|
|
|
Sebastian
New Member
44 Posts |
 Posted - 09/17/2011 : 09:22:34 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
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.
|
Well, thank you. It's very nice of you to say so. I didn't realise you are so knowledgeable and that you know who all the top scientists in the world are, and know their views. Wow! I am impressed.
How about this CERN physicist, Dragan Slavkov Hajdukovic? Is he maybe a second or third rate scientist, would you say?
He claims there are currently two schools of understanding this problem of fast rotational curves of galaxies. One school invokes the existence of dark matter. The other invokes a modification of our laws of gravity.
I take it, in your opinion the second school consists of all the failed scientists, the weirdos and denialists. Right?
Dragan Slavkov Hajdukovic suggest a third way, without introducing dark matter and without modification of the law of gravity.”
Read about it at http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-08-dark-illusion-quantum-vacuum.html
The article describes Hajdukovic as one of many scientists who have become somewhat skeptical of dark matter.
Now I, as a layman, do not know whether or not the existence of dark matter will eventually be confirmed. If I knew, I wouldn't be a skeptic.
However, I know there are continuing attempts to find it.
It may be true that most cosmologists believe in dark matter, just as most climatologists seem to believe in the dire consequences of anthropogenic global warming, although I would say that the evidence for AGW seems stronger to me than the evidence for the existence of dark matter.
You seem to be unaware that on every scientific issue throughout the ages there has always been a consensus of expert opinion that has usually and eventually, proved to be either completely wrong or at best inaccurate. It's not a consensus of opinion that determines what's right, but the weight of the evidence. For example, at the time Einstein formulated his first theory of relativity, there was a consensus of scientific opinion that the universe was static.
|
 |
|
|
Tim Thompson
New Member
USA
36 Posts |
 Posted - 09/17/2011 : 09:36:54 [Permalink]
|
Going through several posts I am not quite sure what the point of contention is supposed to be. But this seems to get close to it anyway:
Originally posted by Sebastian (09/14/2011 21:57:55)
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.
|
Is that really all there is to the meat of the argument? Indeed, there is no record of an unambiguous detection of appropriate non-baryonic dark matter (of course, neutrinos are in fact non-baryonic dark matter, but they fall far short of the required mass & other details of behavior required). And it is also true the the existence of both dark matter & dark energy are hypothetical. However, while skepticism is not inappropriate, neither is it correct to single these particular points out as significant scientific weaknesses. So what if it has not been directly detected? So what if its existence is hypothetical? Since when are these not still the "meat & potatoes" of scientific investigation?
Originally posted by Sebastian (09/14/2011 07:02:46)
The CERN laboratory now routinely traps and examines hydrogen antimatter, but no sign of dark matter nor dark energy yet, despite the fact its existence was first postulated as early as 1934 to explain anomalies of the orbital velocities of galaxies.
|
But this is poor reasoning altogether and deserves criticism. The time it takes to verify any hypothesis depends critically on the scientific context. Isaac Newton was well aware of the problems that form the basis of the general theory of relativity, and tried to solve them himself. However, the knowledge available in his time, both in theory & practice, was insufficient to the task. The time between the publication of Newton's Principia (1687) and Einstein's solution for general relativity (1915) is 228 years, and they were not the only 2 people aware of the issues. At what point should all scientists have felt justified in declaring that, since they had not already solved the problem, it must be unsolvable, and we should now all give up and quit?
When Zwicky first introduced the problem of "missing mass" (Zwicky, 1933; Zwicky, 1937; the latter translation into English was the first time many astronomers became aware of the issue) he had no reason to believe it was not ordinary matter; gas, dark clouds of dust, dim stars, planets & etc. And there is no single moment when suddenly & without warning astronomers exclaimed "it must be non-baryonic dark matter". It just slowly dawned on astronomers as they continued to look and did not see. In this case, the context was set by technology. If you look for something and do not see it, even though you know it lies well within the capabilities of your technology, then the failure to detect it is significant, and increases in significance as time & technology advance with continuing invisibility of that which should be seen. The advent of radio & infrared astronomy is particularly damaging to baryonic dark matter, since cooler stars & especially clouds of dust & gas will stand out clearly at theses wavelengths, where they would be truly invisible to Zwicky. Likewise, X-ray astronomy reveals hot gas & low-mass stars (the latter, being fully convective, are somewhat more prone to flare than solar-type stars and so become evident as X-ray flare sources). In the case of our own Milky Way, specific searches for low mass stars have clearly demonstrated that they cannot be the ultimate source of dark matter (e.g., Hubble Space Telescope, 1994).
