|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 11/05/2011 : 16:13:09 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Tim Thompson
Tomorrow (yep, Sunday) I go to Los Angeles Valley College to give a talk on dark matter & dark energy. |
Awesome! Hope it goes well.| (I have worked in the profession myself for decades and have never met anyone who thought that way.) |
Have you ever encountered a scientist who thought that repeatedly examining indirect evidence would turn it into direct evidence? |
- 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 - 11/07/2011 : 05:01:55 [Permalink]
|
The last sentence is certainly just plain wrong.
Query for Sebastian: If my interpretation is incorrect, then please provide a complete & unambiguous statement of what you do think about the relationship between controlled laboratory experiments and observations in an uncontrolled natural environment. |
Tim, you must realise that observations in an uncontrolled environment can be very problematic. Just consider how we handle any truly complex system over which we have little or no control.
Let's consider just two examples that affect us all, whether in a real or imagined way: human health and anthropogenic global climate change.
Both these situations involve observations in an uncontrolled, natural environment. Both situations present enormous difficulties, and indeed impossibilities, regarding subjection to laboratory conditions.
We trial drugs by first using mice, rats and chimps in the lab. We then progress to testing the drug on slected individuals who cannot be sequestered in a cage or laboratory, and who may or may not be typical of the population at large.
We inevitably make mistakes, and certain drugs in relation to certain individuals are sometimes found to be dangerous and are withdrawn with consequent lawsuits that may follow.
Not only are all individuals different in at least some ways, their lifestyles are also different, and in that respect uncontrolled.
Mistaken diagnoses inevitably happen frequently in medicine. Many are later corrected on further testing (thankfully). Some are not, and lawsuits follow.
I recall reading recently on the news that in Italy a group of scientists (seismologists I presume) have been charged with manslaughter because they had not provided clear warning of an earthquake that killed a number of people. It is thought, as I understand, that the scientists should have acted more seriously and positively in relation to prior tremours, advising the population to evacuate.
When it comes to mankind's influence on climate change, through minute atmospheric increases in this beneficial trace element of carbon that is essential for all life, the story gets bizarrely interesting.
I think it would be true to say that our planet and climate, viewed as an organism, is even more complex than our own bodies. Just as the field of medicine involves many specialised disciplines, so does Climate Science.
I believe there are about 30 major disciplines involved in Climate Science. However, Climate Scientists cannot be taken to court for misdiagnosis. They are on a gravy train of Government-funded projects without any serious accountability, and that's a real concern. I'll leave it at that, for present.
To get back to the much more elusive Dark Matter, this recent article in Scientific American expresses my concerns and general feelings about the issue quite well.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=dark-matter-doubts
Here's a quote from the end of the summary:
After each non-detection, McGaugh says, theorists continually redefine the interaction cross-section of WIMPs to safely undetectable levels. This kind of behavior, he adds, can spark a never-ending game of leapfrog between experimental physicists and theoreticians, allowing them to continue business as usual without ever revising their cosmology.
"There is a lot of misplaced certainty in the dark matter model—a feeling that it's not 'if' we directly detect dark matter, but 'when,'" Mihos says.
Or, as McGaugh puts it, "Once you convince yourself that the universe is full of an invisible substance that only interacts with ordinary matter through gravity, then it is virtually impossible to disabuse yourself of that notion. There is always a way to wiggle out of any observation." |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 11/07/2011 : 10:24:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Sebastian
Tim, you must realise that observations in an uncontrolled environment can be very problematic. |
"Can be" is not a synonym for "is."| Just consider how we handle any truly complex system over which we have little or no control. |
We study and model it, and test the models against reality.Let's consider just two examples that affect us all, whether in a real or imagined way: human health and anthropogenic global climate change.
Both these situations involve observations in an uncontrolled, natural environment. Both situations present enormous difficulties, and indeed impossibilities, regarding subjection to laboratory conditions. |
Which doesn't mean that their conclusions need to be thrown out.We trial drugs by first using mice, rats and chimps in the lab. We then progress to testing the drug on slected individuals who cannot be sequestered in a cage or laboratory, and who may or may not be typical of the population at large.
We inevitably make mistakes, and certain drugs in relation to certain individuals are sometimes found to be dangerous and are withdrawn with consequent lawsuits that may follow. |
Yes, and? The mistakes aren't predictable. The idea that non-laboratory science is messy is not new, and does not present an insurmountable hurdle to actually doing good science. The implication that mistakes made in the past mean that our ideas about Dark Matter are similarly mistaken is nonsense.| Mistaken diagnoses inevitably happen frequently in medicine. Many are later corrected on further testing (thankfully). Some are not, and lawsuits follow. |
Argument from bad consequences again?| I recall reading recently on the news that in Italy a group of scientists (seismologists I presume) have been charged with manslaughter because they had not provided clear warning of an earthquake that killed a number of people. It is thought, as I understand, that the scientists should have acted more seriously and positively in relation to prior tremours, advising the population to evacuate. |
And that's a condemnation of science how, exactly? The non-scientific masses think that science should be better than it is. So what?| When it comes to mankind's influence on climate change, through minute atmospheric increases in this beneficial trace element of carbon that is essential for all life... |
Like Selenium: good in trace amounts, but toxic at high levels.| ...Climate Scientists... are on a gravy train of Government-funded projects without any serious accountability, and that's a real concern. |
So are those who question the AGW science. The funding argument cuts both ways.| I'll leave it at that, for present. |
You'll leave it at nothing, then.To get back to the much more elusive Dark Matter, this recent article in Scientific American expresses my concerns and general feelings about the issue quite well.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=dark-matter-doubts
Here's a quote from the end of the summary:After each non-detection, McGaugh says, theorists continually redefine the interaction cross-section of WIMPs to safely undetectable levels. This kind of behavior, he adds, can spark a never-ending game of leapfrog between experimental physicists and theoreticians, allowing them to continue business as usual without ever revising their cosmology.
