemism for "don't bloody well know". |
One doesn't need to, since we have no "direct evidence" of the composition of atoms or of any sub-atomic particles, or of the core of the Earth. A demand for "direct evidence" is a contrarian pseudo-challenge that shows the person asking isn't interested in discussing what evidence we do have, he's just erecting a hurdle so tall that it will never be cleared to his satisfaction, and he can smugly wallow in willful ignorance that there's "no evidence" for whatever it is he doesn't want to acknowledge. For numerous examples, witness the common creationist refrain of "were you there?"| Although dark matter is the most popular theory to explain the various astronomical observations of galaxies and galaxy clusters, there has been no direct observational evidence of dark matter. |
Now what could be clearer than that? |
Again, "direct observational evidence" is unnecessary in many scientific fields, including (but not limited to) cosmology, astrophysics, quantum physics, geology, stellar physics, electronics and optics.| In a 2004 study at the University of Mainz in Germany, it has been found that if one applies just a standard quantum mechanical approach to Newton's Gravitational constant at various scales within the astrophysical realm (i.e. scales from solar systems up to galaxies), it can be shown that the Gravitational constant is not so constant anymore and actually starts to grow. The implication of this is that if the Gravitational constant grows at different scales, then dark matter is not needed to explain galactic rotational curves. |
This quote essentially encapsulates the problem. |
Except that you're ignoring the bits that it fails to explain, like the Bullet Cluster. Galactic rotational curves are just one of many problems that dark matter solves. A quantum approach to gravity doesn't solve them all, and so is a less explanatory theory than is dark matter.| If our current theories of reality and the universe are correct, then Dark Matter needs to exist in order to support the correctness of such theories. |
And? What's your point?
Really, you talk a decent game, but all your highlighting doesn't actually support your claims that dark matter is "mythical" or "unknowable." You appear to simply be denying that indirect evidence is of any importance or that inferences are valuable, and also insisting upon direct evidence which may never appear. Much like an AGW denier. Go figure.
Anyway, I take it you're not going to even try to tell us how you know (your word) that electrons exist. It's your claim, it's up to you to support it with evidence. Only direct evidence of electrons is now apparently necessary. Inferences from, say, tracks in bubble chambers simply will not do. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 09/16/2011 : 20:04:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by me
| If our current theories of reality and the universe are correct, then Dark Matter needs to exist in order to support the correctness of such theories. |
And? What's your point? |
I just figured it out: this is your attempt, Sebastian, to turn dark matter theory all tautological again. It won't fly, because the same "objection" is applicable to every other scientific theory, even ones you'll agree with.
What you're missing is that the fact that our previous cosmological theories were incorrect is not dependent upon the existence of dark matter. The numbers don't add up right, in a handful of different ways. So scientists are examining a bunch of alternatives, including MOND, quantum loop gravity and dark matter. At the moment, the evidence favoring the existence of a previously unknown type of matter in the universe and some adjustments to our equations about the universe outweighs the evidence favoring only adjustments to our equations.
Right now, the evidence points in one direction. Tomorrow, we could learn something new that could make the cosmological theory compass spin around to point at something else. However, for a number of practical and philosophical reasons, we cannot and should not withhold judgment indefinitely.
The biggest problem here in this thread is that you, with your use of the words "mythical" and "unknowable," have also already made a judgment call, you're just unwilling to admit it as you try to portray yourself as more reasonable than the rest of us. But your facade is tissue-thin and you tore it to shreds yourself almost as soon as you started arguing here. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 09/16/2011 : 21:19:49 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
But your facade is tissue-thin and you tore it to shreds yourself almost as soon as you started arguing here.
|
I honestly cannot comprehend the sheer hubris, ego and delusions of grandeur it must take to impel an averagely educated layman to come to the conclusion that all of the top scientists in the world, literally some of the greatest minds now living, are all entirely wrong about something trivially obvious, whether it's the creationists' brain dead objections to evolution or Sebastian's crank view of modern physics. They really do think they are the smart ones, able to see through the dishonesty of crazy scientists with their made up "theories." And they view the rest of us are sheep, bamboozled by the sophistry of godless ivory tower elitists.
