Chatroom
 

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum > The Proving Grounds > Against the Mainstream
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

   

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #301 (permalink)  
Old 21-July-2004, 11:40 PM
Cougar's Avatar
Cougar Cougar is offline
Order of Kilopi
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 4,818
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by russ_watters
Quote:
Originally Posted by soupdragon2
I am seeking clarification as to whether the defendants of the DM/DE case are claiming it as a theory in its own right , or a hypothesis?
...Either way, I also don't consider the distinction relevant - either way they must be testable/falsifiable to be valid.
I agree (although it might be better to say "scientific" rather than "valid", since "valid" might tend to mean that the statement is very well supported as opposed to "of the right form as to be scientific and potentially valid").

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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by soupdragon2
...what about the aspects of science that are not falsifiable? Dark Matter, Black Holes, Gravity waves/Gravitons, etc. These remain hypothetical, or at the very least rely for the larger part on an interpretation of observation, and not direct observation.... Quarks are not falsifiable, and other ideas have been forwarded.
There is extremely strong evidence for quarks and black holes. If their predictions had not panned out as they have, they might have been falsified. But they weren't. They were supported. There are extensive experiments seeking dark matter and gravity waves. If all such searches fail, this will not exactly "falsify" these concepts, but it may call for alternatives to be followed and other experiments to be employed.

Popper was a thoughtful philosopher of science, and his insights are generally helpful to scientists. But he is not God of Science. Popper may have contributed a useful framework, but science is a large and complex structure, not just a framework.
__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
  #302 (permalink)  
Old 22-July-2004, 01:11 AM
russ_watters russ_watters is offline
Established Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 1,247
Send a message via Yahoo to russ_watters
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cougar
Quote:
Originally Posted by russ_watters
Quote:
Originally Posted by soupdragon2
I am seeking clarification as to whether the defendants of the DM/DE case are claiming it as a theory in its own right , or a hypothesis?
...Either way, I also don't consider the distinction relevant - either way they must be testable/falsifiable to be valid.
I agree (although it might be better to say "scientific" rather than "valid", since "valid" might tend to mean that the statement is very well supported as opposed to "of the right form as to be scientific and potentially valid").
How about "scientifically valid?" You're right - just plain "valid" isn't good enough wording.
  #303 (permalink)  
Old 22-July-2004, 06:08 AM
Jerry's Avatar
Jerry Jerry is offline
Order of Kilopi
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,113
Default

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.

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.
__________________
jwj

It's a big universe out there...is it really unwinding, really burning out?
  #304 (permalink)  
Old 22-July-2004, 12:16 PM
soupdragon2 soupdragon2 is offline
Established Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: London
Posts: 1,078
Send a message via MSN to soupdragon2
Default

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
  #305 (permalink)  
Old 22-July-2004, 12:24 PM
Disinfo Agent Disinfo Agent is offline
Order of Kilopi
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 7,052
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by soupdragon2
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!
The original issue of this thread -- which still has not been settled -- was your claim that "a lot of scientific theories are not falsifiable".
Let's not lose sight of that.
__________________
"A witty saying proves nothing" Voltaire.
"All your bias are belong to us" Ara Pacis.
  #306 (permalink)  
Old 22-July-2004, 12:29 PM
soupdragon2 soupdragon2 is offline
Established Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: London
Posts: 1,078
Send a message via MSN to soupdragon2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Disinfo Agent
Quote:
Originally Posted by soupdragon2
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!
The original issue of this thread -- which still has not been settled -- was your claim that "a lot of scientific theories are not falsifiable".
Let's not lose sight of that.
And I stand by that. But let's take it one step at a time for the sake of simplicity. Too many posts are veering off on tangental orbits as it is!
  #307 (permalink)  
Old 22-July-2004, 01:59 PM
Worm hunter's Avatar
Worm hunter Worm hunter is offline
Established Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Fremont, CA
Posts: 169
Send a message via AIM to Worm hunter Send a message via Yahoo to Worm hunter
Default

OK, Soupdragon2, you say that DM/DE add subjectivity. But you dont give examples of what you find subjective about them. I understand that at one point they were patches if you will, but i think we have moved past that stage through thte use of predictions and testing of atleast the observable effects on the universe. Unless you have a reason to think that the tests were improperly done or unfalsifiable to begin with, why do you still think that they are unfalsifiable. Sorry if I am just missing it here but i have yet to see you actually apply Poppers definition to either DM/DE, but only state it.

What i have learned from this thread so far: A theory/auxilary hypothesis must make testable predictions in which it is possible for the said theory/auxiliary hypothesis to fail. Seems pretty logical to me. But DM/DE has been showin to make testable predictions which they could of failed.

At this point I am going to rephrase my question a bit: If you dissagree with the tests of DM/DE then can you point out why?


Quote:
And I stand by that. But let's take it one step at a time for the sake of simplicity. Too many posts are veering off on tangental orbits as it is!
Couldnt it be said that the whole DM/DE discusion is a tangental orbit? Considering that they are two scientific theories and your statement was "a lot." And lets not forget that you have since argued that they arent even theories but, Auxilary Hypothesis. Unless if im not mistaken DM/DE are ah's of Gravity. Are you trying to say that Gravity is unfalsifiable?
__________________
They call 'em fingers, but i've never seen em fing..... oh there they go!! otto
  #308 (permalink)  
Old 22-July-2004, 02:55 PM
soupdragon2 soupdragon2 is offline
Established Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: London
Posts: 1,078
Send a message via MSN to soupdragon2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Worm hunter
What i have learned from this thread so far: A theory/auxilary hypothesis must make testable predictions in which it is possible for the said theory/auxiliary hypothesis to fail.
The AH should improve the theory, by adding information to it. The more informative, the most testable/falsifiable.