"There is a lot of misplaced certainty in the dark matter model—a feeling that it's not 'if' we directly detect dark matter, but 'when,'" Mihos says.
Or, as McGaugh puts it, "Once you convince yourself that the universe is full of an invisible substance that only interacts with ordinary matter through gravity, then it is virtually impossible to disabuse yourself of that notion. There is always a way to wiggle out of any observation." |
|
Of course, the article only quotes four "doubters," and the degree of doubt they express varies considerably. Mordehai Milgrom invented MOND 30 years ago, so despite the article insinuating otherwise, he hasn't been doubting Dark Matter because of a recent lack of direct evidence of its composition, he instead has a large personal interest in seeing his competing theory be more successful. McGaugh is another MOND supporter. Sellwood doesn't dispute the existence of Dark Matter, he just thinks it's distribution and/or properties are different from the current mainstream views. Moni Bidin's research suggests that Dark Matter doesn't form a disk coincident to the galactic plane, but most Dark Matter theorists seem to reject that notion, too.
The article also says,Evidence of dark matter's influence on the cosmos stretches back to the 1930s and has only gotten stronger in recent years. That's a statement that you would disagree with, would you not, Sebastian? |
- 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 - 11/07/2011 : 21:42:44 [Permalink]
|
You seem so confused, Dave, I hardly know where to begin in correcting your misconceptions.
Let's start with your following statement: | Like Selenium: good in trace amounts, but toxic at high levels. |
Whilst carbon is a trace element in the atmosphere, it's definitely not a trace element on the surface of the planet. After the past few centuries of industrialisation, the percentage by volume of CO2 in the atmosphere is still less than one half of one tenth of one percent, or more precisely about 390 parts per million.
Furthermore, as those with at least some basic knowledge of Chemistry will know, the molecule called Carbon Dioxide consists of one Carbon atom joined to two Oxygen atoms, so one can deduce that the percentage of the element Carbon in the atmosphere is even less than the claimed 390 volume parts per million of the gas.
For your edification, below is a list of the percentages of the major elements that comprise the human body. As you can see, Carbon comes second at 18% after Oxygen, whereas Selenium is lumped together with a bunch of other elements that in total comprise only 0.7% of the human body.
I think you are just a little bit 'off' with your suggestion that Carbon is a trace element like Selenium, wouldn't you agree? 
However, to be fair to you I will not deny that Carbon can be toxic in certain forms, ie. when bonded to certain other elements. For example, Carbon Monoxide (CO) is toxic at levels of only 100 parts per million, and you definitely would want to stay clear of Hydrogen Cyanide consisting of one atom of Hydrogen bonded to one atom of Carbon and one atom of Nitrogen (HCN).
However, atmospheric CO2 is not toxic. Plants love it. The more the better. Our current levels of 390ppm are not even remotely toxic. The level at which some people will begin to feel drowsy, not everyone, is 10,000ppm, or 25x greater than current levels.
Consider, since the beginning of the industrial revolution the atmospheric levels of CO2 have not even doubled, rising from about 250ppm to 390pp over a period of 2 or 3 hundred years.
CONSTITUENT ELEMENTS OF THE HUMAN BODY
1. Oxygen (65%)
2. Carbon (18%)
3. Hydrogen (10%)
4. Nitrogen (3%)
5. Calcium (1.5%)
6. Phosphorus (1.0%)
7. Potassium (0.35%)
8. Sulfur (0.25%)
9. Sodium (0.15%)
10. Magnesium (0.05%)
11. Copper, Zinc, Selenium, Molybdenum, Fluorine, Chlorine, Iodine, Manganese, Cobalt, Iron (0.70%)
12. Lithium, Strontium, Aluminum, Silicon, Lead, Vanadium, Arsenic, Bromine (trace amounts)
| We study and model it, and test the models against reality. |
We certainly try when it's possible. But has it escaped you, Dave, that certain natural systems are not only too big and too complex to be accurately modelled and tested against reality, but the time-frames involved for the predictions that are suggested can make the situation impossible to verify?
Climate Change falls into this category.