The other thing which amazes me is the tremendous breadth of knowledge contrarians believe themselves to possess. For instance, not only does Sebastian feel that he knows more about cosmology and physics than actual cosmologists and physicists, but also more about climate change than actual climatologists. That kind of brazen self-confidence would almost be admirable if it didn't always turn out to be completely unfounded.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 09/16/2011 22:36:27 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 09/16/2011 : 21:57:34 [Permalink]
|
Well, H., if memory serves, it was you who taught me the term "contrarian." It'd be easy to dismiss Sebastian with the phrase "Dunning-Kruger Effect," but I don't think it goes far enough. Yes, people often think they know more than they really do and are wildly ignorant of their own ignorance, but contrarians live for bucking whatever the mainstream happens to be and the masturbatory joy they get from "spanking" defenders of the "orthodoxy."
I think they all wish they could have been Galileo, but they don't have the chops to come up with a positive case for any new science, and so have to settle for spewing what amounts to little more than "you suck" all over the Intertubes (of course, prior to 1990-something, they just sent letters to physics professors trying to prove Relativity wrong). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 09/16/2011 : 22:37:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Well, H., if memory serves, it was you who taught me the term "contrarian." |
Yeah, and I'm pretty sure I first read about it at the Skeptic's Dictionary.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2011 : 00:46:27 [Permalink]
|
The mistake of calling dark matter theories "mythical" or "unknowable" is that dark matter is falsifiable. "Unknowable" is an agnostic position that says there isn't any evidence of whatever is being considered, so there is no reason to consider it. But the evidence need only be that what we observe lines up with the predictions of what we should observe, if what is being postulated is true. All that has to happen to falsify dark matter is for it to not work. If any of the predictions fail, than the model must be reconsidered or reworked. If all predictions fail, than the dark matter theory must be thrown out. In that way, it's neither "mythical" nor "unknowable." It may, however, be wrong.
Sebastian:
Because it works, is the only reason for accepting any scientific theory. |
Yes. And therefor, dark matter, while still being hypothesized, is a legitimate scientific theory. The evidence for it is "because it works." Grabbing some of it is a bit trickier. But there has been some headway in that area, as I pointed out in an earlier post. There have also been setbacks that may lead to revisions.
And that's how science rolls. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Sebastian
New Member
44 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2011 : 09:09:36 [Permalink]
|
| Okay, put forth your evidence that dark matter is "mythical" and "unknowable." No inferences, only direct evidence that those adjectives are applicable to dark matter will suffice. |
Well, first Dave, I have to admit that using the word 'unknowable' was a mistake. In fact, I had to check my previous posts to verify that I had used it and that it wasn't you who had made the mistake in quoting me.
I meant of course, unknown.
But whether unknowable or unknown, I'm very surprised indeed that on a 'skeptic' forum such as this, someone should be asking for evidence that something does not exist.
Things are presumed to exist precisely because there is evidence for their existence. Things are presumed not to exist precisely because of a lack of evidence for their existence.
This is the perennial problem between the atheist and the believer. The believer in God tends to think that everyone believes in something, so when a person declares himself an atheist, the believer in God sometimes assumes that the atheist actually has a belief that God doesn't exist, or that the atheist claims to know that God doesn't exist.
For this reason the atheist is sometimes called a fool by religious believers. It's why some nonbelievers prefer to call themselves agnostics, to avoid the difficulty of trying to explain that a lack of a belief in something is not the same as a belief in the lack of something.
My attitude to the existence of dark matter is one of agnosticism. I obviously don't know, one way or the other. But I'm skeptical about its existence. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Skepticism about the Big Bang
