|
|
|
Sebastian
New Member
44 Posts |
 Posted - 09/21/2011 : 23:37:55 [Permalink]
|
Dave W,
It's your site. I've thought of poking fun at your ideas, but I'm influenced by this principle, "Do unto others as you would have done unto you".
I could attempt to rip you apart, but I resist. Let peace prevail. |
 |
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 09/21/2011 : 23:58:09 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Sebastian
Newton's proposal, or compliance with the religious consensus that the universe has always existed and is inifinite, as an explanation for his Laws of Gravity still being relevant when applied to the universe as a whole, is mathematically and logically flawed, according to Stephen Hawking. |
Newton's Laws were concerned with planetary motion, not the universe as a whole. He went so far as to declare that nobody could determine what set the planets in motion (but once in motion, they followed his equations), so it must have been God. A plain argument from ignorance. And given that, he gets knocked off his perch as a brilliant logician (the word is logician). |
That and he tried to take all the credit for Leibniz's calculus 8) |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 09/21/2011 : 23:59:45 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Sebastian
Dave W,
It's your site. I've thought of poking fun at your ideas, but I'm influenced by this principle, "Do unto others as you would have done unto you".
I could attempt to rip you apart, but I resist. Let peace prevail.
|
Do it |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/22/2011 : 04:23:25 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Sebastian
Dave W,
It's your site. |
This is relevant because...?I've thought of poking fun at your ideas, but I'm influenced by this principle, "Do unto others as you would have done unto you".
I could attempt to rip you apart, but I resist. |
So you've considered ridiculing my ideas or shredding me (personally?).
Does that mean you haven't considered attempting to seriously (with actual evidence and sound logic) defend your own ideas? What I would have done unto me is to be taught something new, but you can't do that with unsupported assertions, hazy suspicions and failures to match your hypotheses to reality.
That's the third option I forgot to mention before: you convince me of the correctness of your position through presenting a solid case. That would be another scenario in this non-zero-sum game in which we could both "win."Then I guess we both lose. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/22/2011 : 04:54:11 [Permalink]
|
| Sebastian, reading all this, it seems like you are going to great lengths of rationalization to convince yourself that this particular theory in science isn't true because the philosophical implications bother you. Even going so far as to talk about how our perceptions of things aren't the absolute reality (electrons aren't electrons.) Based on how this thread began, it should have simply been a discussion of the evidence for the big bang, dark matter, etc. That would have been more interesting. And honest. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Tim Thompson
New Member
USA
36 Posts |
 Posted - 09/23/2011 : 08:34:29 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Sebastian (09/18/2011 23:01:28)
Oooh! I'm not suggesting you should all give up and quit. What have I written that gives you that idea?
|
Two things, specifically. First this (emphasis mine):
Originally posted by Sebastian (09/14/2011 21:57:55)
I'm making an assertion based upon my limited understanding of the issue (as of course anyone's understanding of any issue is limited), that not a single particle of Dark Matter or Dark Energy has ever been directly observed, captured or examined. It's existence is purely hypothetical, as far as I understand.
|
It is a common ploy for those who do not accept the scientific validity of something to retreat behind the veneer of "it's only hypothetical", as if that were some serious criticism. When you say that, I automatically assume that you mean to say it is a scientific weakness, a position which I would argue against rather strenuously.
And secondly, this (emphasis mine):
Originally posted by Sebastian (09/14/2011 07:02:46)
The CERN laboratory now routinely traps and examines hydrogen antimatter, but no sign of dark matter nor dark energy yet, despite the fact its existence was first postulated as early as 1934 to explain anomalies of the orbital velocities of galaxies.
|
It is a common ploy of the false skeptic, and I have encountered this many times, to argue that since something has not yet been discovered, it can now be labeled as non-existent. It's a very handy way to avoid any scientific discussion of uncomfortable topics; after all, why discuss something when you can dismiss it a-prori as not existing?
Both of these things lead me to the conclusion that you have already decided that both dark matter & dark energy are scientific falsehoods that you have already rejected. If that's not the case, feel free to say so explicitly.
