Saturday, August 17, 2013
A note from someone on a discussion group I frequent
BTW I was talking to a Christian astronomer on Thursday. Curiously, even those scientists who believe that Nature is "the whole show" are in a quandary at the moment on the subject of "Dark matter" and "dark energy". Many scientists firmly believe these exist. They hypothesize the "dark" stuff from its "effects", but have no idea what it is and hence how to detect it (huh? methinks, how can they be sure that they are observing dark matter/energy's "effects" then?)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
78 comments:
Modern theoretical physics post questions which are very near philosophical questions (for example does some entity necessarily for scientific theory cause some kind on ontological commitment - I think that Quine and Putnam have some idea like this).
"They hypothesize the "dark" stuff from its "effects", but have no idea what it is and hence how to detect it ..."
And then other 'Science!' fetishists talk about "So-and-So "discovered" 'dark energy/matter'"
I'm currently reading Lawrence Krauss's Universe from Nothing, and he seems to be solving the dark matter issue.
Christian astronomers are just lazy or lack imagination. So many things that used to be credited to God have turned out to be natural, why would the remaining issues also be God's doing?
Hi LadyAtheist,
I'm not sure what your comment is directed at, but it reads as though you think Christian astronomers are saying that dark matter/energy must be attributed to God. I don't think anyone said that (well someone might have done, but not in this thread ... yet).
I took the point of the original post to be that science (whether that of the Christian or the Atheist) seems to encourage us to postulate things so far beyond our experience and understanding that it's difficult to see why (on alleged scientific grounds) so many seem to think believing in God (and accepting a few "mysteries of the faith") is beyond the pale.
Thank you for pointing this out, Victor. It's amazing how many schoolboy atheists will insist, "I only believe things for which there is solid, tangible evidence. Show me a miracle and I'll believe!" and in the very next breath will say, "I believe what science (trademark) tells me."
My favorite example of what you're talking about is the Oort Cloud of comets, which surrounds the Solar System. Now there is absolutely zero observational evidence for the Oort Cloud's existence. Zilch. Nado. Nichego. None. Yet every last astronomy textbook in existence will calmly assert its existence. No scientist disputes it. We have 100.000% agreement on this.
Now why is this? Because it fits the model. By unaided reason, astronomers can assert with confidence that said unobserved cloud of comets actually does exist, despite no observational evidence of any sort.
Victor asks, "how can they be sure that they are observing dark matter/energy's "effects" then?"
They can't. It's an informed guess. I can't answer for 'dark energy' but there is plenty of evidence from galactic motion and gravitational lensing effects that there is more matter in distant galaxies than can be accounted for from the radiation we see. Hence 'dark matter'.
"Because it fits the model. By unaided reason, astronomers can assert with confidence that said unobserved cloud of comets actually does exist, despite no observational evidence of any sort."
Not exactly. Jan Oort actually inferred the existence of the Oort cloud from the observed evidence of comets with long-term orbits. Since then, theoretical models have tended to confirm it.
As for dark matter and dark energy, we observe the physical effects, and infer that there is something responsible for those effects.
VR: "They hypothesize [Thus-and-Such hypothetical entity] from its "effects", but have no idea what it is and hence how to detect it ..."
Ilíon: "And then other 'Science!' fetishists talk about "So-and-So "discovered" [Thus-and-Such hypothetical entity]"
B.Prokop: "My favorite example of what you're talking about is the Oort Cloud of comets, which surrounds the Solar System. Now there is absolutely zero observational evidence for the Oort Cloud's existence. Zilch. Nado. Nichego. None. Yet every last astronomy textbook in existence will calmly assert its existence. No scientist disputes it. We have 100.000% agreement on this.
Now why is this? Because it fits the model. By unaided reason, astronomers can assert with confidence that said unobserved cloud of comets actually does exist, despite no observational evidence of any sort."
I-couldn't-reason-my-way-out-of-a-wet-paper-bag-if-my-life-depeded-on-it: "Not exactly. Jan Oort actually inferred the existence of the Oort cloud from the observed evidence of comets with long-term orbits. Since then, theoretical models have tended to confirm it."
Seriously! "Since [Jan Oort "discovered" the 'Oort Cloud'], theoretical models have tended to confirm [the reality of the 'Oort Cloud']"
... just in case it's not clear to the casual reader, what 'I-pretend-to-reason' is saying is that the truth of what B.Prokop said is the proof that what he siad is false.
Ilion,
Bob clearly said "by unaided reason", "despite no observational evidence of any sort". He expects us to believe that we accept scientific facts without evidence. I challenge that assertion. Science is not a religion.
"Science is not a religion."
A truer statement you've never posted, Skep. So why then do scientismists treat it as such?
"So why then do scientismists treat it as such?"
The word you're looking for ... is 'scientiste' (think of Miss Piggy, the Artiste)
Bob clearly said "by unaided reason", "despite no observational evidence of any sort". He expects us to believe that we accept scientific facts without evidence. I challenge that assertion.
Well, no, not precisely 'without evidence', just not necessarily direct empirical or observational evidence. But recall the affair of Dirac and the antiproton.
You could argue, I guess, that the antiproton's existence wasn't a 'fact' until Chamberlain's and Segre's experiment produced it, or that mathematical implication cannot constitute evidence, but if a certain proposition is a direct inference from a well-established equation or whatever, I'm perfectly happy with calling it a fact, and calling the inference 'evidence'. You may (likely will) disagree, of course.
"A truer statement you've never posted, Skep. So why then do scientismists treat it as such?"
I don't really think they do. That's a projection that theists love to make, because it seems to reduce science (as a source of knowledge and understanding) to the level of religion. But there's still a huge difference between the two. No matter how hard you may try to deny it, scientific knowledge is based on evidence. All scientific knowledge is tentative and subject to revision as more evidence comes to light. And while it may sometimes head down the wrong path, it has a pretty good track record in overcoming those things and getting eventually closer to a true understanding of things.
