|
|
|
sailingsoul
SFN Addict
2830 Posts |
 Posted - 11/27/2011 : 16:31:44 [Permalink]
|
 WTF? I can't say I've ever read anything chefcrsh has posted to justify bngbuck's comment. Bill on this your way off base, way more than Sebastian has ever been on this site. Just what did Chris ever post to justify that? Evidence please. |
There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS |
 |
|
|
chefcrsh
Skeptic Friend
Hong Kong
380 Posts |
Posted - 11/27/2011 : 17:43:07 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by sailingsoul
WTF? I can't say I've ever read anything chefcrsh has posted to justify bngbuck's comment. Bill on this your way off base, way more than Sebastian has ever been on this site. Just what did Chris ever post to justify that? Evidence please.
|
Thanks SS, I appreciate the vote of confidence, but one of the many asinine aspects of his statement is that it has absolutely nothing to do with this very fine thread. As such it is textbook trolling. If bngbuck wants to stoop to pot shots and puff-toadery we ought at least have a decent enough respect for other posters to do it in a thread specifically designated as such. |
| Edited by - chefcrsh on 11/27/2011 17:59:19 |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 11/27/2011 : 18:00:20 [Permalink]
|
sailingsoul.....
I had written:
| Young people like chefcrsh cannot understand that perspective. His attitude is derisive of longevity |
You ask for:
Evidence. Last post on the page.
From chefcrsh: 11/24/11
| You have mentioned (ad nauseam) that you are elderly, so I'll assume that this is the cause of your feeble minded argument (after all they say that with age cometh...if forget) and try my best one more time to spell it out for you. |
That certainly sounds just a tad ageist to me! - in the true sense of the meaning of the word as invented by Robert Neil Butler in 1968.
To say nothing of patronizing and insulting! It's the kind of thing that I sincerely wish there was less of here on SFN. I picked no fight with crsh. He simply started disparaging me personally in the midst of a discussion! |
| Edited by - bngbuck on 11/27/2011 18:11:22 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 11/27/2011 : 18:49:40 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
It's the kind of thing that I sincerely wish there was less of here on SFN. |
Then don't do it (especially not in a thread in which you weren't insulted). That will ensure there will be less of it.| I picked no fight with crsh. |
Has "he hit me first" ever been a good excuse?| He simply started disparaging me personally in the midst of a discussion! |
And so you simply started disparaging him personally in the midst of this discussion (chef hadn't even participated in this thread before you posted his name here), which includes an expert you obviously respect who has been pleading for a return to the original topic.
Really, bng: you're doing something that you think is a bad thing to do, in a thread in which you're sucking up to a guy who doesn't want the thread derailed any longer. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2011 : 13:56:30 [Permalink]
|
Dave
| Then don't do it (especially not in a thread in which you weren't insulted). That will ensure there will be less of it. |
I think that makes sense, is an excellent suggestion, and I will certainly try harder than I currently am not to respond in kind when attacked.
I also believe that several others here, including yourself, would benefit from that same advice. You and I both know, and we both have frequently demonstrated; that it is not easy, if you are "hit first" (and you're not a rug), to not return insult. It is simply reflexive to hit back. Any student of Pavlov knows that reflexes are not easily reversed.
And it is certainly true that nine times out of ten, there is little if any gain to anyone or anything in twisting a discussion in that direction. Insult in dialog really makes little sense irrespective of which direction it is going.
Point made, message heard and agreed to; you are fully justified and correct in your criticism. I pledge that I will make more effort to turn cheek when slapped.
How about you? Will you do the same?
| (especially not in a thread in which you weren't insulted). |
Not sure what the importance of, or intent is, of this addendum. Elaborate please. Particularly on the word "especially"
Seems to me that it is a wrong, and usually stupid practice, to reflexively hit back at all - irrespective of what thread the insult may be in, or in which thread the insult is returned. | in a thread in which you're sucking up |
I am sorry that you see that intent in my attempted complement to Tim Thompson. First, I fail to see what personal benefit I might receive from Tim by "sucking up" to him. I, from time to time, indeed do "suck up" to bankers, money-lenders, and people in various positions of power from whom I possibly can benefit (usually in a financial sense). Sometimes, it works.
I have never, to my knowlege, "sucked up" to a scientist, never having a reason to do so. I certainly would, if I could connect a hose or USB port from their brain to mine and download their knowledge data base! I would also pay a pretty price for that impossibility if it could be bought! The slow form of that is called "books", or "education".