However, I think that some people are trying to claim DM and DE as theories in their own right?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Worm hunter
Seems pretty logical to me.
To you, maybe. But some people have used terms like 'provable'. Remember, if we follow Poppers methodolgy, a theory can never be conclusively verified, only conclusively falsified.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Worm hunter
But DM/DE has been showin to make testable predictions which they could of failed.
Hmmm. Well, this is the central issue...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Worm hunter
At this point I am going to rephrase my question a bit: If you dissagree with the tests of DM/DE then can you point out why?
I plan to do just this! Providing we can all agree that this IS the central issue?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Worm hunter
Couldnt it be said that the whole DM/DE discusion is a tangental orbit?
Some kind of focus for the sake of elucidation cannot be a bad thing, can it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Worm hunter
Unless if im not mistaken DM/DE are ah's of Gravity.
I am happy to work with this. (DM and DE are essentially AHs in respect of gravity.) Does anyone have any problems with this? They may consider this view too simplistic?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Worm hunter
Are you trying to say that Gravity is unfalsifiable?
No. Certainly not. OK, we are not sure what gravity is exactly, but it is a credible theory given that this force is well tested, and makes predictions that are testable now. Of course, it seems there maybe problems with it, hence DM/DE speculations.
  #309 (permalink)  
Old 22-July-2004, 03:01 PM
Worm hunter's Avatar
Worm hunter Worm hunter is offline
Established Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Fremont, CA
Posts: 169
Send a message via AIM to Worm hunter Send a message via Yahoo to Worm hunter
Default

Dark matter halos

I have been trying to remember where i read this article for awhile now and i finally found it. to me it is another example of DM making falsifiable predictions, hence being falsifiable.
__________________
They call 'em fingers, but i've never seen em fing..... oh there they go!! otto
  #310 (permalink)  
Old 22-July-2004, 03:19 PM
russ_watters russ_watters is offline
Established Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 1,247
Send a message via Yahoo to russ_watters
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by soupdragon2
At the end of page 9 and beginning of page 10 it seemed this thread was beginning to achieve some focus.
Well do it then!

Tell us exactly why you consider DM/DE, black holes, BBT(?), gravitons, and quarks (anything else?) to not be falsifiable.
Quote:
I plan to do just this!
Well, do it already! Saying over and over what you plan to do looks like a cheap dodge. I don't think after 13 pages that its too much to ask that you answer (and substantiate) the question asked in the opening post.

To answer your question, yes, I will stipulate to all 3 of those points. Like I said, I have small issues with them, but those issues aren't really relevant here. I'll stipulate for the purpose of moving on to the meat of the discussion.
Quote:
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.
Ok - now explain why.
  #311 (permalink)  
Old 22-July-2004, 06:37 PM
Cougar's Avatar
Cougar Cougar is offline
Order of Kilopi
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 4,818
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry Jensen
Dark Matter is based upon non-observation...
The gravitational dynamics of galaxies and galaxy clusters directly imply that either (1) there is a lot of matter present within these structures that we have yet to be able to detect or (2) that the effect of gravity increases dramatically over very large distances or (3) there is some other unknown explanation for the observed dynamics.

Since precise measurements of the effect of gravity over large but local scales shows no signs of any increase whatsoever (beyond what newtonian and einsteinian gravitational theories predict), then explanation (2) would appear to be highly unlikely, which fits well with the general feeling that such an explanation is ludicrous. The gravitational constant g has always been thought to be constant, and local observations consistently verify this. Numerous variable-g theories have been falsified, and the popular MOND theory has recently had a stake driven through its heart.

So explanation (1) appears the likely candidate, and searches are on to verify it.

The fact remains: there must be some explanation for these observed galactic dynamics. Nobody's absolutely sure about what that explanation is. Explanation (1) is pretty simple and straightforward. Do you have another explanation that is coherent, consistent, and complete? (and why hasn't it been published?)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry Jensen
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.
In view of my summation above, your "refusal to consider other alternatives" position appears highly subjective, paranoid, and conspiratorial. The "mainstream" is comprised of a myriad of independent, scientific minds, not some closed, secret society making selfish decisions as a bloc. If you subjectively think your pet alternatives are not given the attention you think they deserve, it is most likely that such alternatives are simply flawed, and hence further development would be fruitless.
__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
  #312 (permalink)  
Old 22-July-2004, 06:38 PM
milli360's Avatar
milli360 milli360 is offline
Established Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: NC, USA
Posts: 2,464
Default

Quote:
soupdragon2:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Worm hunter
At this point I am going to rephrase my question a bit: If you dissagree with the tests of DM/DE then can you point out why?
I plan to do just this!
Offhand, I would say that if you weren't prepared to support your statement when you originally made it, you probably should not have made it. Care to recant?
  #313 (permalink)  
Old 22-July-2004, 11:27 PM
Leaves Leaves is offline
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 4
Default

Whew! That was a long read!