So you may be disdainful of people who place their trust in science as a source of knowledge, but they have every right to be equally disdainful of people who place their trust in religious faith, whose track record doesn't look as good in comparison.
"No matter how hard you may try to deny it, scientific knowledge is based on evidence."
No one's trying to deny that at all. Where did you get that idea? What I have been pointing out (and you confirming what I said, despite your failure to realize it), is that scientific reasoning is based on things other than evidence - quite often on modeling ("unaided reason", to the layperson).
So yes, scientific knowledge is based on evidence, but science hold to many propositions with no observational evidence whatsoever. Dark Matter, dark energy, the Oort Cloud, black holes, strings, many subatomic particles, the Great Attractor, the other side of the galaxy, for that matter - the Big Bang itself (have you seen it? has anyone?). Now there's no need to deny the reality of the above list, but please don't tell me that we know these things through observational evidence. We know them either by observing their effects, or by reason (modeling).
Bob,
"have you seen it? has anyone?"
Perhaps we just don't have the same notion of what constitutes observational evidence. You say the observation of comets does not constitute observational evidence for the Oort cloud, or the observation of gravitational effects on bodies in space does not constitute observational evidence for dark matter. To me, those things are observed evidence. And I would never say that logical inference is not an important part of science, but it is always in conjunction with observed evidence. Of course we can't directly observe everything. In fact, depending on how you define it, we don't directly observe anything. All we really observe are the effects of things on our senses. But that's beside the point. Science is based on evidence.
Bob, it's not just scientists who make such inferences to the unobserved. If food is going missing from your larder in the middle of the night you're likely to conclude you've got mice.
Skep,
If you think that calculations of cometary orbits constitutes observational evidence for the Oort Cloud, then (as with the term "atheism") you are simply speaking your own private language, and the dictionary be damned. It's one of the reasons you find it so difficult to communicate with anyone here. Everyone else is speaking English, and you're off using Skeplandish.
Before I (mostly) give up my internet access until next weekend, I simply have to point out this example of asserting ‘A’ and ‘not-A’ as the need of the moment seems to allow –
I-pretend-to-value-reason: “Jan Oort actually inferred the existence of the Oort cloud from the observed evidence of comets with long-term orbits. Since then, theoretical models have tended to confirm it.
As for dark matter and dark energy, we observe the physical effects, and infer that there is something responsible for those effects. ”
What ‘Im-skeptical’ means -- I mean, if he cared about being honest -- is that the “model” that the solar system is 4.65 billions of years old would seem to be falsified by the reality of observed comets. That is, Halley’s Comet, as an example, would have been “burned up” many billions of years ago if it had been passing close enough to the sun for all that time to display as a comet.
Therefore -- since the “model” cannot be false -- it must be the case that there is a vast reservoir of unseen comets orbiting the sun at great distance, such that they can last without solar erosion for billions of years, and that periodically, some “perturbation” causes some of them to drop into the inner solar system, such that there is a statistically constant number of comets that display as comets.
That’s the “observation” that he claims “theoretical models have tended to confirm”.
That is, the “observation” is an logical inference that was required so as to protect a specific model of the solar system -- a logical construct purporting to describe the solar system, its workings, and its history, including its formation -- from falsification by actual observations. Then, since the Oort Cloud was “discovered”, other models -- other logical constructs purporting to describe some aspect of the solar system and/or its workings and/or its history, including its formation – have “tended to confirm” the “discovery” of the Oort Cloud by including a proposition that I will summarize as “Yeah, that too”.
I-pretend-to-value-reason-and-evidence: “… I don't believe that god exists. I have no reason to believe such a thing. Every argument I've heard uses logic based on premises or assumptions that are not acceptable to someone who is not already convinced. There is no tangible evidence. There is plenty of evidence against the existence of any god who has the attributes that theists attribute to their gods.”
What ‘Im-skeptical’ means -- I mean, if he cared about being honest -- is that there is no argument, no reasoning, no evidence that he will ever accept as having shown the falsification of God-denial, including the fact that God-denial logically entails the absurdity that it is impossible that human beings can reason and know truth.
As with all other ‘atheists’ and ‘agnostics’, when it comes to God, logical inferences do not and cannot count as “evidence”.
"If you think that calculations of cometary orbits constitutes observational evidence for the Oort Cloud, then (as with the term "atheism") you are simply speaking your own private language"
Bob, why can't you ever admit when you're wrong? I didn't make this up. Oort used observational evidence to infer the Oort cloud. Don't try to spin your way out of it by claiming that observations don't constitute observational evidence. They do.
This is part of a presentation on the Oort cloud formation by Hal Levison at the Southwest Research Institute.
http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~hal/talks/oort/RPI/oort020.html
"to infer"
My point exactly. Are you somehow mentally deficient, in that you provide ammunition for what I say in your own postings, and then ask me to say I'm somehow wrong when you yourself are backing up what I write ????? Inference does not equal observation. No one, and I mean no one, has ever observed the Oort Cloud. How in God's Green Earth do you imagine me to be wrong here?
"Bob, why can't you ever admit when you're wrong?"
Oh, and by the way, off the top of my head I can think of at least two times that I admitted big time I was wrong on this website. (And I'm sure I'd be able to come up with others were I actually interested in doing so.)
But in this present discussion, I have written nothing requiring the least recantation.
The first was when I realized I had been completely misunderstanding Loftus's point with his so-called OTF. I had to disown several weeks of comments I had been making on the subject.
The second was in the middle of a convoluted discussion on quantum mechanics, after I discussed the matter with some real-world particle physicists (i.e., NOT going to Wikipedia, or what otherwise passes for "research" amongst many of the commenters here) and they quite thoroughly shredded my amateur knowledge of the subject.