With that said, I fail to see your point in even starting this thread. What is it supposed to mean, "skepticism about the big bang"? What "skepticism"? What point are you trying to make? |
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 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/23/2011 : 10:38:56 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Tim Thompson
It is a common ploy for those who do not accept the scientific validity of something to retreat behind the veneer of "it's only hypothetical", as if that were some serious criticism. When you say that, I automatically assume that you mean to say it is a scientific weakness, a position which I would argue against rather strenuously. |
That's why I asked Sebastian how he defines "theory," "hypothesis," "law" and "fact."| Both of these things lead me to the conclusion that you have already decided that both dark matter & dark energy are scientific falsehoods that you have already rejected. If that's not the case, feel free to say so explicitly. |
He claimed that Dark Matter was "mythical," but then also claimed to be "agnostic" about Dark Matter. Given his last message here, I don't think he'll be trying to explain his inconsistencies. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Sebastian
New Member
44 Posts |
Posted - 09/23/2011 : 20:06:00 [Permalink]
|
Tim Thompson writes:
| It is a common ploy of the false skeptic, and I have encountered this many times, to argue that since something has not yet been discovered, it can now be labeled as non-existent. It's a very handy way to avoid any scientific discussion of uncomfortable topics; after all, why discuss something when you can dismiss it a-prori as not existing? |
Exactly true! Anyone who puts a label of non-existence on something, whether God, little green men on Mars, or invisible matter, is no true skeptic, because it must be patently obvious that we cannot provide evidence for non-existence. We can only provide evidence for existence.
When a true skeptic, such as myself, claims there is no evidence to support a particular hypothesis, I'm talking about real evidence, or concrete evidence, to use a metaphor.
If you wish to include as real evidence, inferences that something should exist in order to support an existing theory, then we have a semantic problem, as well as a complete lack of scientific verification.
For example, religious people have a theory that something exists because someone created it.
This is a reasonable theory based upon our own experience in life. All the material stuff we surround ourselves with, houses, cars, TV sets, nice gardens etc etc, have been created by someone.
Is it not therefore reasonable to infer that all the complex organic organisms that we observe on our planet, including ourselves, have been created by a much higher order of intelligence than ourselves, an entity which some people would describe as God, for want of a better word perhaps.
Of course, the issue of how such life was created is another matter, and the stories in the Bible that address this issue, particularly with regard to the time frame, can be demonstrated by scientific evidence to be false, if such stories are taken literally.
To put it another way, the concept of Intelligent Design, stripped of all its common associations with theistic deities who need to be worshipped and obeyed, considered purely as a concept, might have some merit in relation to our own experience that something that is created has a creator.
The method by which such creation takes place does not have to resemble the stories in the Bible in any way. It's not inconceivable, at least to me, that the processes described by Charles Darwin fairly accurately describe the processes used by this Intelligent Designer.
The 10 million years it may take, from our perspective, for one species to evolve into another, may be just a blink of the eye for such an Intelligent Designer.
Now of course, someone like Dave W, is likely to immediately respond, 'Where is your evidence for Intelligent Design'? My reply would be, 'No evidence at all. Only a reasonable inference based upon my human experience, if something exists, then someone created it.'
Now please don't jump to the wrong conclusion that I'm a believer in Intelligent Design. I'm a skeptic and I don't believe in anything for which there is no concrete evidence, whether it be dark matter, an intelligent creator, or little orange creatures on Mars.
Got it? |
|
|
|
Sebastian
New Member
44 Posts |
Posted - 09/23/2011 : 20:27:51 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Sebastian, reading all this, it seems like you are going to great lengths of rationalization to convince yourself that this particular theory in science isn't true because the philosophical implications bother you. Even going so far as to talk about how our perceptions of things aren't the absolute reality (electrons aren't electrons.) Based on how this thread began, it should have simply been a discussion of the evidence for the big bang, dark matter, etc. That would have been more interesting. And honest.
|
Marfknox,
It was Dave W who raised this issue about the existence of electrons, presumably to make the point, which I think is a confused point, that because we can't be absolutely certain about anything, including the existence of electrons, then the case for the existence of dark matter is just as strong as the case for the existence of electrons.
I've tried to solve this problem for him philosophically, but he seems very obdurate. I have little doubt, personally, about the existence of electrons. I do have doubt about the existence of dark matter. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/23/2011 : 23:34:16 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Sebastian
It was Dave W who raised this issue about the existence of electrons, presumably to make the point, which I think is a confused point, that because we can't be absolutely certain about anything, including the existence of electrons, then the case for the existence of dark matter is just as strong as the case for the existence of electrons. |
What's confused is you. The point about electrons has nothing whatsoever to do with anyone's certainty but your own.| I've tried to solve this problem for him philosophically, but he seems very obdurate. |
I already told you: it's not a philosophical question. It's a modeling question.| I have little doubt, personally, about the existence of electrons. I do have doubt about the existence of dark matter. |
Yes, the problem is that you treat them differently.
Nobody has ever seen, touched or otherwise directly experimented on electrons. We only have a model for them (a model that works extremely well, but a model nonetheless). Yet you reject the model for Dark Matter.
If the standard of evidence that you'll demand for Dark Matter is one where we have "concrete," positive, non-inferential evidence for its existence, then to be consistent you must also be "agnostic" about the existence of electrons. Because we don't have any direct evidence for electrons, only indirect evidence and inferences.
