What's your scientific background, ProtoAvatar?
Are We Living Inside A Blackhole?
- Thread starter All Seeing Eye
- Start date
Being blindly skeptical of everything is not scientific, it's just contrary.
In fact, using the phrase "unproven theory" just demonstrates how little you know about science. Dark matter is a theory, meaning it is a conclusion that fits the available data. Might there be another explanation? Sure. But dark matter is presently the best one we have--just like the Big Bang theory is currently our best explanation for the origin of the cosmos.
The fact is, the people who study this sort of thing for a living have come to a general consensus that dark matter is the best explanation we have for what we've observed. That doesn't mean it is the absolute, 100% correct explanation--science doesn't deal in absolutes like that--and if a better theory that fits the facts comes along, it will gain traction.
But you seem to be implying that it's just something some scientists made up without any basis and everyone just accepts it because they're stupid dogmatists, and that's completely untrue.
ProtoAvatar
Fleet Captain
Except - I'm not being blindly skeptical.
I base my scepticism on arguments - which is scientific thinking.
STR based his belief (until his last two posts in this thread) in dark matter on authority, on some big names - which is faith, dogmatism.
As for 'dark matter' - the arguments supporting it have more holes in them than swiss cheese - really large assumtions, inconsistencies, etc.
But - you're welcome to post explanations for the numerous holes that plague 'dark matter' - which is the scientific method. Giving names and claiming that's all the proof you need is NOT.
Argument from authority. If these people have explanations for the many inconsistencies plaguing 'dark matter', then post these explanations. Let's hear them - and I reserve the right to skeptically examine them; you will be free to point out my errors; etc.
Saying 'people' or giving some big names are useless as scientific arguments, from a scientific method POV - it's just dogmatism.
Actually, the correct terminological expression is 'conjecture', Robert Maxwell - NOT theory (that's something pretty thoroughly proven - relativity theory, for example; dark matter doesn't even come close to this level of proof).
JarodRussell - still annoyed over that star trek V thread, I see.
You do realize an "argument from authority" is appropriate if the authorities cited are experts in the field being discussed, right?
Why are you evading the question? What is your scientific background?
ProtoAvatar
Fleet Captain
JarodRussell, have you even read your last posts addressed to me?
What makes you think I'm inclined to give you any information about myself?
Not that I would have given it even if you were not so openly antagonistic - this being a forum and I valuing my privacy.
ProtoAvatar
Fleet Captain
As per the scientific method, 'arguments from authority' are inappropriate, are useless no matter whose name you give.
A name - no matter how big - has no value.
As per the scientific method, what has value are his arguments, supporting a conjecture - 'dark matter', for example.
So - do 'cite' those authorities (and by 'cite', I mean more than a general 'authorities' or some names - I'm referring to their actual arguments!) - let's hear and discuss their arguments.
In my last post I implied you appear to have only half-knowledge about all of it but act like you knew it all, and you still act like you know things better like a great amount of scientists actively working in the field.
You could easily debunk that claim and make me look like an idiot by providing information about your actual scientific background.
None of that even makes any sense. By your "reasoning," no science at all can ever be trusted because it can only be reported by the "authorities" you seem to have a problem with.
Well, that way, no scientist would ever use another scientist's work. Everyone would have to reinvent the wheel before continuing.
ProtoAvatar
Fleet Captain
Not so, Robert Maxwell.
You see, most scientific theories (like evolution, for example) have solid - extremely so - arguments behind them. This makes these theories valid.
Dark matter's support is limited some ploblem-riddled arguments and useless dogmatism - believe this because that priest/authority told you to and he knows better.
There is a very LARGE difference between these two situations.
I already told you - repeated myself - what has value are arguments. Post them and let us discuss them.
Names - this guy says this is so, so beleive it - arguments from authority have no place in science.
This is a BASIC tenet of the scientific method, Robert Maxwell.
Not so, Robert Maxwell.
You see, most scientific theories (like evolution, for example) have solid - extremely so - arguments behind them. This makes these theories valid.
Dark matter's support is limited some ploblem-riddled arguments and useless dogmatism - believe this because that priest/authority told you to and he knows better.
There is a very LARGE difference between these two situations.
I already told you - repeated myself - what has value are arguments. Post them and let us discuss them.
Names - this guy says this is so, so beleive it - arguments from authority have no place in science.
This is a BASIC tenet of the scientific method, Robert Maxwell.
Unless either of us is doing empirical research investigating the existence or nonexistence of dark matter, our opinions are worth about squat. So, I will defer to the experts--the ones who actually do research in this area.
I have not seen anyone go off half-cocked and say "RARGH! DARK MATTER IS A FACT! THERE CAN BE NO ALTERNATIVE!" All anyone here has said is that current science views dark matter as best explanation for the behavior and distribution of galaxies. Are there efforts underway to find concrete proof of dark matter? Absolutely. Is it possible there's no such thing as dark matter and it's something else entirely? Sure.