"Inference does not equal observation. No one, and I mean no one, has ever observed the Oort Cloud. How in God's Green Earth do you imagine me to be wrong here?"
Are we speaking past each other? He had empirical evidence. That's all I said. You said he didn't have evidence. You said his inference was by reasoning alone, without any evidence. He had evidence, and he used it as the basis for his inference.
"But in this present discussion, I have written nothing requiring the least recantation."
OK, fine. Whatever you say. I've wasted enough time on this.
im-skeptical:
You probably need to be told, the issue here is that you are a naive scientific realist,and Prokov isn't, as far as the Oort cloud goes, at least.
This has very little to do with theism but has a lot to do with varieties of scientific realism or lack thereof.
William,
What makes you think I'm not more of a scientific realist (because I believe that would be true)? Bob has said that he isn't a philosopher, so what makes you think he has any particular position regarding scientific realism? I've never heard him speak of it.
The simple fact is that he sometimes gets his scientific facts wrong, and If I try to correct him, he won't admit it.
A while back, we talked about what makes the sun turn red. It is Rayleigh scattering due to particles in the air. Bob was adamant that it was atmospheric diffraction, not particles in the air. He was wrong. I showed him an article about it, and he still refused to admit he was wrong.
This is another case of the same thing. He simply thought that the Oort cloud was postulated without any observed evidence. He was wrong.
im-skeptical:
The fact that you have been right when discussing the color of the sky with Bob does not change my noticing that you seem to express a very high level of faith in the truth of current science theories.
Is it possible that you seem more certain that your concept of current theories about comets is precisely and factually correct than many of the astronomers are?
If a particular theory requires as part of that theory that some object that is not observed exists and has such and such properties, in order to explain other evidence that is actually observed:
...a a naive realist may say that whatever the currently accepted theory says about the unobserved objects is true, and that the unobserved objects are therefore real and are just as the theory says they are.
This of course ignores the fact that theories may change, and what we thought was real one year may be not thought real another year: consider the ether.
In fact, I think the ether is a good example of where we are with dark matter and energy today. They are postulated entities to fit explanatory gaps in an existing theory, just as the ether was. Better theory will likely replace the terms with a more accurate description,whatever that turns out to be.
Naive realists were once certain that the ether existed, too.
William,
"The fact that you have been right when discussing the color of the sky with Bob does not change my noticing that you seem to express a very high level of faith in the truth of current science theories."
No, I have always maintained that all scientific knowledge is tentative. I do have greater faith in science as a source of knowledge than religion.
"Is it possible that you seem more certain that your concept of current theories about comets is precisely and factually correct than many of the astronomers are?"
That's not what we were talking about. It's not my concept about the theory. It's the simple fact that the theory was based on observed evidence, which Bob seemed to be unaware of.
"If a particular theory requires as part of that theory that some object that is not observed exists and has such and such properties, in order to explain other evidence that is actually observed:"
There was no dispute about what the theory entails. Yes, I know that nobody has observed the Oort cloud directly. We have observed the comets that fall out of the Oort cloud. Whether Bob agrees with that is uncertain.
"a naive realist may say that whatever the currently accepted theory says about the unobserved objects is true, and that the unobserved objects are therefore real and are just as the theory says they are."
If you have correctly characterized naive realism, that certainly does not represent my position. Whether it represents Bob's is uncertain.
"This of course ignores the fact that theories may change, and what we thought was real one year may be not thought real another year ..."
You're preaching to the choir.
In fact, I think you have absolutely no idea what level of understanding I have about science. You shouldn't believe everything you hear in this blog.
"How in God's Green Earth do you imagine me to be wrong here?"
Even though what you said is true, you're "attacking" 'Science!' -- you creationist! 'Science!'-hater -- so, of course you're "wrong!"
"That's not what we were talking about. It's not my concept about the theory. It's the simple fact that the theory was based on observed evidence, which Bob seemed to be unaware of."
Skep, I have almost certainly forgotten more about the work of Jan Oort than you will ever know. What isn't at issue here is Oort's excellent modeling that led him (and all subsequent astronomers) to infer the existence of the cometary cloud that now bears his name. PLEASE, for once in your life, go back over my postings on this thread and try to comprehend the simple English of what is written there. I was pointing out (with 100% accuracy) that there is no observational evidence of the cloud's existence. There is observational data from cometary orbits that allows one to infer (your own wording, by the way) its existence, but that is an entirely different kettle of fish.
Ironically amusing in this context is Skep's delusion that I was unaware of Oort's work in this area, since just last week I attended a lecture up in Springfield, Vermont, on THIS VERY SUBJECT, where the theoretical underpinnings of how we know the cloud to exist were gone over in detail. So not only is the subject at hand well known to me, the details of it are fresh in my mind.
"there is no observational evidence of the cloud's existence. There is observational data from cometary orbits that allows one to infer (your own wording, by the way) its existence".
OK, Bob, there is evidence that allows us to infer its existence. That's what I have been saying from the beginning. When you say "there is no observational evidence of the cloud's existence", what you really mean is that we can't see it directly.
Sheesh!!
"what you really mean is that we can't see it directly"
Exactly what I've been saying with crystal clarity right from the start. But your problem (and that of so many ideologically pure atheists, is that you can't stand the idea that theists, Christians even, can have great respect for science and the scientific method. For Pete's sake, we invented science - we own it!
So you feel obligated (with no hope for success) to expose the Faithful as ignorant rubes who believe the Earth was created 6,000 years ago. You are incapable of reconciling the idea of belief in God with scientific literacy, despite the plain facts staring you in the face.
Your knee-jerk lame attempt at a slapdown was nothing more than an expression of your "fragile beliefs" (your expression) being threatened. You simply couldn't control yourself, could you? You didn't bother to actually read and comprehend my initial posting - you were compelled to regard it as somehow "wrong" and attack things you yourself believed in, simply because (gasp) a theist - a Catholic, even! - posted them.