Inference from observation is a crucial element of the scientific process and should not be discounted as "merely hypothetical". Not all hypotheses are created equal nor should they all be considered on equal footing. In this case, the hypotheses of dark matter & dark energy are both supported by significant observational data. If astrophysical dark matter is baryonic, then where & what is it and how does one explain that it is not visible to instruments which have the capability to see it? That is just as serious an issue as the fact that non-baryonic dark matter has not been directly detected, and in my mind a more serious issue in fact, which gives significant weight to the dark matter hypothesis.
But there is much skepticism in the scientific community, and while cold dark matter is the basis of the "consensus cosmology" it is by no means universal in the professional community. After all, the hypothesis of dark matter relies on the assumption that the law of gravity is well known. Modify gravity, and you can do away with dark matter altogether, and there is significant research published along those lines as well. Likewise, dark energy could be an error in evaluating the light curves of distant supernovae, or like dark matter, due to a modification of the laws of gravity or to general relativity. These too are active areas of investigation.
So perhaps the bottom line for this thread is that there is in fact a healthy skepticism about big bang cosmology that is in fact enshrined in the scientific literature itself. But the consensus is such because it is in fact the most scientifically reasonable conclusion.
I will be most of the weekend at the Pacific Astronomy and Telescope Show at the Pasadena Convention Center, but will interrupt here occasionally as time permits.
|
The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. -- Bertrand Russell |
| Edited by - Tim Thompson on 09/17/2011 21:16:04 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2011 : 11:17:52 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Sebastian
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. |
Great. What about "mythical?"| 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. |
I already explained this to you: had you just been asking questions, I wouldn't be doing what I've been doing. Instead, you made the very strong claim that dark matter is "mythical." It isn't a matter of you providing evidence that something does not exist. You need to support your very strong claim that cosmologists studying dark matter hypotheses are wrong.| Things are presumed to exist precisely because there is evidence for their existence. |
That's not a presumption, that's a conclusion.| Things are presumed not to exist precisely because of a lack of evidence for their existence. |
Except that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence in all cases. Again, the evidence for Continental Drift took four decades to accumulate before a majority of geologists would accept it.
Of course, you still haven't addressed the fact that inferences are vital to science, or that accepting only "direct" evidence for certain phenomena is a ludicrous position. You also haven't presented your evidence for how you know electrons exist.| My attitude to the existence of dark matter is one of agnosticism. I obviously don't know, one way or the other. |
This is shown to be false by your use of the word "mythical."| But I'm skeptical about its existence. |
So are the scientists who think it exists. |
- 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 - 09/17/2011 : 11:28:45 [Permalink]
|
Wait a minute. You're complaining about something that hasn't been directly observed by appealing to something that hasn't even been indirectly observed? We've got boatloads more evidence for dark matter than we do for "negative gravity charges."| The article describes Hajdukovic as one of many scientists who have become somewhat skeptical of dark matter. |
"Somewhat" being the key word, there. The article says,In the end, Hajdukovic notes that much more work needs to be done before claiming that this possibility is the correct one. For one thing, the rotational curves of galaxies are not the only phenomenon that can be explained by dark matter. Observations of the cosmic microwave background, gravitational lensing, supernovae, and other data can also be better explained by the existence of dark matter than without it. | It may be true that most cosmologists believe in dark matter, just as most climatologists seem to believe in the dire consequences of anthropogenic global warming, although I would say that the evidence for AGW seems stronger to me than the evidence for the existence of dark matter. |
"Believe in" is the wrong term to use.| You seem to be unaware that on every scientific issue throughout the ages there has always been a consensus of expert opinion that has usually and eventually, proved to be either completely wrong or at best inaccurate. It's not a consensus of opinion that determines what's right, but the weight of the evidence. |