I obviously did not accurately convey my honest and genuine respect for a true, trained, educated and experienced expert in his field; and how much I feel it raises the level of dialog here to have a few folks like Tim, and Filthy and Alienist here who are professionals in their fields.
I know that I remain a rank amateur in my collective knowledge of most of the hard science disciplines, including particle physics, astrophysics, zoology, and (medical) psychiatry. Especially, as I continue my formal education at the university level, the understanding grows on me that competence in a scientific field of study comes slowly and only with very considerable and consistent effort. At least for me! I am at least five years away from a degree in either biology or chemistry. The more dribs and drabs I get week after week, the more I respect the highly educated! Clinical psychology was, comparatively, a walk in the park. And long ago, in much simpler technological times.
I would like to solicit Tim Thompson's comment, if possible; and if he feels that I am "sucking up" to him for some reason or another, I will certainly make a full apology on this forum. And stop it!
I fully meant in all sincerity the attempted complement that I extended to you the other day. Do you feel that that was "derailing" your thread of "Happy Thanksgiving"? Commentary on good management and editing of an internet forum is not exactly within the purview of Thanksgiving. However, it seemed appropriate to me at the time; in that you thanked members for their contributions. It is my opinion that some of the things you do, you do very well. Dave, If that constitutes "sucking up" to you; I apologize for the offense and it will not happen again! Wasn't real easy that time!
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2011 : 23:43:48 [Permalink]
|
Dave.....
| Then don't do it (especially not in a thread in which you weren't insulted). That will ensure there will be less of it. |
Fair enough. I will try. Is this "derailment?"| Has "he hit me first" ever been a good excuse? |
No. It never has! Is this "derailment"?| Really, bng: you're doing something that you think is a bad thing to do, in a thread in which you're sucking up to a guy who doesn't want the thread derailed any longer. |
Good comment! Properly directed to me!. I agree! But how about this? Is it "derailment?"
I did not ask those questions. You did. I simply attempted to answer them directly and honestly.If you didn't want that, I am sorry that I tried.| Seriously? You're going to keep the derailment going, bng? |
Seriously, Dave, if "derailment" is all you get from well-intentioned and honest comment from me, I really don't know what more to say. Of course not. I just wanted a little expansion on your concern with what thread contained insult and what thread contained retort. I don't why that one thread makes response in kind more acceptable than another thread does.That's all. No ulterior motives.
You're a strange guy, Dave Do you have any response to: Point made, message heard and agreed to; you are fully justified and correct in your criticism. I pledge that I will make more effort to turn cheek when slapped.
How about you? Will you do the same? |
I was dead serious when I said: | I pledge that I will make more effort to turn cheek when slapped. |
Is that not what you asked me to do? |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
|
|
Tim Thompson
New Member
USA
36 Posts |
Posted - 11/29/2011 : 15:48:44 [Permalink]
|
Since you ask I will comment, but it might not be all that enlightening. Even if I were not a newcomer around here, and thus aware of relationships established between members of the forum long before I showed up, I would not consider it my business to become involved. I prefer that the conversation here remain as close to topic as practicality 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 |
|
|
|
Tim Thompson
New Member
USA
36 Posts |
 Posted - 12/08/2011 : 23:09:03 [Permalink]
|
It would appear that Mr. Sebastian is either even slower on the draw than I am, or just not in it for the long haul. So be it.
The thread is entitled "skepticism about the big bang". Since this is a skeptics forum, you all surely realize that real skepticism is not centered around proving what you already believe, but rather objectively examining what you believe with the personal will to stop believing what is evidently false. It will not do for the amateur, well meaning or not, to simply barge in the door and exclaim something to the effect that, "surely standard cosmology must be wrong because I can't understand it." No matter our opinions of our own intellects, it must certainly be true that the grand Universe is not bound to respect the limitations of our meager imaginations. No, it will only do to listen to the Universe and let it lead the way. And the tool of choice for listening is the practice & theory of physics.
One cannot be properly skeptical of anything without first knowing what the thing is supposed to be. In this case the thing is cosmology, and one must know what cosmology purports to be before practicing skepticism towards it (mind the subtlety: one must know what cosmology purports to be and not simply what one thinks it is). With that in mind, I present my suggestion of 3 books from my own library, which I choose to use most often in teaching myself cosmology (neither my academic education nor my professional experience involve any but the most rudimentary exposure to cosmology, so what I know or claim to know is near entirely self taught, on top of my academic & professional experience of physics).