Now in response to my statement: | I recall reading recently on the news that in Italy a group of scientists (seismologists I presume) have been charged with manslaughter because they had not provided clear warning of an earthquake that killed a number of people. It is thought, as I understand, that the scientists should have acted more seriously and positively in relation to prior tremours, advising the population to evacuate. |
your response is: | And that's a condemnation of science how, exactly? The non-scientific masses think that science should be better than it is. So what? |
Dave, you've entirely failed to grasp the point I'm making. Have you forgotten already we are currently discussing complex, natural and uncontrolled systems that don't lend themselves to modelling and testing?
Earthquake prediction is another example of a situation that is too complex to be modelled and fit into a lab. The people responsible for this prosecution of scientists in Italy are exhibiting an appalling ignorance of Science. So what?, you ask.
Do you really think it's of no consequence that people in authority should appear to be so blindly unaware that earthquake prediction, just like predictions of the rise in sea levels due to climate change, are currently beyond the capabilities of science? Dear me!
"Evidence of dark matter's influence on the cosmos stretches back to the 1930s and has only gotten stronger in recent years."| That's a statement that you would disagree with, would you not, Sebastian? |
Well, it's certainly an interesting example of a logical absurdity and/or rather poor English expression within the context and meaning of the general drift of this article in Scientific American.
Consider this, the article is providing 'evidence' (using the word very loosely) that there is mounting reason for doubt about the existence of Dark Matter. Furthermore, the article quotes an example of one of the reasons for this doubt, as follows: | But some observational campaigns have not seen the effects of dark matter where it is expected to exist. Theory predicts that spiral galaxies, including our own Milky Way#8203;, are enveloped by massive dark matter halos that provide the galaxy's missing mass. But the Milky Way's own dark matter halo has also yet to be detected, even indirectly. |
Now Dave, how do you reconcile the above statement with "Evidence of dark matter's influence on the cosmos stretches back to the 1930s and has only gotten stronger in recent years."
You know what 'only' means, don't you? Perhaps we can explain it by attributing a variation to the meaning of 'recent'. Perhaps what is meant by recent in this context is 'moderately recent', as opposed to 'very' recent.
Perhaps we could rephrase the statement in an attempt at clarity. How about this?
"Evidence of dark matter's influence on the cosmos stretches back to the 1930s and, despite the fact that the stuff itself has yet to be detected either directly, in particle physics laboratories as a new subatomic particle, or with concrete evidence of such hidden matter using telescopes operating in the electromagnetic spectrum, and despite the fact that observational campaigns have not seen the effects of Dark Matter where it is expected to exist, the evidence for Dark Matter's existence has, for some mysterious reason, only got stronger.
Well, I never!
Perhaps it's not the evidence itself which is getting stronger, but the vocalisation of the same evidence which is getting stronger. In other words, more people are jumping on the bandwagon. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 11/08/2011 : 05:58:29 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Sebastian
You seem so confused, Dave, I hardly know where to begin in correcting your misconceptions. |
That's because you can't. They're not my misconceptions.Let's start with your following statement: | Like Selenium: good in trace amounts, but toxic at high levels. |
Whilst carbon is a trace element in the atmosphere, it's definitely not a trace element on the surface of the planet. |
And since surface Carbon isn't what concerns us about AGW, this is relevant how, exactly?| After the past few centuries of industrialisation, the percentage by volume of CO2 in the atmosphere is still less than one half of one tenth of one percent, or more precisely about 390 parts per million. |
An increase of 40% in a mere 200 years.| Furthermore, as those with at least some basic knowledge of Chemistry will know, the molecule called Carbon Dioxide consists of one Carbon atom joined to two Oxygen atoms, so one can deduce that the percentage of the element Carbon in the atmosphere is even less than the claimed 390 volume parts per million of the gas. |
Since it isn't the Carbon atoms themselves that are the problem, why is this relevant?| For your edification, below is a list of the percentages of the major elements that comprise the human body. As you can see, Carbon comes second at 18% after Oxygen, whereas Selenium is lumped together with a bunch of other elements that in total comprise only 0.7% of the human body. |
Emphasizing your attempt to pull a switcheroo with the context of your own statements isn't doing your credibility any favors.| I think you are just a little bit 'off' with your suggestion that Carbon is a trace element like Selenium, wouldn't you agree? |
You're the one who called Carbon a trace element. The context is the atmosphere, remember?However, to be fair to you I will not deny that Carbon can be toxic in certain forms, ie. when bonded to certain other elements. For example, Carbon Monoxide (CO) is toxic at levels of only 100 parts per million, and you definitely would want to stay clear of Hydrogen Cyanide consisting of one atom of Hydrogen bonded to one atom of Carbon and one atom of Nitrogen (HCN).
However, atmospheric CO2 is not toxic. |
Again: this is your failure to understand a simple analogy.Yes, and they also "love" water, but a pine tree will still die if submerged for a while.Provide evidence for this claim. Provide evidence that if Earth's atmosphere were to be 100% CO2, plants would not only still survive, but maximize their growth (assuming that's what you meant by "better").| Our current levels of 390ppm are not even remotely toxic. The level at which some people will begin to feel drowsy, not everyone, is 10,000ppm, or 25x greater than current levels. |
This is still your failure to grasp the analogy.| Consider, since the beginning of the industrial revolution the atmospheric levels of CO2 have not even doubled, rising from about 250ppm to 390pp over a period of 2 or 3 hundred years. |
And that's very, very fast.| We study and model it, and test the models against reality. |
We certainly try when it's possible. But has it escaped you, Dave, that certain natural systems are not only too big and too complex to be accurately modelled and tested against reality, but the time-frames involved for the predictions that are suggested can make the situation impossible to verify?