The idea that the consensus opinion is completely divorced from the weight of the evidence is just silly.| For example, at the time Einstein formulated his first theory of relativity, there was a consensus of scientific opinion that the universe was static. |
Because that's what the weight of the evidence pointed to at the time. You need to understand that the theories change because we get new evidence. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
sailingsoul
SFN Addict
2830 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2011 : 12:19:17 [Permalink]
|
| What argumental and logical bullshit. Seb' thinks that because others in history were wrong about unrelated issues which he names that that has relevance on dark matter. What a hoot. SS |
There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS |
|
|
|
Sebastian
New Member
44 Posts |
Posted - 09/18/2011 : 23:01:28 [Permalink]
|
Tim Thompson writes:
| But this is poor reasoning altogether and deserves criticism. The time it takes to verify any hypothesis depends critically on the scientific context. Isaac Newton was well aware of the problems that form the basis of the general theory of relativity, and tried to solve them himself. However, the knowledge available in his time, both in theory & practice, was insufficient to the task. The time between the publication of Newton's Principia (1687) and Einstein's solution for general relativity (1915) is 228 years, and they were not the only 2 people aware of the issues. At what point should all scientists have felt justified in declaring that, since they had not already solved the problem, it must be unsolvable, and we should now all give up and quit? |
Oooh! I'm not suggesting you should all give up and quit. What have I written that gives you that idea? Scientists also have intuition and hunches, don't they. One should try to follow them if one can.
In Australia we had a famous Aboriginal scientist/inventor called David Unaipon, whose portrait now appears on our $50 bills. One of his life-long obsessions was to invent a perpetual motion machine. He never succeeded of course, but he never gave up. He had some sort of conviction that it was possible.
I imagine, as time goes by, the issue of Dark Matter will be resolved one way or another, either through the reliable and repeated discovery of WIMPs, (and/or other particles or energy waves) or by a convincing modification of our current theories which makes the existence of Dark Energy unnecessary.
Now it's interesting you refer to Newton and Einstein. My understanding is that Newton's Universal Laws of Gravity created an enormous problem for him when they were applied to the universe because they were totally at odds with the prevailing view of a static universe, just as our calculations of the amount of mass in the universe is at odds with the rotational speed of distant galaxy clusters and the rate of expansion of the universe.
We have postulated the existence of huge quantities of invisible matter and undetectable energy in order to support the validity of our current theories, whereas Newton postulated the existence of an infinite amount of matter in the universe, thinking that would ensure that the universe would not collapse upon itself, as a result of his own Laws of Gravity.
What seems odd to me is that even in Newton's time, an infinite universe seemed implausible because of what was later known as the Olbers' Paradox, but also expressed earlier by Thomas Digges in 1576 and Kepler in 1610.
Here's an explanation of that paradox.
| If the universe is uniformly filled with stars, then no matter which direction you look, your line of sight will eventually intersect a star (or other bright thing). Now it is known that stars are grouped into galaxies, but the paradox remains: your line of sight will eventually intersect a galaxy. |
In other words, the visible night sky would not be dark if every part were filled with the light from a star.
Another problem with the concept of the infinite universe has been expressed well by Stephen Hawking in the following quote:
| A finite collection of stars will fall together, according to Newton's Law of Gravity. Adding more stars outside the region, will not stop the collapse. Thus, an infinite collection of stars, can not remain in a motionless state. If they are not moving relative to each other at one time, the attraction between them will cause them to start falling towards each other. |
Now Dave W, in response to my following statement: | For example, at the time Einstein formulated his first theory of relativity, there was a consensus of scientific opinion that the universe was static. |
, claims that the reason for this consensus that the universe is static was | Because that's what the weight of the evidence pointed to at the time. |
I wonder what evidence Dave W is referring to. I notice again that Stephen Hawking excuses Newton for not coming up with a satisfactory explanation as to why a static universe would not collapse upon itself, but doesn't excuse Einstein. I don't think Einstein excused himself either, which is why he called his own failure to appreciate earlier that his original General Theory of Relativity strongly implied an expanding universe, his greatest blunder.