Cosmology: The Science of the Universe, Edward Harrison, Cambridge University Press 2000 (2nd edition, 567 pages)
This has the advantage of being a book that one can actually read; the language is clear and informative, the book is really intended for an audience that is not made up of cosmologists. There are places where calculus helps, but if you can handle basic algebra, you can handle this book. Each chapter concludes with a set of "reflections" analogous to text book problems, but much more general in nature and designed to make the reader reflect on the topic at hand rather than "find the right answer". In some cases there is also a more detailed set of "projects" along the same line but wider in scope. This is my choice as an introduction to cosmology for a reader with a background that includes basic physics and algebra; but the language is readable and can be appreciated by readers who have no prior knowledge of physics, or even algebra, though the latter condition makes the equations not so readable and thus detracts from the experience.
Modern Cosmology, Scott Dodelson, Academic Press, 2003 (440 pages)
This book is well written, but not as basic as Harrison's. Basic calculus and a solid background in basic physics are really necessary to appreciate this book. It is neither as general nor as broad as Harrison's Cosmology, but concentrates on topics needed to understand the thrust of present research, including field theory, quantum mechanics, and the physics of the cosmic microwave background. This is my choice as an intermediate textbook on cosmology. It is a good introduction to cosmology for readers who are already well grounded in physics and math but want to learn more detail than Harrison offers.
Cosmology, Steven Weinberg, Oxford University Press, 2008 (593 pages)
If there was an "adults only" classification for cosmology books, this would be one of them. This is my choice as an advanced textbook on cosmology, really suitable only for readers with a sophisticated background in physics and math, the latter being particularly advanced even for bachelor's degree level physicists.
And on the specific topic of dark matter & dark energy, dominant of late, aside from the books above, all 3 of which address the topic appropriately, one might wish to consult the current research. Of course, research papers are the means of communication between professionals in sometimes narrowly focussed fields, and can be dense reading for outsiders. Still, there are some general review papers that fit this discussion well enough. So here is a selection from the literature; I present these papers because I know about them, no necessarily because I an familiar with them. But they all come from reliable sources and should be themselves therefore reliable.
On Dark Matter: This should be enough, along with the books, to at least get the point across that dark matter is not just some casual idea with little merit. Rather, it is an idea that essentially forces itself on astronomy for lack of any better explanation.
The missing matter problem: from the dark matter search to alternative hypotheses; Capozziello, ]et al., October 2011; preprint of astrophysics text book chapter.
Searches for Particle Dark Matter: An Introduction; Pat Scott; Textbook-level introductory review section of Stockholm University PhD thesis, posted by popular demand. Defended May 4, 2010. 84 pages
Astrophysical Constraints on Dark Matter; Charling Tao; Proceedings of the 3rd International conference on Directional Detection of Dark Matter (CYGNUS 2011), Aussois, France, 8-10 June 2011
Dark Matter; J. Einasto; Baltic Astronomy 20: 231-240 (2011)
Dark Matter: A Primer; Garrett & Duda; Advances in Astronomy 2011
Highlights and Conclusions of the Chalonge Meudon Workshop: Dark Matter in the Universe and Universal Properties of Galaxies: Theories and Observations; de Vega & Sanchez; July 2010
On Dark Energy: This should be enough, along with the books, to at least get the point across that dark energy is likewise not just some casual idea with little merit. Rather, it is an idea that essentially forces itself on astronomy for lack of any better explanation.
A Comparative Study of Dark Energy Constraints from Current Observational Data; Wang, et al.; E-print posted 14 Sep 2011
Dark Energy; Li, et al.; Communications in Theoretical Physics 56(3): 525-604, September 2011 (We review the problem of dark energy, including a survey of theoretical models and some aspects of numerical studies.)
Evidence for Dark Energy from the Cosmic Microwave Background Alone Using the Atacama Cosmology Telescope Lensing Measurements; Sherwin, et al.; Physical Review Letters 107(2): id 021302 (For the first time, measurements of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB) alone favor cosmologies with w = -1 dark energy over models without dark energy at a 3.2-sigma level. We demonstrate this by combining the CMB lensing deflection power spectrum from the Atacama Cosmology Telescope with temperature and polarization power spectra from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe. The lensing data break the geometric degeneracy of different cosmological models with similar CMB temperature power spectra. Our CMB-only measurement of the dark energy density #937;[sub]#923;[sub] confirms other measurements from supernovae, galaxy clusters, and baryon acoustic oscillations, and demonstrates the power of CMB lensing as a new cosmological tool.)