Sheesh!
"Exactly what I've been saying with crystal clarity right from the start."
No, Bob. What you've been saying with crystal clarity from the beginning is that there is absolutely no observational evidence for the Oort cloud. Obviously, I took that to mean something different from what you are now saying. So let's just chalk it up to a misunderstanding.
This has nothing to do with theist vs atheist beliefs. It's about a simple matter of fact: was there, or was there not evidence for the Oort cloud. You said there wasn't, and I said there was (because I know that Oort himself discussed the evidence he used in postulating the cloud). Nothing more than that. So I'll be generous and say that it was my misunderstanding, not your mistake and subsequent backtracking. OK?
"there is absolutely no observational evidence for the Oort cloud"
Right. Why are you simply repeating what I've already said, and which you have agreed to, and then fight against it in some sort of insane self-contradiction?
Read my initial posting: "despite no observational evidence of any sort" (bolding as in the original). I never said, at any time (I just re-checked), that there was no evidence. I said there was no observational evidence. And you even agreed with me, right here: "Jan Oort actually inferred the existence of the Oort cloud from the observed evidence of comets with long-term orbits. Since then, theoretical models have tended to confirm it." And amazingly, you even used my very wording in your supposed refutation, i.e., "model". This is where I started to seriously wonder whether you suffered from some mental defect, rendering you incapable of understanding the plain meaning of Simple English and unable to recognize a contradiction when you see one. How else to explain my saying something, your repeating right back at me the very same thing, and then proceeding to insist that I admit to being wrong?
Huh?
B!Proort: "My favorite example of what you're [i.e. 'scientific realism'] talking about is the Oort Cloud of comets, which surrounds the Solar System. Now there is absolutely zero observational evidence for the Oort Cloud's existence. Zilch. Nado. Nichego. None. Yet every last astronomy textbook in existence will calmly assert its existence. No scientist disputes it. We have 100.000% agreement on this.
Now why is this? Because it fits the model. By unaided reason, astronomers can assert with confidence that said unobserved cloud of comets actually does exist, despite no observational evidence of any sort."
I-pretend-to-care-about-truth: "Bob clearly said "by unaided reason", "despite no observational evidence of any sort". He expects us to believe that we accept scientific facts without evidence. I challenge that assertion. Science is not a religion."
I-pretend-to-care-about-truth: "That's [that 'Science!' fetishists make a religion of 'Science!'] a projection that theists love to make, because it seems to reduce science (as a source of knowledge and understanding) to the level of religion.
['Science!' is Great, 'Science!' is Good, We thank 'Science!' for our food!]
So you may be disdainful of people who place their trust in science as a source of knowledge, but they have every right to be equally disdainful of people who place their trust in religious faith, ..."
I-pretend-to-care-about-truth: "You say the observation of comets does not constitute observational evidence for the Oort cloud, or the observation of gravitational effects on bodies in space does not constitute observational evidence for dark matter."
I-pretend-to-care-about-truth: "[and so on]"
Now, any idiot can see that B.Prokop did not say, nor even imply, that "... 'we' accept scientific facts (*) without evidence", nor that he is (or that anyone shouold be) "disdainful of people who place their trust in science as a source of knowledge", not that "the observation of comets does not constitute observational evidence for the Oort cloud".
Any idiot can see that when B.Prokop said "By unaided reason, astronomers can assert with confidence that said unobserved cloud of comets actually does exist, despite no observational evidence of any sort" he was talking about the "confident assertions" of the non-hypothetical existence of an Oort Cloud arount this and other solar systems *despite* the total lack of any actual observations of said hypothetical cloud of comets around the Solar system.
But, sadly, 'I-pretend-to-reason' is no idiot; rather, he's simply a fool.
(*) Besides which, what in the Hell is a "scientific fact"? Is it anything like a "scientific truth" -- which doesn't even exist?
To reiterate --
The "observational evidence" that Jan Ooort had is this -- and only this -- "we observe comets" and "we observe that different comets have different orbits, with different periods".
Now, Mr Oort obviously being not quite the 'Science!' worshipping fool that 'I-pretend' is, he realized that the *fact* that we observe comets is a potential falsifier for the consensus theory of the origin, history, and age of the Solar system. For, *if* the Solar system is indeed 4.568 billion years old, and *if* the observed comets had been following their observed orbits for 4.568 billion years old, *then* all of them would have been solar-eroded to nothing billions of years ago.
SO, in order to save the consensus theory of the origin, history, and age of the Solar system from *disconfirmation* (i.e. falsification) by actual observations, Mr Oort hypothesized that there exists a vast "cloud" of material orbiting the sun at a very great distance, and that periodically, some "perturbance" disturbs the orbits of some of these objects, such that they fall into new orbits which bring them into the inner solar system, where they draw near enough to the sun to be seen as comets.
The Oort Cloud is hypothetical; if if does exist, it has never been observed ... in *any* way, shape, or form. Pace 'I-pretend-to-know-what-I'm-talking-about', it has never been *confirmed* in any way, shape, or form.
Misspelled Homeric Epic:
This is getting ridiculous. We're going to have to stop agreeing with each other, or people might start to talk. Damn! If only I hadn't taken a solemn vow to never discuss politics on the internet! Maybe Victor can help us out here by starting a topic on the Papacy or Marian devotions.
"Misspelled Homeric Epic"
The name of the Homeric epic, 'Iliad' means, roughly, "Concerning Ilion"
'Ilion' is, roughly speaking, the actual name of the ancient city we English speakers call 'Troy'.
My Christian name is 'Troy' ... and I have been using 'Ilíon' as the "name of my name" since roughly 1978.
"This is getting ridiculous. We're going to have to stop agreeing with each other, or people might start to talk."
I am not a partisan with respect to persons ... any partisanship I have is for the truth. You are being unfairly misrepresented.