I'll chime in on the "are DM/DE theories?" question. I would argue that DM/DE are not falsifiable, because they are themselves falsifications. You don't falsify falsifications, you have to prove that the test that led to the falsification was an invalid test. The standing theory before DM was "All matter in the universe that interacts with gravity, interacts with light also." DM derives from a test that falsified this theory, so you have, "There is matter which interacts with gravity, but not with light. There may be individual theories about the nature of dark matter, which are themselves falsifiable, but to get rid of DM, you have to attack the test(s) of the "bright matter only" theory, and show they weren't valid.

Quote:
Originally Posted by soupdragon2
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.
_____________________________________
I second everyone else who doesn't understand this part. The only subjectivity that has been talked about has been WRT Freudian psycoanalysis. I think we all agree that psycoanalysis in entirely unfalsifiable, and therefore entirely subjective. I can't imagine what "partial" falsifiability and "partial" subjectivity would look like.

Is psycoanalysis subjective because different researchers can look at the same results and interpret them differently within the framework of the same theory. If a theory becomes partially subjective, are there some observations that must be explained the same way, and others that may be interpreted in different ways? How has DM/DE done this to gravity, or whatever theory they are AHs of?
  #314 (permalink)  
Old 23-July-2004, 04:27 PM
Jerry's Avatar
Jerry Jerry is offline
Order of Kilopi
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,113
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cougar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry Jensen
Dark Matter is based upon non-observation...
The gravitational dynamics of galaxies and galaxy clusters directly imply that either (1) there is a lot of matter present within these structures that we have yet to be able to detect or (2) that the effect of gravity increases dramatically over very large distances or (3) there is some other unknown explanation for the observed dynamics.

Since precise measurements of the effect of gravity over large but local scales shows no signs of any increase whatsoever (beyond what newtonian and einsteinian gravitational theories predict), then explanation (2) would appear to be highly unlikely, which fits well with the general feeling that such an explanation is ludicrous. The gravitational constant g has always been thought to be constant, and local observations consistently verify this. Numerous variable-g theories have been falsified, and the popular MOND theory has recently had a stake driven through its heart.
Good summation, but I think Dark Matter has to be split into two catagories: The "missing matter" on the edges of galaxies and the stuff used to fill the gravametric sink holes in galactic clusters.

Mathematically, MOND provides the best model for the edgy stuff but fails in the second case. On the other hand, textbook newtownian stuff fills the galactic cluster voids, but the 'cusping' features necessary to model the MOND effects require unrealistic parameters and selective interactions.

Because of these observations, in my opinion, they are caused by competely different phenomenon.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cougar
The fact remains: there must be some explanation for these observed galactic dynamics. Nobody's absolutely sure about what that explanation is. Explanation (1) is pretty simple and straightforward. Do you have another explanation that is coherent, consistent, and complete? (and why hasn't it been published?)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry Jensen
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.
In view of my summation above, your "refusal to consider other alternatives" position appears highly subjective, paranoid, and conspiratorial. The "mainstream" is comprised of a myriad of independent, scientific minds, not some closed, secret society making selfish decisions as a bloc. .
I think explaination (1) is correct for the missing matter in galaxy clusters, and there was a paper posted last week that speculated the stuff might be small black holes, and they managed to tie this explanation to the current cosmology. This actually makes sense, and so yes, my critic is a little strong - people are still looking for answers.

But to even be published, alternatives must be very close fits to the current cosmology. In THIS environment, it is impossible to weigh alternative answers fairly. The Eriksen paper I started a thread around is a good example: The results of the study are certainly at odds to some degree with the current interpretation of the CMB, but in their conclusion, they state just the opposite. Would it have been accepted for publication if they had stated otherwise? Probably. Would they lose credibility for doing so? Maybe - many have.

Another example is a paper pointing out Two-point compressions are completely at odds with supernova Ia interpretations. The authors conclude the two-point compressions are flawed without even weighing into the discussion to possiblity the supernova interpretations may be biased. Since the two point statistical studies are based on thousands of galaxies, and supernova models on a handful of data points, this is disconcerting.

There was also a very technical paper last week that pointed out as soon as you assume the universe is 70 dark energy, all subsequent calculations are biased by this assumption, and the error margins are diminshed or become convergent, creating more confidence than is justified in the current model.

I think I have demonstrated in my preprint similar biases caused by assumptive use of the current relativistic distance modulus, and compete dismissal of the tensors of polarization as a necessary factor in the calculation cosmic redshift distances - could cause the same false security in the current interpretation of supernova light curves.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cougar
If you subjectively think your pet alternatives are not given the attention you think they deserve, it is most likely that such alternatives are simply flawed, and hence further development would be fruitless.
I do. I think fundamental errors in understanding the nature of light-in-space have created an unrealistic, unworkable model. I don't think (most of) the astrophysical world is capable of properly weighing the arguments of Arp and Moret-Bailey because of their deep-rooted misconceptions.

Even more fundamentally, there should not be just one acceptable model: Heisenberg should trump Einstein and Newton, there may be more than one scientifically valid explanation for everything we see in the past, and so individual studies should be evaluated on the bases of the physical realities incorporated in the solution, and not, at least initially upon whether or not they fit into the current big picture.