Climate Change falls into this category. |
Provide evidence to support this claim.Now in response to my statement: | I recall reading recently on the news that in Italy a group of scientists (seismologists I presume) have been charged with manslaughter because they had not provided clear warning of an earthquake that killed a number of people. It is thought, as I understand, that the scientists should have acted more seriously and positively in relation to prior tremours, advising the population to evacuate. |
your response is: | And that's a condemnation of science how, exactly? The non-scientific masses think that science should be better than it is. So what? |
Dave, you've entirely failed to grasp the point I'm making. Have you forgotten already we are currently discussing complex, natural and uncontrolled systems that don't lend themselves to modelling and testing?
Earthquake prediction is another example of a situation that is too complex to be modelled and fit into a lab. |
Is it too complex? Or is it that we do not have access to all of the data required?The people responsible for this prosecution of scientists in Italy are exhibiting an appalling ignorance of Science. So what?, you ask.
Do you really think it's of no consequence that people in authority should appear to be so blindly unaware that earthquake prediction, just like predictions of the rise in sea levels due to climate change, are currently beyond the capabilities of science? Dear me! |
The appalling ignorance of non-scientists is still not a condemnation of the science."Evidence of dark matter's influence on the cosmos stretches back to the 1930s and has only gotten stronger in recent years."| That's a statement that you would disagree with, would you not, Sebastian? |
Well, it's certainly an interesting example of a logical absurdity and/or rather poor English expression within the context and meaning of the general drift of this article in Scientific American.
Consider this, the article is providing 'evidence' (using the word very loosely) that there is mounting reason for doubt about the existence of Dark Matter. Furthermore, the article quotes an example of one of the reasons for this doubt, as follows: | But some observational campaigns have not seen the effects of dark matter where it is expected to exist. Theory predicts that spiral galaxies, including our own Milky Way#8203;, are enveloped by massive dark matter halos that provide the galaxy's missing mass. But the Milky Way's own dark matter halo has also yet to be detected, even indirectly. |
Now Dave, how do you reconcile the above statement with "Evidence of dark matter's influence on the cosmos stretches back to the 1930s and has only gotten stronger in recent years."
You know what 'only' means, don't you? Perhaps we can explain it by attributing a variation to the meaning of 'recent'. Perhaps what is meant by recent in this context is 'moderately recent', as opposed to 'very' recent.
Perhaps we could rephrase the statement in an attempt at clarity. How about this?
"Evidence of dark matter's influence on the cosmos stretches back to the 1930s and, despite the fact that the stuff itself has yet to be detected either directly, in particle physics laboratories as a new subatomic particle, or with concrete evidence of such hidden matter using telescopes operating in the electromagnetic spectrum, and despite the fact that observational campaigns have not seen the effects of Dark Matter where it is expected to exist, the evidence for Dark Matter's existence has, for some mysterious reason, only got stronger. |
No, your re-write is completely contrary to the actual evidence available. Why do you refuse to engage with the evidence, Sebastian? I suspect that it's because you don't actually understand it.| Well, I never! |
Your incredulity still isn't evidence of anything.| Perhaps it's not the evidence itself which is getting stronger, but the vocalisation of the same evidence which is getting stronger. In other words, more people are jumping on the bandwagon. |
Your guesses aren't evidence of anything, either. Or, since you think that conjecture is "indirect evidence," do you think your wild speculation is indirect evidence for itself? |
- 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 - 11/09/2011 : 21:19:37 [Permalink]
|
| Your incredulity still isn't evidence of anything. |
Dave, your confusion is extraordinary. OF COURSE incredulity isn't evidence of anything. How could it be? As I've stated before, incredulity is a state of mind that results from a LACK of evidence. How could anyone consider that a lack of evidence could be construed by any serious, rational person as evidence? Yet you apparently suggest that it might be.
Those who claim not to believe in any God or creator, such as those who call themselves atheists, presumably hold a degree of incredulity about the existence of a God, and such incredulity presumably results from a lack of perceived evidence.
If such unbelievers are rational beings, as I consider that I am, then it is understood that such lack of evidence can never be proof of the non-existence of a God, or the non-existence of anything else.
Proof can only be based upon evidence. A lack of evidence can never prove anything. However, a lack of evidence certainly does result in a sense of incredulity in rational beings. But not necessarily in irrational beings. One could argue that the quality of being irrational requires a suspension of incredulity. That is, despite the lack of evidence, the irrational person can still believe that a particular thing is true or that it exists, such as the God of a particular religion, or even the existence of Dark Matter.