But you can't just say "I don't like dark matter, it doesn't make sense to me, therefore it's bogus" and expect anyone to go along with that. Unless you are putting forth a credible alternative--you know, one backed up by actual scientific research--your view of it doesn't hold much weight.
It is not "dogmatic" to support a theory that is still being heavily researched but isn't perfect. It's what we've got to work with unless and until we find something better.
I'd actually say the debate is a bit further along that what you're saying. We can see the effects of DM, predict them, and utilize them to help other theories. For example, an 80% darkmatter galaxy, colliding with another similar galaxy has a very good chance of settling into a spiral shape. Take away the DM, and you get an irregular mass.
We actually have maps of where dark matter is concentrated at intergalactic scales.
So we know what's out there, just not precisely what it is. It's like picking up a rock from a pile at night. You know some of its properties (weight, dimension). You know roughly how big the pile is and where it is. You just don't know what kind of rock it is (granite, limestone, a meteor, or a chunk of concrete). You do know it's not a piece of cake, you know it's not a balloon full of helium. You know a lot about what it isn't. You still don't know what it is.
That, in a nutshell, is where the debate is. There is little discussion of whether or not the stuff exists. There is 99% certainty SOMETHING exists. There is some debate on the precise distribution (does it clump into objects, or does it self repel or anhiliate to keep from clumping?), and physical properties (WIMPs, neutrinos, molecular hydrogen, a combination, or something else?)
Right. What I mean is, there is no direct evidence of dark matter's existence--as in, we have not managed to capture or find any. Even so, whatever it is, we can accurately predict its behavior and effects and that's why current science is behind it.
ProtoAvatar seems to be under the mistaken impression that, since we are not in possession of actual dark matter in the laboratory, it must not exist and it's just a bunch of fabricated nonsense. Which is, of course, completely false.
ProtoAvatar
Fleet Captain
Robert Maxwell, before we can even consider having dark matter in a laboratory, we must start by having a consistent theory as to what dark matter IS - which we don't.
At this moment, dark matter is only an UNPROVEN AND INCONSISTENT conjecture (relying on wild assumptions) to explain gravitational effects stronger than general relativity predicts (by the way, we calculated these effects with numbers taken from observations, and this is as far as our "predicting" dark matter goes) - effects that can be explained through a number of different conjectures that do not involve dark matter.
And about our 'scientific method' discussion:
"Names - this guy says this is so, so beleive it - arguments from authority have no place in science. THERE ARE NO EXCEPTIONS.
This is a BASIC tenet of the scientific method, Robert Maxwell."
If those authorities are all you say you are, you - or STR - should have no problem posting CONVINCING (as in, that do NOT involve a new fundamental interaction or gravitational fields without mass) arguments from them.
My teachers told me that 1+1=2 and that electrons, protons and neutrons are parts of atoms, that Earth is a sphere, and that we breath air consisting of Oxygen, Nitrogen, Argon, lots of other gases and water vapor. I didn't check any of it myself, I just believe that. 
Now you say atoms are made of cheese, that 1+1 = 3, that Earth is a donut and that we breath vacuum. And you dismiss everything we say because it's just an "argument from authority".
You, sir, definately win the Internet.
If you have valid arguments that you can back up and that are going to shake theoretical physics up and down, then for God's sake write a paper on it and submit it to conferences. You know it all, so do it.
Now you say atoms are made of cheese, that 1+1 = 3, that Earth is a donut and that we breath vacuum. And you dismiss everything we say because it's just an "argument from authority".
You, sir, definately win the Internet.
If you have valid arguments that you can back up and that are going to shake theoretical physics up and down, then for God's sake write a paper on it and submit it to conferences. You know it all, so do it.
ProtoAvatar
Fleet Captain
JarodRussell
JarodRussel, star trek V IS a sub-standard movie.
Get over it. Or don't get over it. Get over your annoyance with me. Or don't get over it. I don't really care.
From now on, when you're civil, I will be civil in turn. When you are in a nerd-rage (your habitual state, apparently), I, depending on my mood, will either ignore you or treat your posts as the joke they are.
PS - As for your last post: Using straw-man arguments over straw-man arguments
. That was unintentionally hilarious on your part.
JarodRussel, star trek V IS a sub-standard movie.
Get over it. Or don't get over it. Get over your annoyance with me. Or don't get over it. I don't really care.
From now on, when you're civil, I will be civil in turn. When you are in a nerd-rage (your habitual state, apparently), I, depending on my mood, will either ignore you or treat your posts as the joke they are.
PS - As for your last post: Using straw-man arguments over straw-man arguments
. That was unintentionally hilarious on your part.
Why do you bring it up again and again? It's like you're obsessed with it or something. Which is funny, because I agree with you that it's a sub-standard movie.
Well I really don't care either.
Aww, now come on, that was completely uncalled for. I did keep it civil, you don't.
Explain why.PS - As for your last post: Using straw-man arguments over straw-man arguments
Again, why don't you keep it civil?
Similar threads