The plasma dudes have put together an alternative cosmology that, in my opinion, is just as flawed as the consensus cosmology. Somewhere in-between or just outside the established parameter window there may be a better solution.
__________________
jwj

It's a big universe out there...is it really unwinding, really burning out?
  #315 (permalink)  
Old 26-July-2004, 12:40 AM
soupdragon2 soupdragon2 is offline
Established Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: London
Posts: 1,078
Send a message via MSN to soupdragon2
Default

A brief recap

Falsifiability

Much of this thread has dealt with confusion over the meaning of the term Falsifiable. Many people seemed to think that a theory is falsifiable if it might be proved wrong at some point in the future. This is not the case. For a theory to be falsifiable it must be testable now*, and the test must be vulnerable to be being proved false, that is, falsified.

In other words, there must be some conceivable way in which the theory can be refuted, otherwise the results of any experiment can be interpreted in such a way as to support the theory.

It is important to recognise that this methodology was formulated by Karl Popper, and that he proposed Falsificationism as a tool for demarcating between science and non-science.

In this context the terms testable and falsifiable are hereafter synonymous.

* It might be argued that a test might be developed at some point in the future, but caution is recommended here, as NO guarantees can be made that these tests -- if and when they come about -- will be workable.

Auxiliary Hypotheses

If we discover a problem with a theory, it is not automatically abandoned. It can be rescued by an Auxiliary Hypothesis, but these are subject to strict rules. For an AH to be valid it must make a theory more testable/falsifiable. In other words it should improve its informative content, and not just patch a leak with hypotheses that are not testable. These would be kludges!

Progress so far

DM/DE

For the sake of simplicity this thread has concentrated on Dark Matter and Dark Energy. I will be happy to look at other theories later, but for the time being we seem to have agreed that this thread needs some focus.

Do DM and DE qualify as Auxiliary Hypotheses?

We also agree that DM and DE are not theories in their own right, but were intended to address problems relating to existing theories, principally gravitational in nature.

On this basis I will examine claims made by DM and DE proponents in respect of their validity. Do they fit the strict criteria necessary to be considered auxiliary hypotheses, or are they, in effect, kludges?

Background

Dark Matter, of course, was hypothesised to account for the 'missing mass' problem, while Dark Energy is hypothesised to be driving the expansion of the universe, alleged to be accelerating. Differing viewpoints ascribe varying importance to DM and/or DE.

Either way, they are not directly observable. Observations did not match expectations, and their existence was inferred to account for this discrepancy. In other words their existence rests on an interpretation of contradictory data.

While this does not in itself invalidate them, it provides a valuable insight into the reasons for their conception.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry Jensen
In this case the scientists are holding rigid the basic theory and inserting an untestable gel.
More problems with DM and DE

They have not been dectected in any laboratory style experiment. It is accepted that much of cosmology and astronomy is based on observation of distant phenomena, but both DM and DE, if they exist, are generally considered to be widely distributed. DM is generally assumed to constitute no less than 70% of it!

More recently it has been proposed that DM might hang-out in clusters and at the edge of galaxies, but this simply makes it more elusive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry Jensen
"I do not see why dark matter would preferentially hang-out in the centers of clusters and on the edges of galaxies, but hide everywhere else. Maybe we should call it smoking-outside-the-hospital matter."
It seems more subjectivity and less testability is increasingly being factored in!

In another recent development, for example, it has been proposed that DM and DE maybe the same thing.
Please bid welcome to Scalar fields!

Dark Matter and Dark Energy: One and the Same?
http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...ay_040712.html

If we go on like this, DM and DE seem to be safe for some time in the future. As they continue to evolve with ever more exotic properties and behaviours, it becomes increasingly difficult to test for them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry Jensen
The problem is: How many degrees of freedom do we allow these new constraints to have before considering them failures? McGaugh has argued for almost a decade now the ‘tuffs’ of dark matter require unrealistic parameters ... Fermi said he could model a universe that looked like an elephant if he was allowed four free parameters. So are we seeing a DM/DE universe or a white elephant?
Through the Looking Glass

It has been argued that we are looking through the distorted window of the Big Bang. This infers that many theories have been designed to conform with BB ideas.

If there was no initial explosion, and if the universe is not expanding (accelerative or otherwise), then the necessity for the existence of DM/DE is lessened. I accept that while there is much conflation here, differing theories are not necessarily dependent...

While I do not wish to discuss the BBT in any great depth, my point is relevant to the following.


Alternatives

The speculative nature of DM and DE is further underlined when we consider that there are other viable alternatives that can explain the discrepancy in our observations. Why is it that DM and DE are considered more acceptable to the mainstream? Is it because they fit more neatly with the BBT?

While this is almost certainly the case, it does not make DM and DE falsifiable! They remain merely prefential to the mainstream, and there is no compelling evidence to justify this preference!

Preferential does not equate to falsifiable!

OK, MOND has suffered one or two blows just lately, but there are other credible theories.

As dgruss23 has pointed out, there are many candidates that may explain the flat rotation curves of spiral galaxies. Wimps, Axions, Machos...

He has also offered his opinion, in a number of other threads, that Baryonic dark matter is the strongest candidate for explaining galaxy rotation curves. And also that in galaxy clusters it is not dark matter causing the high velocity dispersions, but rather intrinsic redshifts. Thus cluster dark-matter estimates are too high. But if the dark matter is baryonic then we can probably say bye-bye to the Big Bang because this would contradict BBT nucleosynthesis.


Conclusion

I believe that any of the above points, when taken alone, do serious harm to any notion of DM and DE being considered falsifiable. Even if you disagree with any of them in isolation, when taken cumulatively I believe they represent a powerful argument against any such claim.