The why and how of such irrational belief in matters which are not supported by evidence, is another huge subject in itself which I haven't time to delve into at present.
| Your guesses aren't evidence of anything, either. Or, since you think that conjecture is "indirect evidence," do you think your wild speculation is indirect evidence for itself? |
Well, I would certainly go along with the notion that guesses aren't evidence, but I'm puzzled as to why you think that I may be of the opinion that conjecture is indirect evidence when on page 6 of this thread you wrote: | No, it seems that you think that indirect evidence isn't evidence at all. |
If I may offer a few words of advice: Stick to the facts. Arguing can be fun, but don't stray away from the known, or indisputable, facts.
Avoid ad hominem attacks that are unsupported by hard evidence (or what one considers to be hard evidence).
For example, I make a comment that carbon in the atmosphere is beneficial and exists only in trace quantities, and Dave W responds: | Like Selenium: good in trace amounts, but toxic at high levels. |
Now, is Dave factually correct here, that Selenium is like Carbon regarding its toxicity? This is the only issue for me, the facts. Scoring points in an argument may be nice, but the more serious issue of truth is surely more important.
If I accuse Dave of being confused in this respect (which some may consider an ad hominem attack), I do at least try to support my assertion with reason based upon facts, which I take the trouble to provide.
Carbon is simply not a trace element like Selenium by any stretch of the imagination, whether in the atmosphere or on the surface of the earth, although I think it's quite likely that Selenium does exist in the atmosphere in trace amounts which are far, far more miniscule than the presence of Carbon.
Now I'm going to pre-empt what Dave's response will be. He will claim that I've missed the analogy between Selenium and Carbon which is that too much of anything can be bad.
No, I didn't miss that Dave. I've known it for years. By definition, too much is too much. If too much is not bad, then it's not too much, depending on one's definition of good and bad of course.
10,000ppm of C02 is too much, I would agree. 1,000ppm, not sure. This would be the current level in a reasonably well-ventilated home. At night, in one's bedroom, the levels are often much higher than 1,000ppm, certainly for some of us who may want to block out the noise of traffic whilst we sleep. Of more concern would be the other pollutants from synthetic fabrics, furniture and other devices in the home which continuously emit trace elements and compounds of various descriptions, some of which may be harmful to some degree, over a period of time. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2011 : 22:00:52 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Sebastian
| Your incredulity still isn't evidence of anything. |
Dave, your confusion is extraordinary. OF COURSE incredulity isn't evidence of anything. |
Neither it is a substantial argument in favor of some position. But that's all you've got with regard to your claims about Dark Matter and AGW: your incredulity.| Proof can only be based upon evidence. A lack of evidence can never prove anything. However, a lack of evidence certainly does result in a sense of incredulity in rational beings. |
But you haven't substantiated your claims that there is a lack of evidence for anything. You don't even understand that your incredulity is based on nothing more than your ignorance of the evidence we do have. You refuse to engage the evidence that's been presented in this thread, in a seeming attempt to simply wish that evidence away.| Your guesses aren't evidence of anything, either. Or, since you think that conjecture is "indirect evidence," do you think your wild speculation is indirect evidence for itself? |
Well, I would certainly go along with the notion that guesses aren't evidence, but I'm puzzled as to why you think that I may be of the opinion that conjecture is indirect evidence... |
Because you said, "Indirect evidence is unconfirmed evidence, hearsay, conjecture, inference, deduction" (my bold).
Again, I ask you to provide functional definitions of "indirect evidence" and "direct evidence" with which we can all categorize some examples precisely....when on page 6 of this thread you wrote: | No, it seems that you think that indirect evidence isn't evidence at all. |
|
So you're claiming that your own thoughts are dependent on what I think your thoughts are? How bizarrely submissive of you.| If I may offer a few words of advice: Stick to the facts. Arguing can be fun, but don't stray away from the known, or indisputable, facts. |
Follow your own advice: address the evidence we have regarding Dark Matter's existence.| Avoid ad hominem attacks that are unsupported by hard evidence (or what one considers to be hard evidence). |
Follow your own advice.For example, I make a comment that carbon in the atmosphere is beneficial and exists only in trace quantities, and Dave W responds: | Like Selenium: good in trace amounts, but toxic at high levels. |
Now, is Dave factually correct here, that Selenium is like Carbon regarding its toxicity? This is the only issue for me, the facts. Scoring points in an argument may be nice, but the more serious issue of truth is surely more important.
If I accuse Dave of being confused in this respect (which some may consider an ad hominem attack), I do at least try to support my assertion with reason based upon facts, which I take the trouble to provide.