The Accelerating Universe; Dragan Huterer; E-print October 2010; Invited review chapter for book "Adventures in Cosmology" (ed. D. Goodstein) aimed at general scientists; 28 pages, 10 figures (In this article we review the discovery of the accelerating universe using type Ia supernovae. We then outline ways in which dark energy - component that causes the acceleration - is phenomenologically described. We finally describe principal cosmological techniques to measure large-scale properties of dark energy. This chapter complements other articles in this book that describe theoretical understanding (or lack thereof) of the cause for the accelerating universe.)
Accelerated Expansion of the Universe; Writambhara Chakraborty; PhD thesis, 157 pages, Department of Mathematics, Bengal Engineering and Science University; April 2009
Dark Energy and the Accelerated Universe; Frieman, Turner & Huterer; Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 46(1): 385-432, September 2008
And of course, we must not forget that the 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to Adam Riess, Saul Permutter & Brian Schmidt for the discovery of the accelerating expansion of the universe and dark energy. The first papers reporting an accelerating expansion for the universe were Riess, et al., 1998 and confirmed by Perlmutter, et al., 1999. One could follow the several thousand references to these papers, but that could be a time consuming effort.
Finally, I must remind the reader of an important and fundamental point in the philosophy of science, which is of particular interest for cosmology, and which I have mentioned before: Inference from observation is a crucial element of the scientific process. The process of inference brings with it the quality of "confidence". If I observe "A" and from it I infer "B", I can usually have significant confidence that "B" is correct, since it is directly inferred from observation. But if from "B" I further infer "C", and from that "D", and from that "E" and from that "F", I might well have considerably less confidence that "F" is correct. It's not because there is anything wrong with the chain of inference from observed "A" to inferred "F", it's just that the chain of inference is simply there. Each step of inference between the object idea and observation adds a bit to our lack of certainty, our lack of confidence. So the idea in the dark matter / dark energy business is to bring the inferred property as close to observation as possible, limiting the number of inferences in the chain of thought from observation to object idea.
The books give you the basics, the papers give you the research designed to shorten the path of inference, and hence enhance confidence (and I have cited other papers & research elsewhere in this thread). The current state of scientific affairs is that both dark matter and dark energy, in the form of a "cosmological constant", are firmly entrenched as the most likely natural causative agents for the observed effects. There is significant research underway on alternate formulations of gravity to replace dark matter, but with limited success. There has been some limited research on alternate formulations of gravity to explain dark energy as well, but it is far more difficult to explain dark energy that way than it is to explain dark matter, and the observational data strongly favor a cosmological constant for dark energy.
So the bottom line really is that proper skepticism has already been applied to both ideas, dark energy & dark matter. That proper skepticism has run its course and both ideas have survived to the next stage. The amateurs, like Sebastian, come on board too late, and they exercise a false skepticism, the kind where they want to confirm what they already believe, rather than allow nature to dictate the course. The time for simple skepticism has come & gone, now it is a time for much more complicated skepticism, the kind that professional scientists are equipped to exercise, the kind of skepticism that amateurs are, quite frankly, not equipped to exercise.
|
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 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 12/09/2011 : 10:33:25 [Permalink]
|
Tim Thompson:
The time for simple skepticism has come & gone, now it is a time for much more complicated skepticism, the kind that professional scientists are equipped to exercise, the kind of skepticism that amateurs are, quite frankly, not equipped to exercise. |
Most skeptics know that they don't have the expert knowledge of the scientists actually doing the work. As a matter of practicality, we tend to side with whatever the consensus view is among scientists in whatever their field of expertise is, and as best we can, try to understand why that view is held. While understanding that all conclusions in science are held on a tentative basis, subject to challenge with the introduction of new evidence, we are generally not arrogant enough to think that our lay understanding of the science in question gives us the authority to challenge the consensus view. When other scientists working in the field publish studies that challenge a widely held view among scientists working in the same field, we watch with interest to see how it will be received and if it results in tweaks and changes to whatever the currently held scientific consensus is. We understand the process. We are, after all, promoters of science.