The only possible basis by which DM and DE might be considered falsifiable relates the the claim that they make predictions that can be falsified. However, as we have seen, these predictions have been continually kludged with further subjectivity, and reasonable alternatives exist.

They cannot, therefore, be considered Auxiliary Hypotheses!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry Jensen
"Every time we peer further into the cosmos, the BB has to be tweaked with new parameters. Is the Big Bang a success or a very stubborn failure?
Moreover, these alternatives don't rely on any magical gel.

The survival of DM and DE up until now actually seems to have relied on our inability to test for them, thus contradicting the most the most basic principle of Falsifiability.

In summation, DM and DE are not testatable in terms of even the most cursory application of Karl Popper's methodology. They are NOT falsifiable!

Further...

Quote:
Originally Posted by dgruss23
...The problems arise when people start thinking of interpretation as observation (eg. expansion is an interpretation not an observation) and set different standards for alternatives than for mainstream models (eg. Intrinsic redshifts are an unacceptable interpretation because that would require "new physics", but dark energy is an acceptable interpretation even though it also requires "new physics").

...In my mind a fresh start does not have to be a complete abandonment of everything, but rather just a willingness, to periodically re-evaluate what might be possible if certain strongly held interpretations were in fact incorrect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry Jensen
Yes. It is time to zero base and start over. There is too much new observational evidence that does not jive with theory. Everyone agrees the BB model is tightly constrained, and something is wrong. We cannot model the very energetic regions about active galactic nuclei. The gas flow rates are unrealistic, the luminosity exceeds the Eddington limit. Nothing makes sense.

Assigning intrinsic redshifts to brilliant regions, as Arp has argued for decades now, relieves many of these problems by making these active events closer and smaller. But after reassigning some of the
redshift to an intrinsic effect, the whole model has to be reconstructed. Since many of the data reconstruction techniques (such as K corrections) are tied to the current model, it is extremely difficult to determine what is real and what is artifact. It is time to quit propping up a failed model and start over.
Quote:
Originally Posted by snowflakeuniverse
I do not believe that there is enough proof of non-baryonic matter to justify its assumed existence.

1. Dark Matter has not been “seen”. There is evidence of MACHO’s, old cold star cores, and similar “real” dark matter” as “seen” by the disturbance of the image of background stars, but there has not been one observation of other “dark matter” blocking the light of background stars.
Please note that I am not inferring that any of the people I have quoted necessarily agree with my conclusions.
  #316 (permalink)  
Old 26-July-2004, 01:25 AM
milli360's Avatar
milli360 milli360 is offline
Established Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: NC, USA
Posts: 2,464
Default

Quote:
soupdragon2:
If we discover a problem with a theory, it is not automatically abandoned. It can be rescued by an Auxiliary Hypothesis, but these are subject to strict rules. For an AH to be valid it must make a theory more testable/falsifiable. In other words it should improve its informative content, and not just patch a leak with hypotheses that are not testable. These would be kludges!
You were going to get back to me on that.

Quote:
I believe that any of the above points, when taken alone, do serious harm to any notion of DM and DE being considered falsifiable. Even if you disagree with any of them in isolation, when taken cumulatively I believe they represent a powerful argument against any such claim.
What points? I'll try to summarize, let me know if I missed any:
  1. "Do DM and DE qualify as Auxiliary Hypotheses?" (this remains an answered question, see above)
  2. "they are not directly observable" (depends upon the meaning of "direct")
  3. "They have not been dectected in any laboratory style experiment" (neither have planets, thank goodness)
  4. "It seems more subjectivity and less testability is increasingly being factored in." (this itself is a subjective statement)
  5. "it has been proposed that DM and DE maybe the same thing." (I don't see how this is relevant)
  6. "differing theories are not necessarily dependent" (perhaps why they might be considered Auxiliary Hypotheses?)
  7. "there are other viable alternatives" (there always are)
Again, you may be right, but it hasn't been worked out completely. Disparaging theories by invoking Popper seems like a weak attack.
  #317 (permalink)  
Old 26-July-2004, 01:45 AM
soupdragon2 soupdragon2 is offline
Established Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: London
Posts: 1,078
Send a message via MSN to soupdragon2
Default

As ever, you miss the point, and try and sidetrack the real issues! Are you Kilopi in disguise?

I construct arguments that are consistent and cumulative, and you offer opinions as if they are facts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by milli360
Let's stay on track with DM and DE for the time being. I'm not your research assistant...

Quote:
Originally Posted by milli360
Do DM and DE qualify as Auxiliary Hypotheses? (this remains an answered question, see above)
You have had numerous chances to question this, and leave it until now!

Quote:
Originally Posted by milli360
"they are not directly observable" (depends upon the meaning of "direct")
Splitting hairs, again!

Quote:
Originally Posted by milli360
"They have not been dectected in any laboratory style experiment" (neither have planets, thank goodness)
Very clever. I qualified this in the next sentence, which you have omitted. This is disingenuous, and you know it!

Quote:
Originally Posted by milli360
"It seems more subjectivity and less testability is increasingly being factored in." (this itself is a subjective statement)
No. See preceding posts. One test equals one chance to falsify. Two tests... There is nothing subjective here. Simple logic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by milli360
"it has been proposed that DM and DE maybe the same thing." (I don't see how this is relevant)
See JWJs quote that follows. This might help you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by milli360
"differing theories are not necessarily dependent" (perhaps why they might be considered Auxiliary Hypotheses?)
As I have said, I do not wish to discuss the BBT in depth, only where it is strictly relevant...