To quote from Hawking again:
| Newton and Einstein, both missed the chance of predicting that the universe should be either contracting, or expanding. One can not really hold it against Newton, because he was two hundred and fifty years before the observational discovery of the expansion of the universe. But Einstein should have known better. Yet when he formulated the General Theory of Relativity to reconcile Newton's theory with his own Special Theory of Relativity, he added a so-called, "cosmological constant''. This had a repulsive gravitational effect, which could balance the attractive effect of the matter in the universe. In this way, it was possible to have a static model of the universe. |
My own theory is that a consensus of opinion can be tyrannical. People derive security from numbers and similarity of views, and it takes courage to rock the boat.
It's why Charles Darwin could have published 'On Origin of Species' almost 20 years sooner, had he not been afraid of the scorn and ridicule that he expected would be heaped upon him. It's why Paul Dirac had to be persuaded by friends to publish his mathematical rationale for the existence of antimatter. It's why Newton opted for the theory of the infinite universe instead of a heretical view that the universe was probably expanding, and it's probably why Einstein was compliant with the concept of a static universe despite his own theories suggesting otherwise.
It's also why many climatologists who are possibly doubtful about the serious threat from our CO2 emissions keep quiet about it. They don't want to be ridiculed by their peers. It's why certain politicians, and many non-science-oriented laypersons, who admit they don't understand the complex nature of climate, still claim to be certain that carbon is a pollutant, because they believe it's the smart thing to think. The consensus view can't be wrong.
But hey! This is just my theory. I could be wrong too. 
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 09/19/2011 : 05:30:26 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Sebastian
I wonder what evidence Dave W is referring to. I notice again that Stephen Hawking excuses Newton for not coming up with a satisfactory explanation as to why a static universe would not collapse upon itself, but doesn't excuse Einstein. I don't think Einstein excused himself either, which is why he called his own failure to appreciate earlier that his original General Theory of Relativity strongly implied an expanding universe, his greatest blunder. |
General Relativity: 1916.
Hubble's observations of an expanding universe: 1929.
I can't help that Hawking thinks Einstein should have been able to see the future.| My own theory is that a consensus of opinion can be tyrannical. People derive security from numbers and similarity of views, and it takes courage to rock the boat. |
Science tends to be very conservative about changing. That's a good thing for a number of reasons. I shouldn't have to mention that Dark Matter was originally proposed in the 1930s again. According to your logic, it should be the courageous, boat-rocking thing. Now that it's mostly accepted, I guess the absence of Dark Matter has to be the courageous, boat-rocking position. Perhaps you can give us some guidelines as to when new science takes courage, and when it doesn't.| It's why Charles Darwin could have published 'On Origin of Species' almost 20 years sooner, had he not been afraid of the scorn and ridicule that he expected would be heaped upon him. |
Where did you get that from? Everything I've read suggested the man was just extremely meticulous. He did a 29-year-long experiment on earthworms, forcryingoutloud.| It's why Paul Dirac had to be persuaded by friends to publish his mathematical rationale for the existence of antimatter. |
I'm having trouble finding evidence for that, too. What I've found, instead, indicates that Dirac was extremely shy. He didn't even want to accept his Nobel Prize, for fear of the publicity.| It's why Newton opted for the theory of the infinite universe instead of a heretical view that the universe was probably expanding... |
Again, where is the evidence of this choice by Newton? Where was the evidence that could have led Newton to the correct conclusion? According to Hawking, the latter didn't present itself until 250 years after Newton's work.| ...and it's probably why Einstein was compliant with the concept of a static universe despite his own theories suggesting otherwise. |
You think Einstein was cowed into adding the cosmological constant?! That would have been totally unlike him.| It's also why many climatologists who are possibly doubtful about the serious threat from our CO2 emissions keep quiet about it. They don't want to be ridiculed by their peers. |
Where is your evidence for this claim?| It's why certain politicians, and many non-science-oriented laypersons, who admit they don't understand the complex nature of climate, still claim to be certain that carbon is a pollutant, because they believe it's the smart thing to think. The consensus view can't be wrong. |
It's more likely to be that they know they don't know enough to argue against the consensus.| But hey! This is just my theory. I could be wrong too. |