"any partisanship I have is for the truth"
That's rich. Ilion is now pretending to be scientifically literate. Here's a paraphrase of what he believes about geological dating (from another thread):
Geological dating is invalid because the age of strata are determined by what fossils are found in them, and the age of fossils are determined by what strata they are found in.
So he evidently got this from some creationist source, and bought it, hook, line, and sinker.
IMHO, one of the best science blogs on the internet is "Starts with a Band" written by Ethan Siegel over on ScienceBlogs.com. Ethan, more than anyone else I can think of, presents the observational evidence that backs up the theoretical discussions. If you do a search in the blog for "Dark Matter" you will get scores of really excellent articles that show exactly why Dark Matter almost assuredly exists. Here is an example: http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/01/18/why-the-universe-needs-dark-matter-and-not-mond-in-one-graph/
"Geological dating is invalid because the age of strata are determined by what fossils are found in them, and the age of fossils are determined by what strata they are found in."
Now I am the furthest thing in the world from a Young Earth Creationist, and happily believe in a 4.5 billion year old planet (and a 13.7 billion year old universe), but I ask you Skep, where is the logical fallacy in the quote you cited? All you did was sneer and offered no counter-argument (other than an ad hominem, once removed, and that by inference* only).
* Damn, there's that pesky word again!
"where is the logical fallacy in the quote you cited?"
It wasn't a quote. But the fallacy lies in the fact that there are many methods of dating, most notably radiological, but also including others like paleomagnetics. The circular methodology as he describes it simply isn't true.
Incidentally, Bob, anybody with a modicum of scientific literacy would recognize immediately what's wrong with Ilion's assessment of dating methodology.
Except that I didn't ask for a scientific refutation (which I could have easily supplied myself) - I was interested in your logical refutation.
im-skeptical:
Quoting you above:
"Bob clearly said "by unaided reason", "despite no observational evidence of any sort". He expects us to believe that we accept scientific facts without evidence. I challenge that assertion. "
Do you think that the Oort cloud, or dark energy, are scientific facts?
"I was interested in your logical refutation."
Right.
"Right."
I'll take that to mean you don't have one.
"Do you think that the Oort cloud, or dark energy, are scientific facts?"
Oort cloud - yes. It's like evolution - well established in science and by far the most reasonable way to explain the observed evidence.
Dark energy - not so much. It's a recently postulated energy field that explains the apparent acceleration of expansion of the observable universe. I think time will whether it becomes as well-established in physics as gravitation, or is explained in a different way.
I think we disagree about facts versus theories. You seem to think that a theory which is well established is a fact. I don't think that even completely true theories are facts.
I think that when we get out 5K or 10K AU from earth, and look at things there, we may ONLY then establish the Ooort cloud as fact (or not).
William,
Yes, it's a matter of opinion. There's no hard rule. Most scientists consider well-established theories like evolution as fact. I think the Oort cloud has a similar level of certainty, but that's just an opinion. This is something where Bob could undoubtedly offer a better opinion.
Skep,
The Oort Cloud satisfies all current models of cometary behavior, which is why it is universally accepted. But such an object has never been observed, neither around this, nor around any other star. Nevertheless, this hypothetical construct (and that is all it is) best explains... (wait for it) what we do observe. The same goes for evolution, dark matter (so far, at least), and the Big Bang.
Which brings me full circle to my original point of 46 postings ago, that the scientific community (and by extension, the public at large) accepts many things as fact by unaided reason... Just as it is possible to acknowledge the existence of an unobserved God by unaided reason, as the best "explainer" of things in this world which we do observe (e.g., creation itself, consciousness, morality, good and evil, purpose and meaning, beauty, etc.)
Bob and Im's ramble through the Oort Cloud seems to have been about the distinction between direct and indirect observational evidence. Bob's original claim was that there is no observational evidence of any sort for the Oort Cloud. But surely indirect observational evidence is a species of observational evidence. Bob's embolded none of any sort appears to rule this out. So unless indirect is alienans in this context Bob appears to be saying that there is no indirect observational evidence for the OC. Now I don't know much about the OC but Bob later makes a similar claim concerning some other hypothesised entities including dark matter and black holes. We've been given a number of references for dark matter and here's one for black holes. These would suggest that there is indirect observational evidence in these cases, contradicting Bob's claim. I'm not surprised that Im misunderstood.
But after all that are we any closer to an exegesis of Victor's original post? I for one don't understand it. The effect (no need for scare quotes) of the dm we can detect is its gravitation. No problem there. The difficulty appears to be that none of the candidates (we do have some ideas as to what it might be) for the dm have themselves been observed in particle accelerators, cosmic rays, etc. They are all hypothetical entities that appear in the standard model of particle physics, and its variants. Nor do we yet have an explanation for the dm's cosmogenesis. It's an interesting situation.
My question is simple: Do some people demand a certain kind of evidence for God that they would not demand for something like dark matter? Is there a double standard going on here?
As for the OP, the question posed was: "how can they be sure that they are observing dark matter/energy's "effects" then?"
I think a better question to ask would be: "what is it that causes the effects that we observe?" We infer that there is something, but we don't really know what it is, as it has never been directly detected. That's why we call it dark matter and dark energy.
urban jean: Isn't it one of the basic values of empiricism that directly experienced evidence is considered to be of better quality than more indirect and inductive types of evidence?
Ilíon: "...any partisanship I have is for the truth [which includes sound reasoning]"
I-wouldn't-recognize-truth-even-after-it-bit-me-in-the-ass: "That's rich. Ilion is now pretending to be scientifically literate."
Notice, Gentle Reader, the internationally recognized call of the 'Science!' fetishist: the attempt to equate 'science' and 'truth'.