Quote:
Originally Posted by milli360
"there are other viable alternatives" (there always are)
The point is that preferential does not equate to falsifiable. Funny how you missed that!

Quote:
Originally Posted by milli360
Again, you may be right, but it hasn't been worked out completely. Disparaging theories by invoking Popper seems like a weak attack.
We are talking about Falsificationism, as formulated by Popper, not disparagement. Get with the program.
  #318 (permalink)  
Old 26-July-2004, 02:20 AM
milli360's Avatar
milli360 milli360 is offline
Established Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: NC, USA
Posts: 2,464
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by soupdragon2
As ever, you miss the point, and try and sidetrack the real issues!
They were your points, I was just summarizing, not quote in entirety. I asked if I had missed some, and I see you have said that I had.
Quote:
I construct arguments that are consistent and cumulative, and you offer opinions as if they are facts.
See title of this thread.
Quote:
Let's stay on track with DM and DE for the time being. I'm not your research assistant...
The issue was whether DM and DE are Auxiliary Hypotheses or not. As near as I can tell, you have avoided the issue completely, except to assert that they are not.
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by milli360
Do DM and DE qualify as Auxiliary Hypotheses? (this remains an answered question, see above)
You have had numerous chances to question this, and leave it until now!
Well, I've asked it before, that's the question from that previous link. Your claim that "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," was what I was responding to. You said you'd get back to me on that issue.
Quote:
Splitting hairs, again!
Hey, you started it.
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by milli360
"They have not been dectected in any laboratory style experiment" (neither have planets, thank goodness)
Very clever. I qualified this in the next sentence, which you have omitted. This is disingenuous, and you know it!
I was listing your points, and a comment against them. Your original is above, I wasn't going to quote the entire thing. If I've missed a point, please make it. Actually, my comment was pretty much the same as your qualification, so I don't see how that was misleading. No matter how many weak points you make, they don't strengthen your case just by shear numbers.
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by milli360
"It seems more subjectivity and less testability is increasingly being factored in." (this itself is a subjective statement)
No. See preceding posts. One test equals one chance to falsify. Two tests... There is nothing subjective here. Simple logic.
Two tests... ??
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by milli360
"it has been proposed that DM and DE maybe the same thing." (I don't see how this is relevant)
See JWJs quote that follows. This might help you.
JWJ's quote doesn't seem to have anything to do with the theory that they may be the same thing.
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by milli360
"there are other viable alternatives" (there always are)
The point is that preferential does not equate to falsifiable. Funny how you missed that!
Well, I got seven of them. But "preferential does not equate to falsifiable" is not an argument for, or against. "Preferential" is irrelevant, as far as I can tell. That point just adds another weak point.
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by milli360
Again, you may be right, but it hasn't been worked out completely. Disparaging theories by invoking Popper seems like a weak attack.
We are talking about Falsificationism, as formulated by Popper, not disparagement.
I would like to believe that.
  #319 (permalink)  
Old 26-July-2004, 02:41 AM
russ_watters russ_watters is offline
Established Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 1,247
Send a message via Yahoo to russ_watters
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by soupdragon2
Much of this thread has dealt with confusion over the meaning of the term Falsifiable. Many people seemed to think that a theory is falsifiable if it might be proved wrong at some point in the future. This is not the case. For a theory to be falsifiable it must be testable now*, and the test must be vulnerable to be being proved false, that is, falsified.
And as discussed already, whether this idea comes from Popper or you (I'm not convinced it's Popper's idea), it is unequivocably wrong. Science doesn't and can't work this way. If it did, QM, generally regarded as the most successful theory ever (precisely because it goes against your assertion), would not be anywhere near where it is today.

I consider this erroneous constraint to be the principal reason why you consider many scientific theories to not be falsifiable (and therefore not scientific).
  #320 (permalink)  
Old 26-July-2004, 03:24 AM
Jerry's Avatar
Jerry Jerry is offline
Order of Kilopi
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,113
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by russ_watters
(Science does not ) work this way. If it did, QM, generally regarded as the most successful theory ever (precisely because it goes against your assertion), would not be anywhere near where it is today.

I consider this erroneous constraint to be the principal reason why you consider many scientific theories to not be falsifiable (and therefore not scientific).
Is Quantum mechanics the exception that proves the rule? Feynman is quoted as saying "Shut up and calculate." when his students questioned the logic behind QMs. Is there another generally accepted theory lacking in fundamental logic? (Other than the dark matter/dark energy extensions of the Einstein deSitter model?)
__________________
jwj

It's a big universe out there...is it really unwinding, really burning out?
  #321 (permalink)  
Old 26-July-2004, 03:27 AM
milli360's Avatar
milli360 milli360 is offline
Established Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: NC, USA
Posts: 2,464
Default

Quote:
Jerry Jensen:
Is there another generally accepted theory lacking in fundamental logic? (Other than the dark matter/dark energy extensions of the Einstein deSitter model?)
By "fundamental logic" do you mean something that makes intuitive sense?
  #322 (permalink)  
Old 26-July-2004, 06:39 AM
Worm hunter's Avatar
Worm hunter Worm hunter is offline
Established Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Fremont, CA
Posts: 169
Send a message via AIM to Worm hunter Send a message via Yahoo to Worm hunter
Default

Soup, sorry if i missed something but i have yet to see you make an actual argument about a DM/DE showing that they add subjectivity to any theory. This seems like an important thing to do if you want this thread to go anywhere. Atleast to me that is. I think i have been asking this question since around page nine, possibly even before that, so here it goes again, this time will be the last for real this time. I dont feel like going around in circles again on this issue. To me it is one of the major parts of your statement so: What exactly do you find unfalsifiable about DM/DE?????