It's not a theory unless it's backed up by solid experimentation, so where's your evidence? Again, no inferences. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 09/19/2011 : 07:49:45 [Permalink]
|
Time taken to publish
Darwin had his basic theory of natural selection "by which to work" by December 1838, yet almost twenty years later, when Wallace's letter arrived on 18 June 1858, Darwin was still not ready to publish his theory. It was long thought that Darwin avoided or delayed making his ideas public for personal reasons. Reasons suggested have included fear of religious persecution or social disgrace if his views were revealed, and concern about upsetting his clergymen naturalist friends or his pious wife Emma. Charles Darwin's illness caused repeated delays. His paper on Glen Roy had proved embarrassingly wrong, and he may have wanted to be sure he was correct. David Quammen has suggested all these factors may have contributed, and notes Darwin's large output of books and busy family life during that time.[53]
A more recent study by science historian John van Wyhe has determined that the idea that Darwin delayed publication only dates back to the 1940s, and Darwin's contemporaries thought the time he took was reasonable. Darwin always finished one book before starting another. While he was researching, he told many people about his interest in transmutation without causing outrage. He firmly intended to publish, but it was not until September 1854 that he could work on it full time. His estimate that writing his "big book" would take five years was optimistic.[54] |
There seems to have ben several factors causing the delay. And then there was his intent to include his work on transmutation, which would have taken longer to go to publication of the "big book." A more complete work was his intention. The myth then is that his sole reason for delay was worry about ridicule. What seems more likely, while all these factors probably played a roll, was indeed his meticulousness. If not for Wallace, he probably would have delayed publishing for another 5 years or more, with a more complete book. |
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 - 09/20/2011 : 19:18:05 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Time taken to publish
Darwin had his basic theory of natural selection "by which to work" by December 1838, yet almost twenty years later, when Wallace's letter arrived on 18 June 1858, Darwin was still not ready to publish his theory. It was long thought that Darwin avoided or delayed making his ideas public for personal reasons. Reasons suggested have included fear of religious persecution or social disgrace if his views were revealed, and concern about upsetting his clergymen naturalist friends or his pious wife Emma. Charles Darwin's illness caused repeated delays. His paper on Glen Roy had proved embarrassingly wrong, and he may have wanted to be sure he was correct. David Quammen has suggested all these factors may have contributed, and notes Darwin's large output of books and busy family life during that time.[53]
A more recent study by science historian John van Wyhe has determined that the idea that Darwin delayed publication only dates back to the 1940s, and Darwin's contemporaries thought the time he took was reasonable. Darwin always finished one book before starting another. While he was researching, he told many people about his interest in transmutation without causing outrage. He firmly intended to publish, but it was not until September 1854 that he could work on it full time. His estimate that writing his "big book" would take five years was optimistic.[54] |
There seems to have ben several factors causing the delay. And then there was his intent to include his work on transmutation, which would have taken longer to go to publication of the "big book." A more complete work was his intention. The myth then is that his sole reason for delay was worry about ridicule. What seems more likely, while all these factors probably played a roll, was indeed his meticulousness. If not for Wallace, he probably would have delayed publishing for another 5 years or more, with a more complete book.
|
That's a very good point, Kil. We so often fall into the trap of giving the impression there is a sole cause for a phenomenon or event or situation, perhaps in the interests of brevity and succinctness.
At least, that's my excuse.
However, it does seem to be the case that all complex situations have a multiplicity of factors at work, especially when trying to explain human motives. Trying to place in some order of priority the significance of all known factors is perhaps sometimes impossible, especially when subconscious motives are involved.
For example, it may be the case (in reality, if we knew it) that Darwin's meticulousness was the chief single reason for his delay in publishing. But despite this fact (assuming it is a fact), all the other reasons postulated, relating to his fears of disapproval, including subconscious feelings about his deceased father's disapproval, his wifes disapproval, the Christian Church's disapproval, his own health problems which would cause him to be less resilient to such disapproval, in total may outweigh this single factor of his still having some reservations about the completeness of his theory.
I say 'may', but who knows?