Which is enough for us to build a damn good model.
Also:| Exactly true! Anyone who puts a label of non-existence on something, whether God, little green men on Mars, or invisible matter, is no true skeptic, because it must be patently obvious that we cannot provide evidence for non-existence. We can only provide evidence for existence. |
This is a No True Skeptic fallacy.| If you wish to include as real evidence, inferences that something should exist in order to support an existing theory... |
This is a denial of reality. Dark Matter wasn't suggested in order to "support an existing theory." The proposition of Dark Matter was the proposition that people change the existing theories!| ...then we have a semantic problem... |
How so? Which word is being toyed with, "real," "evidence" or "inferences?"| ...as well as a complete lack of scientific verification. |
You completely ignored what Tim Thompson had to say about inference, didn't you? You, Sebastian, seem to be very selective about what you'll agree with.For example, religious people have a theory that something exists because someone created it.
This is a reasonable theory based upon our own experience in life. |
I asked you to define "theory" for us. You have refused to do so. What you've said here is that you think that guessing is a reasonable scientific theory.All the material stuff we surround ourselves with, houses, cars, TV sets, nice gardens etc etc, have been created by someone.
Is it not therefore reasonable to infer that all the complex organic organisms that we observe on our planet, including ourselves, have been created by a much higher order of intelligence than ourselves, an entity which some people would describe as God, for want of a better word perhaps.
...
Now of course, someone like Dave W, is likely to immediately respond, 'Where is your evidence for Intelligent Design'? My reply would be, 'No evidence at all. Only a reasonable inference based upon my human experience, if something exists, then someone created it.' |
Then your definition of "reasonable" is what needs to be questioned.
Is it a tremendous and unsupported leap of logic to claim that because humans make things, some "higher intelligence" must have made everything else.
The only reasonable inference we can make solely from the observation that humans create stuff is that humans created all the stuff, including humans. This is obviously a failure of logic, and it fails because it ignores the fact that we have tons of solid, incontrovertible data about how non-human, non-intelligent processes create stuff.
In other words, this is a piss-poor argument against inference (which is what you're trying to do to undermine science in general), and an excellent argument against willfully ignoring evidence (which is what you're actually doing with regard to Dark Matter). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2011 : 08:33:22 [Permalink]
|
Sebastian wrote: Marfknox,
It was Dave W who raised this issue about the existence of electrons, presumably to make the point, which I think is a confused point, that because we can't be absolutely certain about anything, including the existence of electrons, then the case for the existence of dark matter is just as strong as the case for the existence of electrons.
I've tried to solve this problem for him philosophically, but he seems very obdurate. I have little doubt, personally, about the existence of electrons. I do have doubt about the existence of dark matter. |
You don't seem to be reading the same responses from Dave that I'm reading. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Tim Thompson
New Member
USA
36 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2011 : 10:40:37 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Sebastian (09/23/2011 20:06:00)
If you wish to include as real evidence, inferences that something should exist in order to support an existing theory, then we have a semantic problem, as well as a complete lack of scientific verification.
|
I do indeed insist on the inclusion of such inference as real evidence. However, I disagree with the idea that we have a semantic problem, and replace it with the idea that you have a semantic problem. Furthermore, I strongly dispute the claim that there is a "lack of scientific verification".
Originally posted by Sebastian (09/23/2011 20:06:00)
... because it must be patently obvious that we cannot provide evidence for non-existence. We can only provide evidence for existence.
|
I disagree. Evidently we do in fact have seriously different ideas of what constitutes "evidence"
Originally posted by Tim Thompson (09/17/2011 09:36:54)
Inference from observation is a crucial element of the scientific process and should not be discounted as "merely hypothetical". ... If you look for something and do not see it, even though you know it lies well within the capabilities of your technology, then the failure to detect it is significant, and increases in significance as time & technology advance with continuing invisibility of that which should be seen.
|
The failure to see something that you should see constitutes direct & positive evidence of non-existence. This is firmly rooted in the idea of inference from observation, which is the single most fundamental principle throughout the entire edifice of science. This is why I choose to insist that you, and not we, have a semantic problem. You appear to have chosen to re-define the word "evidence" to suit your own personal prejudice. Of course you can always do that for yourself, but it puts you firmly at odds with the entire suite of disciplines that constitute the natural sciences.