But modern science isn't even about truth (*); and, in fact, truth is irrelevant in modern science (**) (***). Modern science is about control and manipulation of the subject matter, whether that is atoms or persons. The "understanding" of the subject matter one seeks or obtains via modern science is not required to be, in any sense, true: all that matters is that the "understanding" extends one's ability to control and manipulation the matter. *IF* one's scientific "understanding" of the subject happens to be partly true, or even entirely true ... well, as the saying goes, with that and $5.95 you can buy yourself a 'tall'.
Scientific statements *may* be true -- or they may be false -- but in neither event can "science" tell one, or even help one to decide, which is the case (****).
(*) Perhaps 'modern science' used to be about truth, some hundreds of years ago, or when it was still called 'natural philosophy'; but if it ever was, it isn't now.
(**) And, considering the sort of "theories" and "reasoning" accepted as being 'scientific', it is clear that reason and logic are irrelevant in modern science.
(***) And, considering demonstrable facts, it would seem that honesty is relevant in modern science only when one gets caught.
(****) Though, as the more interesting scientific statements are compound statements, the odds are that any particular scientific statement is comprised of some statements that are true and some that are false. And, again, "science" is helpless to determine which is which.
I-pretend-to-be-all-scientifical-and-stuff: "That's rich. Ilion is now pretending to be scientifically literate. Here's a paraphrase of what he believes about geological dating (from another thread):
Geological dating is invalid because the age of strata are determined by what fossils are found in them, and the age of fossils are determined by what strata they are found in."
It's a very liberal paraphrase -- so "liberal", in fact, that if this were politics, we'd have to call it leftist -- for the subject matter had nothing to do with the validity of geological dating.
The subject matter was that stupid-and-dishonest "Precambrian rabbit fossil"; you know the one, the discovery of which all 'Science!' fetishists like to claim would falsify "evolution" (meaning Darwinism) ... so "evolution" is too scientific, you stoopid, ignernt "fundie" "creationist", plus it's a scientific fact, Fact, FACT, an' yer stoopid an' ignernt!
The point was that no discovery of a "Precambrian rabbit fossil" would ever be allowed to falsify evolutionism -- there is too much riding on it. One way or another, that the fossil is of a rabbit would be "proof" that the fossil is not from the Precambrian.
When Christains are asked, "What potential evidence would falsify Christianity?" we can give some very specific answers, among which are:
1) solid evidence (aka 'proof') that Jesus Christ did not rise from the dead;
1a) proof that it's logically impossible for that-which-is-not-alive to be caused to be alive;
2) solid evidence (aka 'proof') that Jesus Christ was not crixified in the first place;
3) solid evidence (aka 'proof') that "Jesus Christ" never lived in the first place;
Things like that are potential falsifiers for Christianity, but not for "theism" in general; but "theism", too, has potential falsifiers:
4) logical proof that there is no Creator-God;
5) logical proof that logic is illogical;
6) logical proof that there is no objective transcendent morality;
Of the potential falsifiers for Christianity, the 'Science!' fetishist replies, "Those don't count, they're too unlikely". Of the potential falsifiers for "theism" in general, the 'Science!' fetishist replies, "Those don't count, they involve logic, not 'evidence'".
And *how* does the the 'Science!' fetishist reply when he is asked what are some possible falsifiers for *his* religion? In tendentious bad-faith, he offers the hypothetical discovery of a "Precambrian rabbit fossil", which example everyone who understands what's going understands is wholly bogus -- one way or another, that the fossil is of a rabbit would be "proof" that the fossil is not from the Precambrian. And, if needs be, if is couldn't be denied or discounted that the fossil is from the Precambrian, then like Jan Oort "discovering" the Oort Cloud, someone would "discover" something that falsifies the falsification.
I-pretend-to-be-rational_(and-psychic): "So he evidently got this from some creationist source, and bought it, hook, line, and sinker."
Now, it's true that I am "older than dirt" (*), and possibly older than the ready availibility of radiometric dating, but it wasn't *that* long ago that I took a couple of elective courses in college in the "hard sciences", and witnessed scientific "reasoning" and "scientific facts" in person.
In one class, and it was right there in the text book, we were "informed" that a certain rock formation is known to be a certain age because it contains certain specific fossils. In a different class the next semester, and it was right there in the text book, we were "informed" that the fossil remains in a certain rock formation are known to be a certain age because they are found in that specific rock formation. In both cases, it was the exact same rock formation and fossil types.
Most people aren't really paying attention, and so wouldn't notice this stunning circularity if so "informed" in a single sentence, much less with a span of months separating the two claims; but I do notice this sort of thing.
I guess, being all "scientifically literate" and all, 'I-pretend' has never heard of index fossils.
(*) When I was a small child, it was "scientific fact" that the Earth was 2 billion years old, whereas today (being Tuesday), it is "scientific fact" that the Earth is 4.54 billion years old. Applying quite simple arithmetic to these "scientific facts", it is clear that I am over 2.54 billions of years old -- clearly, any dirt that could have been found when I was a child has long since become sedimentary rock, and so I am older than the dirt that presently exists on Earth.
Hi William,
yes, to get from 'there are bear tracks entering the cave' to 'there's an unseen bear in the cave' requires some sort of theory which would have to include 'the cave has no back door' and 'bears don't walk backwards'. It's not the quality of the indirect evidence that matters---I can see bear tracks as veridically as I can see bears---so much as the quality of the theory.
" Isn't it one of the basic values of empiricism that directly experienced evidence is considered to be of better quality than more indirect and inductive types of evidence?"
There is no directly experienced evidence. Look at the table in front of you. You can say you see it directly, so you know it's there. But you don't see anything directly. Light reflects from the surface and enters your eye, and that's what you experience. But the light might just as well be coming from a holographic image. If you reach out and touch it, you now have additional evidence that the table is there, but what are you touching? A smooth, flat surface? Well, it appears that way, but it's not. It's mostly empty space.
The point is, all we experience is what our senses tell us, and that is at best a distorted version of reality. there is no such thing as direct evidence.