Carbon is simply not a trace element like Selenium by any stretch of the imagination, whether in the atmosphere or on the surface of the earth, although I think it's quite likely that Selenium does exist in the atmosphere in trace amounts which are far, far more miniscule than the presence of Carbon. |
Nevertheless, you declared Carbon to be a "trace element." You weren't quoting me, you volunteered that assessment of Carbon's status in the atmosphere, completely unprompted. You now declare Carbon to not be a "trace element," and also declare me to be confused.| Now I'm going to pre-empt what Dave's response will be. He will claim that I've missed the analogy between Selenium and Carbon which is that too much of anything can be bad. |
You fail.| No, I didn't miss that Dave. I've known it for years. By definition, too much is too much. If too much is not bad, then it's not too much, depending on one's definition of good and bad of course. |
Well, you opened this door by calling Carbon a "beneficial trace element" without any reference to what "beneficial" means.| 10,000ppm of C02 is too much, I would agree. 1,000ppm, not sure. |
But you claimed that for plants, "The more the better." Again you refuse to support your claims with evidence, instead trying to distract away from your failure by opening up a completely different and irrelevant subject. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2011 : 06:13:12 [Permalink]
|
| Furthermore, as those with at least some basic knowledge of Chemistry will know, the molecule called Carbon Dioxide consists of one Carbon atom joined to two Oxygen atoms, so one can deduce that the percentage of the element Carbon in the atmosphere is even less than the claimed 390 volume parts per million of the gas. |
Thanks, now I gotta clean the milk off my screen. As a big fan of irony, I must say you're doing a swell job.
P.S. Let us know when you get "at least some basic knowledge of Chemistry", until then you're just embarrassing yourself. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
podcat
Skeptic Friend
435 Posts |
Posted - 11/11/2011 : 04:52:47 [Permalink]
|
| Actually, I wouldn't consider the statement "It seems you think that indirect evidence isn't evidence at all" an ad hominem. |
“In a modern...society, everybody has the absolute right to believe whatever they damn well please, but they don't have the same right to be taken seriously”.
-Barry Williams, co-founder, Australian Skeptics |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 11/11/2011 : 05:55:14 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by podcat
Actually, I wouldn't consider the statement "It seems you think that indirect evidence isn't evidence at all" an ad hominem. |
Well, it's not an ad hominem fallacy of logic, which would be bringing up some irrelevant personal trait (for example, "Sebastian is ugly, therefore he is wrong"). The subject of the thread is now Sebastian's obviously poor knowledge of science and science-related terms, and so his blatant abuse of dictionaries and thesauruses - while still a personal issue (and so "to the man") - is very relevant.
Along those lines, something I'd missed before:Originally posted by Sebastian
Furthermore, as those with at least some basic knowledge of Chemistry will know, the molecule called Carbon Dioxide consists of one Carbon atom joined to two Oxygen atoms, so one can deduce that the percentage of the element Carbon in the atmosphere is even less than the claimed 390 volume parts per million of the gas. |
(Bold mine.)
For one who thinks that Dark Matter's existence can be characterized as "mythical" because of its basis in "indirect evidence," and your assertion that "Indirect evidence is unconfirmed evidence, hearsay, conjecture, inference, deduction" (my bold, again), you sure seem to build a lot of arguments that you expect to be taken seriously on "indirect evidence," Sebastian. You are being ridiculously hypocritical. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Tim Thompson
New Member
USA
36 Posts |
 Posted - 11/11/2011 : 10:15:42 [Permalink]
|
The following quote comes from a message I posted on 1 February, 2010, on the JREF Forum: What is Empirical Science? III
Originally posted elsewhere by Tim Thompson (1 Feb 2010)
Question 2
The standard definition of the word "empirical" does not require a controlled experiment, or for that matter, any kind of experiment at all. Why do you feel justified in changing the definition of a word (any word, but in particular this one), and then complaining when the rest of the world does not use it your way?
For standard usage of the word "empirical", see for instance the definition from the online Merriam-Webster dictionary.
Case in point
I quote from the book An Introduction to Scientific Research by E. Bright Wilson, Jr.; McGraw-Hill, 1952 (Dover reprint, 1990); page 27-28, section 3.7 "The Testing of Hypotheses"; emphasis from the original.
[indent]
"In many cases hypotheses are so simple and their consequences so obvious that it becomes possible to test them directly. New observations on selected aspects of nature may be made, or more often an experiment can be performed for the test. There is no clear cut distinction between an experiment and a simple observation, but ordinarily in an experiment the observer interferes to some extent with nature and creates conditions or events favorable to his purpose."
[/indent]
Wilson says "There is no clear cut distinction between an experiment and a simple observation," and that is the way the entire scientific community currently operates. Are you now telling us that the entire scientific community is using a flawed concept of empiricism?
|
With that in mind, Sebastian tells us ...
Originally posted by Sebastian
Originally posted by Tim Thompson
Query for Sebastian: If my interpretation is incorrect, then please provide a complete & unambiguous statement of what you do think about the relationship between controlled laboratory experiments and observations in an uncontrolled natural environment.
|
Tim, you must realise that observations in an uncontrolled environment can be very problematic. Just consider how we handle any truly complex system over which we have little or no control.
|
I did not find the rest of the response to be what I would call "clear". I still don't know how you think field observations stand when compared to laboratory experiments. In your mind, are uncontrolled field observations inferior to controlled laboratory experiments? In the passage quoted above, i asked the question, "Are you now telling us that the entire scientific community is using a flawed concept of empiricism?", directed at an individual who would not even grant uncontrolled non-laboratory observations "empirical" status. Do you (Sebastian) agree that uncontrolled non-laboratory observations are still properly empirical?