Originally posted by Sebastian (09/23/2011 20:06:00)
I'm a skeptic and I don't believe in anything for which there is no concrete evidence
|
Perhaps you would like to define with more specificity what, exactly, you think constitutes "concrete evidence"?
|
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 |
|
|
|
Sebastian
New Member
44 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2011 : 19:30:18 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Tim Thompson
Originally posted by Sebastian (09/23/2011 20:06:00)
If you wish to include as real evidence, inferences that something should exist in order to support an existing theory, then we have a semantic problem, as well as a complete lack of scientific verification.
|
I do indeed insist on the inclusion of such inference as real evidence. However, I disagree with the idea that we have a semantic problem, and replace it with the idea that you have a semantic problem. Furthermore, I strongly dispute the claim that there is a "lack of scientific verification".
Originally posted by Sebastian (09/23/2011 20:06:00)
... because it must be patently obvious that we cannot provide evidence for non-existence. We can only provide evidence for existence.
|
I disagree. Evidently we do in fact have seriously different ideas of what constitutes "evidence"
Originally posted by Tim Thompson (09/17/2011 09:36:54)
Inference from observation is a crucial element of the scientific process and should not be discounted as "merely hypothetical". ... If you look for something and do not see it, even though you know it lies well within the capabilities of your technology, then the failure to detect it is significant, and increases in significance as time & technology advance with continuing invisibility of that which should be seen.
|
The failure to see something that you should see constitutes direct & positive evidence of non-existence. This is firmly rooted in the idea of inference from observation, which is the single most fundamental principle throughout the entire edifice of science. This is why I choose to insist that you, and not we, have a semantic problem. You appear to have chosen to re-define the word "evidence" to suit your own personal prejudice. Of course you can always do that for yourself, but it puts you firmly at odds with the entire suite of disciplines that constitute the natural sciences.
Originally posted by Sebastian (09/23/2011 20:06:00)
I'm a skeptic and I don't believe in anything for which there is no concrete evidence
|
Perhaps you would like to define with more specificity what, exactly, you think constitutes "concrete evidence"?
|
|
|
|
|
Sebastian
New Member
44 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2011 : 19:36:26 [Permalink]
|
Don't know how that happened! Here's what should have happened.
Posted by Tim Thompson:
| The failure to see something that you should see constitutes direct & positive evidence of non-existence. This is firmly rooted in the idea of inference from observation, which is the single most fundamental principle throughout the entire edifice of science. This is why I choose to insist that you, and not we, have a semantic problem. You appear to have chosen to re-define the word "evidence" to suit your own personal prejudice. Of course you can always do that for yourself, but it puts you firmly at odds with the entire suite of disciplines that constitute the natural sciences. |
This is an interesting statement which reveals your confusion. It is quite true that the failure to see something that one should see does indeed constitute direct and positive evidence of non-existence for all every-day activities of homo sapiens from the time we separated from our distant ape-like relatives. But I thought we were talking about science.
It's perfectly true, when I'm walking down the street and do not see a turd on the pavement in front of me, I can very safely deduce that no turd exists, and therefore have no need to sidestep it.
This principle has applied throughout the entire history of humanity, and probably applies to all creatures. Right at the moment, I'm very confident there is no elephant in the room, because I can't smell it, see it, touch it, or hear it.
However, when it comes to Science, this principle is sometimes totally unreliable. There are things that you think you should see, but don't see, and other things you think you should not see but do see.
There is also the problem of just who it is who determines what we should or should not see in a particular set of circumstances?
This is why we have developed the scientific method, in order to achieve a useful degree of certainty about what we should and should not see, and in what circumstances.
As a result of such certainty, we can develop reliable scientific theories which allow us to predict with great accuracy what we might expect to observe or hear etc in certain predefined circumstances.
This scientific method consists of repeated experiments of verification, and attempts at falsification, not just once or twice, but hundreds and thousands of times, even millions of times.
We have a long way to go before we confirm the existence of dark matter. It's quite likely we may never confirm its existence.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2011 : 20:01:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Sebastian
However, when it comes to Science, this principle is sometimes totally unreliable. There are things that you think you should see, but don't see, and other things you think you should not see but do see.
...
This is why we have developed the scientific method, in order to achieve a useful degree of certainty about what we should and should not see, and in what circumstances.
As a result of such certainty, we can develop reliable scientific theories which allow us to predict with great accuracy what we might expect to observe or hear etc in certain predefined circumstances. |
This directly contradicts what you said about the principle being "sometimes totally unreliable" within science. But it's exactly what Tim Thompson was talking about (given that the context of the discussion is modern science), so I can only conclude that your long exposition really boils down to "I agree with Tim," even though you think Tim is "confused" about it.| We have a long way to go before we confirm the existence of dark matter. It's quite likely we may never confirm its existence. |
Nobody here is saying otherwise. I'm disagreeing with your declaration that dark matter is "mythical," an assertion you haven't even tried to support. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Skepticism about the Big Bang