When people like Sebastian base an argument on his his own personal incredulity, or of a lack of understanding of what counts for evidence, and call themselves skeptics, our alarms go off. We see this in AGW denial, in evolution denial, in claims that not vaccinating is safer than vaccinating, that the moon landings were a hoax, that homeopathics have proven efficacy and so on. The list of anti-science positions is seemingly endless. And in every case, the people who promote those views say they are the "true" skeptics. What they don't get is that the consensus view has gone through an arduous process, where skepticism was and is applied as a part of that process. What that means is that if they think the consensus is wrong, it's incumbent upon them to support that view with evidence and not just their own personal incredulity, which is not skepticism as we define the term. More often, it's denial in order to support a view that is not supported by science.
There will always be dissenters among scientists who really are experts, and occasionally they are right. Science has a way of sorting that sort of thing out. Latching on to a dissenting view before it's gone through the process is nothing more than confirmation bias by a group like AGW deniers who are content with not looking at all of the evidence and yet screaming that because there are some dissenters among the scientists, that their views have been vindicated, even when 98% of the scientists say otherwise. They use words like "hoax' or "myth" or whatever works to support a conclusion that they aren't qualified to arrive at.
As skeptics, our job isn't to do the work of scientists. We are not trained (unless we are) to do that work. What we are trained to do, by way of critical thinking, is to recognize bad arguments, fallacies of logic and pseudo-science. There has to be a mighty good reason to dissent from a scientific consensus view. Simply not agreeing is not skepticism.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 12/09/2011 : 11:26:57 [Permalink]
|
I'd challenge Sebastian to provide evidence that even a single scientific consensus has arisen in the last 200 years due to any non-scientific reasons (for example, a desire to continue getting funded), but he's not interested in the evidence. The consensus about dark matter (or AGW, or Relativity, or any number of other theories) has arisen because of the evidence, not in spite of it (and certainly not in the face of a lack of evidence).
But it's important to note that a consensus isn't enough. Laypeople are capable of at least examining the scientific discussion within a topic (the published papers, letters and even blog entries) and seeing where the proverbial wind is blowing even if they don't understand enough of the science to grok the theories at a more fundamental level. For example, a quick perusal of Wikipedia shows eight major categories of observations that support the existence of Dark Matter, and that a competing theory (MOND) can explain only one or two of them. Since a successful theory needs to explain all our observations related to a subject, we can conclude that MOND fails to be a suitable replacement for Dark Matter, even without understanding what "gravitational lensing" is.
Obviously one shouldn't stop there if one wishes to get more than a general feeling about what scientists are thinking on a subject, but I'm just pointing out that it isn't necessary for laypeople to rely on the fact that a consensus exists to tell them where the science is headed even without understanding the science. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
chefcrsh
Skeptic Friend
Hong Kong
380 Posts |
Posted - 12/09/2011 : 18:55:47 [Permalink]
|
| One other note, the logical fallacy "argument from authority" should more completely be called argument from inappropriate or questionable authority. It does not allow us to easily dismiss the value and need of expertise (as some would say). It allows us to dismisses claims of authority that are not able to demonstrate relevant expertise only. There are logically sound appeals to authority, the appeal to the consensus of the experts in a field is not fallacious argument, nor is it particularly weak evidence...at least not any less robust than any other induction. |
| Edited by - chefcrsh on 12/09/2011 18:58:42 |
|
|
|
Sebastian
New Member
44 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2011 : 08:25:18 [Permalink]
|
Well! I've been busy for a while; unable to sort out your confusions which seems as great as ever. Sorry for that!
I'm beginning to think the solution here is really deceptively simple, as is sometimes the case. It's often so easy to be impressed by complexity and the authority of a consensus of expert opinion whilst ignoring inconvenient truths because such truths are just too simple and obvious, and therefore either cannot be true or cannot have been overlooked by the experts, or by those who would appear to know what they are doing, or those who have great expertise.
There must be a lot of people wondering how Europe and America could have gotten into such an economic mess with their trillions of dollars of debt, despite the banks and the major businesses employing such highly qualified economists and accountants with PhDs in mathematics.
I'm reminded of that terrible tsunami tragedy in Japan in March this year. Who could have predicted such an event. Prediction of earthquakes is currently beyond the capabilities of science.
However, was I surprised to read after that event that along that north east coast of Japan there are hundreds of stone markers indicating the levels of previous tsunamis, with warnings that read, "Remember the calamity of the great tsunamis. Do not build any homes below this point", or similar such warnings.
The inhabitants of one village in particular, Aneyoshi, paid attention to the warning on the stone marker in their area and built all their dwellings above the marker. They were high and dry when the latest tsunami hit, and suffered no casualties. But probably none of them had a PhD and perhaps none had even nearly the expertise of all those clever chaps who organised, approved, funded and built the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant.