I get the impression that Sebastian believes that uncontrolled non-laboratory observations are in fact inferior, but the only reason seems to be that such observations are more likely to be either misleading or just plain wrong. I don't buy that idea, and if anything, i would assert the opposite: Controlled laboratory experiments are more likely to be misleading than uncontrolled non-laboratory observations. The references to diagnoses & drug trials seem quite out of place and irrelevant to me. Weather & climate, astronomy & astrophysics, are far better examples.
The point is that the raison d'etre of natural science is to understand the natural world. Controlled laboratory experiments are also, necessarily, confined and restricted laboratory experiments. Only a small, restricted subset of the natural world can be recreated in a controlled laboratory experiment. Absent all of the synergies and interactions found in nature, confined & restricted experiments can only reproduce some limited approximation of nature. They can get you close, but never get you there. There is, I assert, one and only one way to understand nature, and that is by observing nature in all of its full depth & complication.
But we see above that E. Bright Wilson tells us, "There is no clear cut distinction between an experiment and a simple observation," and I agree. Controlled laboratory experiments can allow us to understand simple subsets of nature, a task that is probably impossible if all we do is observe raw nature. Controlled laboratory experiments allow us to better understand the role played by various controlled parameters on the behavior of physical systems. On the other hand, unexpected inter-relationships between these simple subsets and a wider family of parameters may become obvious only when seen in their uncontrolled natural setting.
In summary: I do not agree that there is any significant difference between a controlled laboratory experiment, or an uncontrolled observation in nature, in so far as the testing of scientific hypotheses is concerned. Furthermore, I do not accept the notion that indirect evidence should be considered inferior in principle to direct detection, in the context of evidence concerning the existence of non-baryonic dark matter. And it must be kept in mind that there are many kinds of experiment which are quite literally impossible to perform under controlled conditions because of limitations imposed by, for instance, size or energy restrictions on any laboratory facility.
Originally posted by Sebastian
To get back to the much more elusive Dark Matter, this recent article in Scientific American expresses my concerns and general feelings about the issue quite well.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=dark-matter-doubts
Here's a quote from the end of the summary:
After each non-detection, McGaugh says, theorists continually redefine the interaction cross-section of WIMPs to safely undetectable levels. This kind of behavior, he adds, can spark a never-ending game of leapfrog between experimental physicists and theoreticians, allowing them to continue business as usual without ever revising their cosmology.
"There is a lot of misplaced certainty in the dark matter model—a feeling that it's not 'if' we directly detect dark matter, but 'when,'" Mihos says.
Or, as McGaugh puts it, "Once you convince yourself that the universe is full of an invisible substance that only interacts with ordinary matter through gravity, then it is virtually impossible to disabuse yourself of that notion. There is always a way to wiggle out of any observation."
|
|
I consider the above passage from Scientific American to be very poorly considered; it is essentially misleading, and arguably simply flat wrong in its presentation of the alleged facts.
First, along the lines of direct detection of dark matter particles in controlled laboratory experiments, it is factually wrong to claim that there has been no direct detection. The correct statement is that direct detections have been claimed & published, but those experiments are in conflict with other experiments, so the detections are arguably ambiguous. That is a significantly different state of affairs from the obvious implication above that there are simply no direct detections on offer at all. The authors should no better than to say that. The CoGeNT collaboration has reported a significantly significant signal for WIMP dark matter detection (Aalseth, et al.,2011a; Aalseth, et al.,2011b; Hooper & Kelso, 2011), and the DAMA/LIBRA experiment has for some time shown a model-independent annual modulation ascribed to dark matter particles. (Bernabei, et al.,2010a; Bernabei, et al.,2010b. Also, the CRESST-II experiment has reported a statistically significant excess of counts that could be explained as dark matter WIMP detection (Angloher, et al.,2011 and see Hooper, Kelso & Buckley, 2011 which examines the combined results from DAMA, CoGeNT and CRESST-II)
Other experiments, XENON100 & EDELWEISS for instance, which arguably should also have detected WIMPS if the others did, report no significant signals. The tension between these results remains therefore unexplained; obviously, on the strength of this evidence, one cannot claim positive direct detection of dark matter, but then neither can one claim outright that there has been no detection, and still responsibly represent the results in hand accurately.
There are also anomalous detections of gamma-rays, in the energy range 10 GeV - 1 TeV by the PAMELA, ATIC & FERMI-LAT groups (e.g., Adriani, et al.,2009a; Adriani, et al.,2009b; El Zant, et al.,2010). These observations are consistent with expectations for annihilation of WIMP dark matter particles; although standard astrophysical sources may not be ruled out (El Zant thinks otherwise), neither are any as yet known to be present.
My point so far is that the above information cannot simply be dismissed as meaningless because it does not provide an unambiguous positive result. There is evidence, albeit ambiguous evidence, for both direct and indirect detection of WIMP dark matter particles, both in controlled laboratory experiment and in uncontrolled observations of nature. Furthermore, these positive direct & indirect indications are all mutually consistent, even if inconsistency with other experiments introduces ambiguity. Hence, the question remains open and as one might expect, continued research is necessary to eliminate the ambiguity one way or the other.