For those interested in the issue, there's an interesting pdf below, which covers in fair detail most of the reasons given for Darwin's delay. The author comes to the reasonable conclusion that a 'hybrid' solution to the historical problem is most appropriate. I agree.
http://home.uchicago.edu/~rjr6/articles/Why%20Darwin%20Delayed.pdfFN
However, I will add that my point about the tyranny of consensuses of opinion (is that the plural of consensus?) still stands.
A 'consensus of opinion' is, in a sense, an anathema to the scientific process. It encourages servility.
Nevertheless, it does have its uses. Any army needs a consensus of opinion amongst its soldiers that the enemy it is fighting is evil and needs to be destroyed.
Every dictatorial government needs a concensus of opinion amongst the populace that its ideology is correct.
Even in science, in the modern age when progress through self-funding individulas (wealthy aristocrats such as Charlses Darwin) is no longer feasible, a consensus of opinion can be of practical use in getting government funding.
It's difficult to imagine that any government would have set up expensive Climate Change research centres unless there was an initial 'consensus of opinion' amongst at least a small group of prominent scientists that our CO2 emissions could be a serious problem in relation to climate change.
However, after the governments have set up such research centres, it would be very naive of anyone to presume that all employees, including typists, are not aware, at least subconsciously, that continued funding is reliant upon the threat being maintained.
We're very good at rationalising our motives to justify our behaviour. I'm reasonably sure if it were possible to go back in time and interview Charles Darwin on why he delayed publishing "On Origin of Species", he would never admit that he was shit-scared of the public reaction. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 09/20/2011 : 20:52:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Sebastian
However, I will add that my point about the tyranny of consensuses of opinion (is that the plural of consensus?) still stands. |
No, it doesn't. You were asked to provide evidence of every corroborating example you offered, and have coughed up nothing but your own insistence that if we had a time machine, we still wouldn't get supporting evidence from Darwin's own mouth. In other words, you were asked to support your point, and you didn't even try. You can call that "standing" if you like, but that'd be a denial of reality.| A 'consensus of opinion' is, in a sense, an anathema to the scientific process. It encourages servility. |
No and no. The process of science needs to be highly conservative, because of our limited research resources. Consider the opposing situation, in which every wild guess and contrarian theory that someone came up with was followed: no single experiment could get fully funded as the funding "pie" would be divided into a billion slices instead of a few hundred thousand. The process we have, instead, encourages correctness and plausibility for research that appears to go off in strange directions. To get money for what appears to be "risky" propositions, one must jump higher hurdles than for research that builds on something solid.
If we had an infinite supply of money, time and scientists, then basing our funding decisions on how promising an avenue of research appears to be would, indeed, not be the best method of discovering truth. But we have extremely limited supplies of all three.Nevertheless, it does have its uses. Any army needs a consensus of opinion amongst its soldiers that the enemy it is fighting is evil and needs to be destroyed.
Every dictatorial government needs a concensus of opinion amongst the populace that its ideology is correct. |
Oh, please. We get it: you think a consensus is nothing more than people dutifully following the leader. That is anathema to science, of course, but that's not how a scientific consensus is built. A theory needs to appear to be correct, at a bare minimum. Armies and dictators need no such basis in reality (witness Kim Jong Il).Even in science, in the modern age when progress through self-funding individulas (wealthy aristocrats such as Charlses Darwin) is no longer feasible, a consensus of opinion can be of practical use in getting government funding.
It's difficult to imagine that any government would have set up expensive Climate Change research centres unless there was an initial 'consensus of opinion' amongst at least a small group of prominent scientists that our CO2 emissions could be a serious problem in relation to climate change. |
The consensus on CO2 has been building for 40 years longer than has the consensus on Dark Matter. The greenhouse effect was discovered in the nineteenth century.
However, the fact that U.S. government funding of scientific research can and has been determined by the whims of hundreds of non-scientist Congresspeople says that the fact that the U.S. government sets up a research center for anything is no indication that the subject matter bears any resemblance to reality. (The billions of dollars spent on the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine is a vast, wasteful testament to that, one which continues to fail to churn out any positive, reliable science while people get sick and die.) I don't see how this would be different for any other country.| However, after the governments have set up such research centres, it would be very naive of anyone to presume that all employees, including typists, are not aware, at least subconsciously, that continued funding is reliant upon the threat being maintained. |
It's as naive as thinking that the scientists who ultimately perform the research at such centers don't care as much about being correct as they do about making money. For all of them, truth must come second to their wallets, right?