You might wonder where all this is leading. The following quote from Tim Thompson has inspired this line of reasoning.
| But the big conclusion to make here is simply that the heliocentric solar system was established without the use of telescopes, and made without the use of controlled laboratory experiments of any kind. It was established solely through uncontrolled observation of raw nature. |
I read this with some amazement a while ago, but haven't had time to address it till now. I ask my self, does Tim not understand the difference between a hypothesis and a theory? I know on the internet the two words are often used interchangeably as though they are synonyms. However, each scientific discipline needs its own precisely defined terms, and when talking about science one also needs precisely defined terms.
The differences between a hypothesis and a theory are fundamental to the scientific process.
In short, a hypothesis attempts to answer questions, or solve problems, by putting forth a plausible explanation which has not yet been rigorously tested and verified, but which may have a high degree of credibility.
That 95% of the universe consists mostly of undetectable matter and energy, undetectable by any means so far, is clearly a hypothesis.
A theory, on the other hand, is a hypothesis which has undergone extensive testing in repeated experiments by numerous scientists who have attempted to falsify and verify the hypothesis. As a result of such testing, the theory may become widely accepted, but still wrong of course. There's no absolute certainty in science.
I should also mention, for the benefit of those who are stuck in the Aristotelian 'either/or' concept, there is not necessarily a precisely defined point where a hypothesis transforms into a theory. Sometimes there may be, in simple situations, but generally there is a gradual transformation from hypothesis to theory, as evidence confirming the truth or accuracy of the hypothesis increases over time.
This is clearly the situation with the Copernican heliocentric view of the solar system. To claim, as Tim does, that this view was established without the use of telescopes or controlled laboratory experiments of any kind, is downright misleading and confused.
Even Dave W pointed out prior to Tim's post, there have been a number of astronomers/thinkers/mathematicians prior to Copernicus who proposed the heliocentric hypothesis. The two hypotheses, Geocentrism and Heliocentrism, which attempt to explain the movements of the planets, as observed with the naked eye, have been around for thousands of years.
It's true that the Geocentric hypothesis has usually been dominant throughout history, perhaps because the notion that the earth is whizzing through space at an enormous speed, without any indication of movement from the inhabitants on the surface, was just too difficult a concept to grasp without the benefit of later developments in science, such as Newtonian mechanics and his laws of gravity.
There was also another strong objection to the heliocentric hypothesis, and that is that the movement of the earth around the sun should cause an apparent change in the position of stars, as viewed from the earth of course.
This change, or stellar prallax, is not observable with the naked eye. Remember, it was not realised in olden times how distant those stars really are. To see that stellar parallax, you need a powerful telescope, which Copernicus didn't have, and Gallileo's telescope was certainly not powerful enough. In fact, it wasn't until the 19th century that proof of the stellar parallax was provided by Fred Bessel, which was another notch in the transformation of the Heliocentric hypothesis to a fully-fledged theory.
I could go on, but I'm running out of time. I hope I've managed to sort out your confusions. |
|
|
|
Tim Thompson
New Member
USA
36 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2011 : 10:50:24 [Permalink]
|
Sorry, no. You have said nothing that I did not already know and I still have no idea what your point is supposed to be. Try actually saying it in direct language instead of always talking about analogies. I already talked about much of this in some detail, especially the matter of parallax, in my post of Nov 25.
Of course the geocentric & heliocentric systems were hypotheses, everybody already knows that. So what? Clearly, and there is no ounce of confusion here, the heliocentric hypothesis was and is the superior hypothesis, by virtue of superior fidelity to the observational data (the uncontrolled observations of raw nature). That much had been well established before the final discovery of parallax. So, no surprise, essentially all astronomers were already committed heliocentrists before parallax was finally observed.
But why are you avoiding the real topic of the discussion, which I thought was supposed to be dark matter & dark energy? Is your point supposed to be that both are hypotheses? If that's your point, everybody already knows that too.
Try using direct language. Say what you mean, directly. I still have no idea why you are even taking part in the discussion, or what point you are trying to make.
My points, directly stated are these:
(1) The hypothesis of dark matter is superior to all known alternative hypotheses, by virtue of superior consistency with observational data.
(2) The hypothesis of dark energy, in the form of a cosmological constant, is the superior hypothesis, as an explanation for the appearance of an accelerated expansion of the universe, by virtue of superior consistency with observational data. |
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 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Skepticism about the Big Bang
