At the end of page 9 and beginning of page 10 it seemed this thread was beginning to achieve some focus.
Worm hunter: OK, Soup, what exactly about DM/DE do you find unfalsifiable?
http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/vi...=299767#299767
Xbalanque: And that's really the whole point of this, isn't it? Thanks for getting it back on track.
http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/vi...=299821#299821
jaydeehess: Pains me to say it since I was so snarky before but I agree with soupdragon. DM/DE is not a theory, it is a patch.
http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/vi...=299824#299824
And I tried to pin down the DM and DE proponents by getting them to clarify their positions.
http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/vi...=299969#299969
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by soupdragon2
1. We are now talking about theories and hypotheses. The difference being that a theory has been subjected to more testing.
2. They should both be falsifiable.
I think we will probably all agree on the above?
____________________________________
3. If we discover problems with a theory, it can be rescued by adding an Auxiliary Hypothesis, on the strict condition that the AH makes the theory more falsifiable.
Is everbody happy with this? It is a strict criterion of Popper's Falsificationism!
_____________________________________
I contend that DM and DE fail the all important criteria of AHs on the basis that they make the original theories less falsifiable; they add subjectivity.
_____________________________________
My central argument above has vulnerabilities.
Some might argue that DM and DE are theories in their own right?
Some might not accept Popper's criterion?
It might even be argued that DM and DE increase the Fal of the theories?
I will be interested to see their arguments in this respect.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jerry Jensen
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by russ_watters
How about "scientifically valid?"  You're right - just plain "valid" isn't good enough wording. |
Cosmology is allowed a little latitude, but should still be based upon local observable, Not noobservables. |
Sure, but while they maybe 'scientifically valid' in some vague sense, they are not falsifiable in any strict sense, and this is THE darned issue!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jerry Jensen
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cougar
Dark matter is called upon to explain an observation. If some alternative explanation arises that is well supported by additional observations, it may replace the dark matter idea, which would then not be needed and could be considered "falsified." That's why I would say that dark matter is certainly falsifiable. But currently it is our best explanation, and it has numerous lines of support. .
|
Dark Matter is based upon non-observation, and since none of the tests, and there has been a mirid of them, have yielded a single positive result, I do not understand why "the best explanation" is a good description of this conundrum.
I think " the first explanation the mainstream latched onto and they stubbornly refuse to seriously consider other alternatives" is a better discription of the current situation. |
My bold above. Yes, this maybe a better description, at least given that some people clearly do not understand the concept of Falsifiability as outlined by Popper, and this is/was THE issue!
Edits: Typos