"Most people aren't really paying attention, and so wouldn't notice this stunning circularity if so "informed" in a single sentence, much less with a span of months separating the two claims; but I do notice this sort of thing.
I guess, being all "scientifically literate" and all, 'I-pretend' has never heard of index fossils."
Gee, Ilion, maybe if you had been paying attention in class, you would have learned about what makes an index fossil useful as a tool for dating, and you would have understood that there is nothing circular about dating methodology. Read a book, for god's sake.
B.Prokop: "The Oort Cloud satisfies all current models of cometary behavior, which is why it is universally accepted. But such an object has never been observed, neither around this, nor around any other star. Nevertheless, this hypothetical construct (and that is all it is) best explains... (wait for it) what we do observe. The same goes for evolution, dark matter (so far, at least), and the Big Bang."
Strictly speaking, it is *not* true that the hypothetical construct -- a mental construct, and a posit -- which we call the "Oort Cloud" "best explains ... what we do observe". Strictly speaking, the hypothetical positing we call the "Oort Cloud" is one possible explanation for what is actually observed -- given certain background assumptions; and depending upon *which* background assumptions are chosen, it *may* be the best explanation for what is observed.
The two primary/critical background assumptions for the hypothesis of the "Oort Cloud" are:
1) that the solar system is indeed billions of years old (*);
2) uniformitarianism.
Eliminate assumption 1), and there is no longer a *need* to posit that any "Oort Cloud" exists. (And, recall, the "Oort Cloud" is posited only because it is *needed* to rescue the claim that the solar system is billions of years old from falsification by actual observations).
Eliminate assumption 2) while keeping assumption 1), and, once again, there is no longer a *need* to posit that any "Oort Cloud" exists, while at the same time opening up hypothetical room for other hypotheses that may be used to rescue the claim that the solar system is billions of years old from falsification by actual observations, including this one:
H1) The astroid belt is not a "failed planet", after all, but the "corpse" of a "killed planet", and its destruction (by whatever cause) at some time in the relatively recent past (**) is the the source of the comets we observe today.
(*) 'Science!' fetishist fools: why not just spare yourself the embarrassment of gratifying your *need* to dispute what I said? -- in the context of hypothesizing about and positing the "Oort Cloud", the claim that the solar system is billions of years old is an assumption.
(**) millions of years is "recent past" in relation to billions of years.
B.Prokop: "Which brings me full circle to my original point of 46 postings ago, that the scientific community (and by extension, the public at large) accepts many things as fact by unaided reason... "
Bringing us back to VR's original question (and which I've already answered at least once by demonstration).
B.Prokop: "... Just as it is possible to acknowledge the existence of an unobserved God by unaided reason, as the best "explainer" of things in this world which we do observe ..."
Fortunately, we don't have to rely on it being the "best explanation" to believe in God or to justify that belief. We can test the proposition that "God is" -- for, to test the proposition that "God is not" is logically to test the proposition that "God is". When we *do* test the proposition that "God is not", we notice that it intrinsically throws all manner of absurdities. THEREFORE, we *know* that the proposition that "God is not" is itself absurd ... and false. THEREFORE, we *know* that the proposition that "God is" is the truth about the nature of reality.
"fetishist fools: why not just spare yourself the embarrassment of gratifying your *need* to dispute what I said? -- in the context of hypothesizing about and positing the "Oort Cloud", the claim that the solar system is billions of years old is an assumption."
No, actually it is a conclusion. We used to believe what we learned from religious sources. An then we started using our brains, and we learned that we could use evidence to calculate the age of things like our solar system.
im-skeptical:
"
There is no directly experienced evidence. Look at the table in front of you. You can say you see it directly, so you know it's there. But you don't see anything directly.
"
Actually, I experience my own consciousness directly (Descartes said this better). Even if other experience is via brain representation, this just adds one layer of indirection to all experience, so what we know by indirect evidence is still one step further from the actual than what is directly represented.
William,
I suppose conscious experience is as close as we can get to direct experience, but to the point of the discussion, is seeing something better than a different kind of evidence for its existence? I'm not sure it is. Many things simply can't be seen, so we use some instrument to detect them, and that instrument might even produce an image that we can see. An electron microscope creates artificial 'light' with electrons that have much shorter wavelength than visible light, so they can produce an image of small things that could never be seen by magnification of ordinary light. Is that direct observation?
If rain falls on us, we're pretty sure we know where it came from. We don't have to travel up to the cloud and watch the droplet form, and follow its path as it makes its way toward the ground. We don't even have to look up to know that there's something up there making the rain. We understand how rain is produced.
“My question is simple: Do some people demand a certain kind of evidence for God that they would not demand for something like dark matter? Is there a double standard going on here?”
Speaking is simplistic terms, if Dark Matter ™ doesn’t exist then either the Laws of Nature are different (see Modified Newtonian Dynamics models) or the Universe would be a very different place (i.e. the galaxies would not exist). The MoND models have their problems, and the Univers is not a very different place therefore: DM.
So, now let’s apply this to God ™. If God doesn’t exist then …What? What exactly would be different if God did not exist? Or, asked differently, what would have to change in the Universe to compensate for the non-existence of God? Frankly, I can’t think of anything – if God does not exist, then the Universe is just exactly how we naturally find it. So, no I don’t believe that there is a double standard. The standard of evidence is the same, it is just that Dark Matter ™ accounts for real effects, while God does not – same standard, just different outcomes.
You have started an interesting hare, Im, but in the current discussion I fear it serves only to obfuscate a useful distinction that we ordinarily make. Victor has said that his question is about the demand for evidence. Toothmarks in the cheese counts as indirect evidence for the existence of a mouse. Catching the little blighter in flagrante is direct evidence.
My suggestion is that indirect evidence for something is relative to some theory about that something, some prior conceptualisation of it. In evaluating evidence for God the problem lies not so much in the evidential phenomena but in one's prior theory of God.