If you think it adds subjectivity show where please. I dissagree with your assertions that inorder for a theory to be falsifiable they must be testable today. If we could test them the day they were concieved they would have been concieved the day before, and so on and so forth. Science cant work this way as it would never accomplish anything. However, if there is some other way you think they add subjectivity, please show that. or atleast explain why, using examples with the theory, Using Popper's idea of falsification if you want rather then just using examples of Popper's idea.

Sorry if I sound a bit harsh here but, this thread hasnt gone anywhere yet and I would kind of like to see it go somewhere.
__________________
They call 'em fingers, but i've never seen em fing..... oh there they go!! otto
  #323 (permalink)  
Old 26-July-2004, 11:50 AM
papageno's Avatar
papageno papageno is offline
Order of Kilopi
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Greater London
Posts: 3,379
Send a message via MSN to papageno
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by russ_watters
Quote:
Originally Posted by soupdragon2
Much of this thread has dealt with confusion over the meaning of the term Falsifiable. Many people seemed to think that a theory is falsifiable if it might be proved wrong at some point in the future. This is not the case. For a theory to be falsifiable it must be testable now*, and the test must be vulnerable to be being proved false, that is, falsified.
And as discussed already, whether this idea comes from Popper or you (I'm not convinced it's Popper's idea), it is unequivocably wrong. Science doesn't and can't work this way. If it did, QM, generally regarded as the most successful theory ever (precisely because it goes against your assertion), would not be anywhere near where it is today.

I consider this erroneous constraint to be the principal reason why you consider many scientific theories to not be falsifiable (and therefore not scientific).
In the practice of scientists, the testability of a theory does not depend on the technological development.
If a test can be concieved, then the theory is testable.

If the outcome of a test does not allow unambiguous interpretations, other tests are necessary (e.g., Michelson-Morley experiment is not enough to support Special Relativity against a theory based on a material Aether).

And, what Popper said did not change the practice of science.

Quote:
Originally Posted by soupdragon2
In other words, there must be some conceivable way in which the theory can be refuted, otherwise the results of any experiment can be interpreted in such a way as to support the theory.
A Stern-Gerlach-like experiment cannot support a classical theory of atomic magnetism.
A double-slit expriment cannot support a purely classical theory of electron.
__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)
  #324 (permalink)  
Old 26-July-2004, 12:29 PM
soupdragon2 soupdragon2 is offline
Established Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: London
Posts: 1,078
Send a message via MSN to soupdragon2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by russ_watters
Science doesn't and can't work this way. If it did, QM, generally regarded as the most successful theory ever (precisely because it goes against your assertion), would not be anywhere near where it is today.
QM is highly speculative. Very interesting, but would you argue that it was falsifiable?

Quote:
Originally Posted by russ_watters
I consider this erroneous constraint to be the principal reason why you consider many scientific theories to not be falsifiable (and therefore not scientific).
Popper gave us falsifiability, and I am working to his rules.

Check it: http://www.eeng.dcu.ie/~tkpw/

If you disapprove of Popper's ideas, then fine, but we are talking about the theory which he formulated, and not one designed to keep russ-watters happy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by papageno
If a test can be concieved, then the theory is testable.
Time frames? Might we be able to test for DM and DE before, say, 2112?

Quote:
Originally Posted by worm hunter
Soup, sorry if i missed something but i have yet to see you make an actual argument about a DM/DE showing that they add subjectivity to any theory.
Try and understand the definitions of Falsifiable and Auxiliary hypotheses, and you should be well on your way. Out of interest, care to define them in your own words?

Quote:
Originally Posted by worm hunter
...What exactly do you find unfalsifiable about DM/DE?????
I am not familiar with the term 'unfalsifiable', though I can probably guess what you mean.

The point is that they are NOT testable theories in their own right and, more problematically, they fail to meet the strict criteria for qualification as AHs. If they fail to add to the testability of a theory, then by definition they undermine it. Call this subjectivity if you will.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mill360
Quote:
Originally Posted by soupdragon2
......No. See preceding posts. One test equals one chance to falsify. Two tests... There is nothing subjective here. Simple logic.
Two tests... ??
OK. Let's look at some elementary mathematics for you benefit.

For a theory to be falsifiable, there must be at least one conceivable test that is capable of falsifiying the theory.

For DM to qualify as an AH it must add to the testability of the theory, by adding add least one more test that is vulnerable to being falsified.

1 + 1 = 2

Where this criterium is fulfilled, the theory is improved, that is more testable. (There are now at least 2 tests that can be performed to falsify the theory. See the math above.)

If the theory has a leak that is patched by a hypothesis which is not testable, then the theory is undermined.

Testable and falsifiable are synonyms in this context, remember.
  #325 (permalink)  
Old 26-July-2004, 12:49 PM
milli360's Avatar
milli360 milli360 is offline
Established Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: NC, USA
Posts: 2,464
Default

Quote:
soupdragon2:
Try and understand the definitions of Falsifiable and Auxiliary hypotheses, and you should be well on your way. Out of interest, do you care to define them for me in your own words?
We're not going to do your research for you.