Unfortunately for this hypothesis, fame, accolades and more-secure funding for scientists come from being correct. Scientists who are focused on their paychecks don't win Nobel Prizes. Scientists who try to stay under the radar when the budget axe looks like it's going to fall are those whose programs get cut for not doing anything interesting.| We're very good at rationalising our motives to justify our behaviour. |
Best if we try to match our rationalizations to reality, isn't it?
By the way, I'm still interested in your evidence for how you know electrons exist. Or that Dark Matter is "mythical." |
- 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 - 09/20/2011 : 21:19:29 [Permalink]
|
By me:
| It's why Newton opted for the theory of the infinite universe instead of a heretical view that the universe was probably expanding... |
Dave's response:
| Again, where is the evidence of this choice by Newton? Where was the evidence that could have led Newton to the correct conclusion? According to Hawking, the latter didn't present itself until 250 years after Newton's work. |
My point is, there was no sound evidence at all at the time, only conjecture and reasonable deduction.
In the absence of clear, practical and sound evidence, one can only speculate on what's reasonable and probable.
Newton's proposal, or compliance with the religious consensus that the universe has always existed and is inifinite, as an explanation for his Laws of Gravity still being relevant when applied to the universe as a whole, is mathematically and logically flawed, according to Stephen Hawking.
The problem is essentially one of unchanging, clockwork uniformity. For Newton's Laws of Gravity to work on the universal scale, the universe would have to be devoid of any chaotic phenomenon, such asteroids and comets whizzing around, knocking larger objects out of orbit upon collision, etc etc.
Whether the universe is finite or infinite, these same objections apply, as Stephen Hawkings pointed out.
Since Newton was a brilliant mathematician and logicist (have I invented a new word?), he would presumably have been aware that the concept of the infinite universe would not solve the problem, particularly in view of Olber's Paradox.
However, the concept of an expanding universe would have solved the problem, theoretically.
My view is, he chose not to proffer this more reasonable solution because of personal concern about a backlash from the established religious 'consensus of opinion' on such matters.
I'm open to alternative explanations.
Let's also not forget, Sir Isaac Newton was a deeply religious man with personal views on religion which were at odds with the Church of the time. He wrote a lot on religious matters, but kept his views private for fear of persecution.
He eventually became very wealthy as well as famous. I suspect he was not about to jeopardise that situation by claiming a heretical view that the universe must be expanding in order to confirm that his Universal Laws of Gravity are still correct when applied to the universe.
|
|
|
|
Sebastian
New Member
44 Posts |
Posted - 09/20/2011 : 22:24:09 [Permalink]
|
I think yoiu are nitpicking, Dave. If I were to answer all of your objections I would be here all day and all week with no time to do anything else.
For the sake of brevity, I will answer in broad terms.
All the evidence we have for anything, exists only in our own created models of reality, which in turn exist only in our minds and imagination.
We may make a presumption that our models are fairly, or even 'very' accurate, in relation to actual reality, but again, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.
The truth of the modern theory of Quantum Mechancis is that it works. The truth of any theory is that it works, whether in regard to material products such as plasma TV sets, or in regard to predictions of the next eclipse of the sun.
You've asked whether electrons really exist. They exist in our models. They exist in our minds and imagination. Do they exist in reality? Of course not. Do you think if we were able to actually see electrons, they would have a flag attached, "I am an electron. Whoopee!".
The very term itself is obviously a product of our imagination. However, what we can reasonably infer is that the stuff out there, in the external reality, has a reality that is sufficiently consistent and unvarying, that we can create models based upon our observations, that are sufficiently accurate to allow is to manipulate matter, and to manipulate what we call electrons and neutrons etc, to produce electricity and atomic bombs, and nano products, and computers etc etc etc.