In the context of the dark matter question, the prior theory is our understanding of gravitation and the luminosity of galaxies. Those theories imply that a galaxy sufficiently massive to account for the observed motion of its stars would be more luminous than it's observed to be. Hence the conclusion that some galactic matter doesn't contribute to luminosity. The prior theory is well understood and independently justified. I'm not sure we can say the same for our prior understanding of God.
I think, speaking to Victor's OP, that religious faith and experience counts as direct evidence for God for many, and that paradoxically the problem for many others is the lack of solid indirect evidence for those who have no direct evidence.
In addition, there is the issue of our lacking an agreed on theory for why so may are lacking in direct evidence.
"The prior theory is well understood and independently justified. I'm not sure we can say the same for our prior understanding of God."
I agree. However, if the prior theory of God is not well understood and independently justified enough to make some type of coherent testable statement shouldn't we, from a strictly philosophical perspective, put the whole idea up on the agnostic bookshelf?
"in the current discussion I fear it serves only to obfuscate a useful distinction that we ordinarily make"
I agree with that. It was not my intent to make a fuss about direct vs indirect evidence. To me, it's all evidence. The point was that scientific theories are in fact based on evidence. We can't detect dark energy or dark matter, but we have good reason to postulate their existence. Because they explain what we can detect. We may be wrong about them. Perhaps we just don't understand how gravitation works, and a better model of gravitation (or a unified field theory) would explain both. Whatever we eventually settle on, it will be based on evidence, and it will explain the things we observe. That's what science is all about.
Belief in god really doesn't provide any explanatory power. Why does the universe expand? You can say god made it that way, but it still doesn't explain how it works. And besides not explaining how things work, there isn't any observed evidence that that's what happened. The closest we come to evidence is that some people have a feeling or inner experience that they interpret as god. Nothing objective, nothing measurable, nothing that everyone can see and agree on. So if there's any kind of double standard going on, it's those people who are using it.
"Belief in god really doesn't provide any explanatory power."
Depends on what it is you're trying to explain.
The really important questions in our lives have absolutely nothing to do with "why does the universe expand?" or "what's the internal structure of a black hole?" or "is there such a thing as dark matter?"
No, the fundamental questions of life, "what is Good, and why is there Evil?", "is there a purpose to my existence? and if so, what is it?", "what is beauty and what is Love?", and most importantly, "how shall I live?" - those never can and never will be answered by "science", and the quest for answers will, I assure you, land you at God's doorstep.
How would you answer Victor's question, then, Bob? Would you say that it's somehow misconceived, that we don't arrive at God by a process that bears analogy with the examination of forensic or scientific evidence? Not so much a case of double standards as two very different standards? I think that's a reasonable position.
"with the examination of forensic or scientific evidence"
Not entirely sure what you mean by that, but I've said before on this site that anything/body whose existence one could ascertain by purely empirical methods would not be God, but part of His creation. Asking to be able to nail down the Creator within creation is like looking for a painter inside one of his paintings. You can discern his work, but not his being.
"You can discern his work, but not his being."
Well, that's the crux of the biscuit. The truth is, you can't discern his work. You can't look at the cruelty of nature and say, "That's god's work." You can't look at the vastness of the universe, knowing that we occupy such a tiny bit of it, and say, "God made all this just for us." You can't look at humans, with all their wars and incivility and stupidity, and say, "God must have given us our power to reason."
No, all you can do is cherry-pick the things you like about the world and human existence and say, "This is all the proof I need."
"You can't look at the cruelty (sic) of nature and say, "That's [G]od's work."
But I do, Skep, I do.
"You can't look at the vastness of the universe, knowing that we occupy such a tiny bit of it, and say, "God made all this just for us""
I don't know anyone who does (say this). Read my book Eyes to See, pages 78-80.
"You can't look at humans, with all their wars and incivility and stupidity, and say, "God must have given us our power to reason.""
But He did, Skep. It's we who abused the gift, not Him.
You can't look at the cruelty (sic) of nature and say, "That's [G]od's work."
And where do you get off, Skep, calling nature "cruel"? Do you call the Sun cruel as it annihilates untold numbers of hydrogen atoms, forcibly fusing them into helium? Do you call a supernova cruel, as it (presumably) blasts an entire solar system out of existence? You need (shudder) an objective moral standard by which to judge something in order to term it "cruel". And that standard by logical necessity cannot be part of the object or system under judgment.
Also, ""You can't look at the vastness of the universe, knowing that we occupy such a tiny bit of it, and say, "God made all this just for us". Well, as I already said, I don't. But even if I did, so what? What's stopping me from doing so? Where is your evidence that that's not the case?
"And where do you get off, Skep, calling nature "cruel"?"
I was referring more to the living creatures that devour one another, the disease, the suffering. If these things were created by intention, it is indeed cruel.
As for you not claiming that the universe was made for us, that's great, but many people do. What evidence do I have to claim otherwise? The whole, vast universe.
"It's we who abused the gift, not Him."
We live according to our nature. If we are stupid and we do stupid things, it's not because we made ourselves that way.
"We live according to our nature. If we are stupid and we do stupid things"
A self-contradiction in this sentence - if we live according to our nature, then nothing we do can be "stupid", but merely what must be. Is a rock "stupid" for falling when you let it go? You're trying to have it both ways, but you can't. Either everything is exactly as it should be, or we are responsible for our actions. One or the other, but not both.
"Either everything is exactly as it should be, or we are responsible for our actions. One or the other, but not both."
1. People have various levels of intelligence.
2. Many people do stupid things or make bad choices because they're not smart enough to make the right choices.
3. People don't get to choose how intelligent they are.
If god made us, then HE made us the way we are. If he doesn't like the way we turned out, it's nobody's fault but HIS. He has no business punishing people for all eternity because he couldn't manage to make us more pleasing to himself.
Post a Comment