Meanwhile, let us step back a bit and remember the history. We know that the motions of galaxies in galaxy clusters is inconsistent with the assumption that the visible mass that we see is all of the mass present, assuming that the law of gravity is as we expect (e.g., Zwicky, 1933 which first appeared in English as Zwicky, 1937). We also know the same thing is true for the rotation of spiral galaxies (e.g., Oort, 1932; Volders, 1959; Rubin & Ford, 1970). Those are the papers that basically lay out the original problems, which have been subject to much scrutiny since then. There are only two solutions to the problems introduced. Either the law of gravity over large distances needs to be modified, or there is significantly more matter present than we can as yet actually see (hence the original "missing mass" and the current "dark matter" paradigms).
That scrutiny adds a string of newer results, all of which point towards dark matter. Both dark energy & non-baryonic dark matter are favored by analysis of the cosmic microwave background (e.g., Dunkley, et al.,2009; Komatsu, et al.,2011). And there is much data from gravitational lensing observations which strongly indicate the presence of copious non-baryonic dark matter (e.g., Tyson, Kochanski & dell'Antonio, 1998; Refregier, 2003; Clowe, et al.,2006; Jee, et al.,2007). Furthermore, X-ray observations of hot gas in galaxy clusters, like Zwicky's old observations, require significantly more mass to be present that the visible light mass, if the million Kelvin gas is going to stay in the cluster as it does (e.g., Lewis, Buote & Stocke, 2003). Observations of the mass-luminosity relation for galaxy clusters and the distribution of large scale structure in the universe also strongly implies the presence of non-baryonic dark matter (e.g., Allen, et al.,2003).
And one more thing, about controlled laboratory experiments versus uncontrolled observations of nature. Astronomy in its entirely is heavily involved in the latter, far more than it is in the former. I see no reason to believe that astronomy is the poor step-child of science simply because it relies so heavily on uncontrolled observations of nature. But more to the point here: While it is certainly possible, as shown above, to test the hypothesis of non-baryonic dark matter in a controlled laboratory setting, it is absolutely impossible to do likewise for the only reasonable alternative, namely the deviation of gravity from the familiar inverse square law over astrophysically significant distances (tiny distances are another matter, where the inverse square law is verified on micron distance scales in controlled laboratory experiments, e.g. Schlamminger, et al.,2008). So, if you are going to argue that it makes more sense to suspect that the law of gravity is not what we think it is over large distances, you will have to excuse yourself from the realm of controlled laboratory experiments altogether.
My conclusion: I don't see how anyone can look at the full weight of the evidence, both direct & indirect, and not conclude that that the presence of non-baryonic dark matter is in fact the best solution currently available to the scientific community as an explanations for the "missing mass" problem. I do not mean by this that the alternative solution, a modification of the law of gravity, should be ignore; quite the opposite, it should be pursued as best we can. But credit, as they say, should go where credit is due, and non-baryonic dark matter is in fact the superior solution on offer, by virtue of both quantity and quality of both observational evidence and theoretical considerations.
|
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 |
|
|
|
podcat
Skeptic Friend
435 Posts |
Posted - 11/11/2011 : 14:39:29 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by podcat
Actually, I wouldn't consider the statement "It seems you think that indirect evidence isn't evidence at all" an ad hominem. |
Well, it's not an ad hominem fallacy of logic, which would be bringing up some irrelevant personal trait (for example, "Sebastian is ugly, therefore he is wrong"). The subject of the thread is now Sebastian's obviously poor knowledge of science and science-related terms, and so his blatant abuse of dictionaries and thesauruses - while still a personal issue (and so "to the man") - is very relevant.
|
Right, but Sebastian, for some reason, is calling that an ad hominem, when the statement isn't that at all. It's a reasonable observation, and a claim Sebastian has to disprove. |
“In a modern...society, everybody has the absolute right to believe whatever they damn well please, but they don't have the same right to be taken seriously”.
-Barry Williams, co-founder, Australian Skeptics |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 11/11/2011 : 20:02:53 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Tim Thompson
I consider the above passage from Scientific American to be very poorly considered; it is essentially misleading, and arguably simply flat wrong in its presentation of the alleged facts. |
It should be noted that most of the references in your next paragraph are from 2011, while the SciAm article was from December, 2010. But considering that (for example) the Bullet Cluster mass separation was noted a few years back and that there are no "Dark Matter is doing well" voices in the article (except the "only getting stronger" line), it has to have been written with its particular bias in mind. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 11/11/2011 : 20:06:57 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by podcat
...and a claim Sebastian has to disprove. |
Well, no. It was my claim, and so it's mine to support. I think I have done so, with Sebastian's own words. His rebuttal (if you can call it that) only made things worse for him, in my opinion. |
- 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 - 11/12/2011 : 14:00:25 [Permalink]
|
Sebastian.....
May I ask what your academic and occupational background is? Do you consider yourself a skeptic in the same perspective as most of the regulars here at SFN? |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Skepticism about the Big Bang