Isn't that clear? |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 09/20/2011 : 22:43:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Sebastian
My point is, there was no sound evidence at all at the time, only conjecture and reasonable deduction. |
No, the sound empirical evidence available at the time was that there was only one galaxy. That there may be other "island universes" was speculative, at best. It wasn't until the 1920s that the matter was settled.| Newton's proposal, or compliance with the religious consensus that the universe has always existed and is inifinite, as an explanation for his Laws of Gravity still being relevant when applied to the universe as a whole, is mathematically and logically flawed, according to Stephen Hawking. |
Newton's Laws were concerned with planetary motion, not the universe as a whole. He went so far as to declare that nobody could determine what set the planets in motion (but once in motion, they followed his equations), so it must have been God. A plain argument from ignorance. And given that, he gets knocked off his perch as a brilliant logician (the word is logician).The problem is essentially one of unchanging, clockwork uniformity. For Newton's Laws of Gravity to work on the universal scale, the universe would have to be devoid of any chaotic phenomenon, such asteroids and comets whizzing around, knocking larger objects out of orbit upon collision, etc etc.
Whether the universe is finite or infinite, these same objections apply, as Stephen Hawkings pointed out.
Since Newton was a brilliant mathematician and logicist (have I invented a new word?), he would presumably have been aware that the concept of the infinite universe would not solve the problem, particularly in view of Olber's Paradox. |
Olber's Paradox was a triviality, because nobody seriously proposed anything existing outside the Milky Way until after Newton. Heck, Olber's Paradox wasn't even attributed to Olber until well after Newton had died.| However, the concept of an expanding universe would have solved the problem, theoretically. |
And from my perspective, Newton was unaware of the problem.| My view is, he chose not to proffer this more reasonable solution because of personal concern about a backlash from the established religious 'consensus of opinion' on such matters. |
Yes, I know that's your view. I want to know what evidence you have of Newton's personal concerns in that regard.| I'm open to alternative explanations. |
Nonono. It's your claim, it's up to you to support it with actual evidence that makes sense in light of what was known in Newton's day.| Let's also not forget, Sir Isaac Newton was a deeply religious man with personal views on religion which were at odds with the Church of the time. He wrote a lot on religious matters, but kept his views private for fear of persecution. |
Yes, but he was apparently unafraid to express his opinion that not only was our solar system not geocentric, it also wasn't perfectly heliocentric, but instead revolved around the common center-of-gravity of the Sun and all the (known) planets.| He eventually became very wealthy as well as famous. I suspect he was not about to jeopardise that situation by claiming a heretical view that the universe must be expanding in order to confirm that his Universal Laws of Gravity are still correct when applied to the universe. |
Yeah, your suspicions still aren't evidence. |
- 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 - 09/20/2011 : 22:49:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Sebastian
All the evidence we have for anything, exists only in our own created models of reality, which in turn exist only in our minds and imagination. |
Oh. You're a postmodernist.| You've asked whether electrons really exist. They exist in our models. They exist in our minds and imagination. Do they exist in reality? Of course not. Do you think if we were able to actually see electrons, they would have a flag attached, "I am an electron. Whoopee!". |
Again, you have dodged the question. "Electron" is a label that we have for a particular phenomenon. Of course electrons (who don't know English or Greek) wouldn't label themselves that way. What a silly objection.The very term itself is obviously a product of our imagination. However, what we can reasonably infer is that the stuff out there, in the external reality, has a reality that is sufficiently consistent and unvarying, that we can create models based upon our observations, that are sufficiently accurate to allow is to manipulate matter, and to manipulate what we call electrons and neutrons etc, to produce electricity and atomic bombs, and nano products, and computers etc etc etc.
Isn't that clear? |
It's clear, except it once again demands utility. You had things exactly right until you demanded practical functionality from our models, and then you ran right off the rails. |
- 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 - 09/20/2011 : 23:05:44 [Permalink]
|
Oh, also:Originally posted by Sebastian
If I were to answer all of your objections I would be here all day and all week with no time to do anything else. |
You know what they say about not liking the heat.
Seriously, you already know that my mission here isn't to get you to answer my objections, so I really don't give a damn that you think I'm asking you to address everything. In fact, a good "you've given me something new to reflect upon" would go a long way towards silencing me.
Instead, it appears that you like to argue, and think that your assertions are correct, even though you won't hold yourself to the same standards that you seem to insist others meet. I'm not going to complain about another example of how to fail to engage in critical thinking. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Skepticism about the Big Bang