The purpose of this thread is for you to defend your comment, which is included in the thread title. You have focussed on Dark Matter and Dark Energy.
Quote:
The point is that they are NOT testable theories in their own right and, more problematically, they fail to meet the strict criteria for qualification as AHs.
As near as I can tell, the only strict criteria for qualification as AHs that you've mentioned is that they must be falsifiable--which is synonymous with testable, so I question the "more problematic" until we see the rest of your definition.
Quote:
Testable and falsifiable are synonyms in this context, remember.
We remember. You forgot. This entire thread has been in the context of Popper's rules.
  #326 (permalink)  
Old 26-July-2004, 12:58 PM
soupdragon2 soupdragon2 is offline
Established Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: London
Posts: 1,078
Send a message via MSN to soupdragon2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by milli360
As near as I can tell, the only strict criteria for qualification as AHs that you've mentioned is that they must be falsifiable--which is synonymous with testable, so I question the "more problematic" until we see the rest of your definition.
There's much more to it than this. See the math in my previous post for further details. I kept it nice and simple for you!

I have some reservations about the terms falsifiable and testable being used as synonyms, as I have mentioned, but for the sake of simplicity I happy to overlook them. Where the context is clear my reservations are eased considerably. But let's stick to the point.
  #327 (permalink)  
Old 26-July-2004, 12:59 PM
papageno's Avatar
papageno papageno is offline
Order of Kilopi
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Greater London
Posts: 3,379
Send a message via MSN to papageno
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by soupdragon2
Quote:
Originally Posted by russ_watters
Science doesn't and can't work this way. If it did, QM, generally regarded as the most successful theory ever (precisely because it goes against your assertion), would not be anywhere near where it is today.
QM is highly speculative. Very interesting, but would you argue that it was falsifiable?
Quantum Mechanics makes predictions.
These predictions can be tested.
Many predictions have been tested experimentally and the results agree with the predictions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by soupdragon2
Quote:
Originally Posted by russ_watters
I consider this erroneous constraint to be the principal reason why you consider many scientific theories to not be falsifiable (and therefore not scientific).
Popper gave us falsifiability, and I am working to his rules.
Scientists do not need Popper to tell them how to do their job.

Quote:
Originally Posted by soupdragon2
Quote:
Originally Posted by papageno
If a test can be concieved, then the theory is testable.
Time frames? Might we be able to test for DM and DE before, say, 2112?
Do the theories that include Dark Matter and Dark Energy make predictions that can be tested in theory?
__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)
  #328 (permalink)  
Old 26-July-2004, 01:02 PM
soupdragon2 soupdragon2 is offline
Established Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: London
Posts: 1,078
Send a message via MSN to soupdragon2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by papageno
Scientists do not need Popper to tell them how to do their job.
I have made no such claim!

The point is, do DM and DE qualify as Falsifiable within his methodology?

If you don't approve of his work, then fine, but for the purpose of this thread we cannot ignore it.
  #329 (permalink)  
Old 26-July-2004, 01:09 PM
milli360's Avatar
milli360 milli360 is offline
Established Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: NC, USA
Posts: 2,464
Default

Quote:
soupdragon2:
Quote:
Originally Posted by milli360
As near as I can tell, the only strict criteria for qualification as AHs that you've mentioned is that they must be falsifiable--which is synonymous with testable, so I question the "more problematic" until we see the rest of your definition.
There's much more to it than this. See the math in my previous post for further details. I kept it nice and simple for you!
I'm going to need more help. How did you go from the first step (1+1=2) to the second step (Dark Matter and Dark Energy are not Auxiliary Hypotheses)?
Quote:
I have some reservations about the terms falsifiable and testable being used as synonyms, as I have mentioned, but for the sake of simplicity I happy to overlook them. Where the context is clear my reservations are eased considerably. But let's stick to the point.
You mean, the context of Popper's theory? I thought we'd been clear on that since the start of the thread. The context of this thread is Popper's theory, where testable and falsifiable are synonyms.
Quote:
soupdragon2:
The point is, do DM and DE qualify as Falsifiable within his methodology?
Yes, that is the question that you said you'd answer.
Quote:
If you don't approve of his work, then fine, but for the purpose of this thread we cannot ignore it.
Good advice.
  #330 (permalink)  
Old 26-July-2004, 01:13 PM
papageno's Avatar
papageno papageno is offline
Order of Kilopi
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Greater London
Posts: 3,379
Send a message via MSN to papageno
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by soupdragon2
Quote:
Originally Posted by papageno
Scientists do not need Popper to tell them how to do their job.
I have made no such claim!
So, why do you insist in bringing up his work?

If you want to know if Dark Matter and Dark Energy are (part of) scientific theories, you should ask scientists.

Quote:
Originally Posted by soupdragon2
The point is, do DM and DE qualify as Falsifiable within his methodology?
Shouldn't you ask "do scientists consider Dark Matter and Dark Energy as scientific?" ?
And, I think, the BA answered "yes".

Quote:
Originally Posted by soupdragon2
If you don't approve of his work, then fine, but for the purpose of this thread we cannot ignore it.
It is not a matter of approving Popper's work.
I and others have pointed out that Popper's "methodology" is largely irrelevant for the practice of scientists.
Scientists did their job with no problems, well before Popper.
__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)
Closed Thread


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On




All times are GMT. The time now is 11:36 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LinkBacks Enabled by vBSEO 3.0.0
©  2006 Bad Astronomy and Universe Today