Dark matter - methodologically non-empirical?

[Kyle Taggart]

I am finding this claim in a discussion I’m having with a Phil major at college hard to rebut: the discussion is on dark matter, which he claimed was non-empirical, I showed it was, and then he said this: 
“I never claimed it what not physical, that would be very disingenuous... I claimed that it is assessed on non empirical grounds. How can you deny this? If you do you have to show that: 1) dark matter was believed because of it being tested and 2) that the testing comes from direct observation and not inference (otherwise empiricism is lost).  
It's existence is assessed because of its explanatory power.”
How do I show the falsity of this? Thanks all! 

[taeto]

Does such an argument not entail that gravity itself is just inferred and not directly observed?

[StringJunky]

Is he wrong? Seems like a pretty sound argument to me.

Edited August 21, 2018 by StringJunky

[Kyle Taggart]

Yes taeto, based on our discussion (which has been very broad, this is just one snippet) he would hold this. His main contention is that science can deal with the non-empirical, that accepting abductive reasoning as valid means science can infer God and the like, and that what I hold science to be (I believe science rests on three pillars: falsifiability, testability, and reproducibility. He rejects these, especially reproducibility) is wrong and unfounded. 

1 minute ago, StringJunky said:

Is he wrong?

If he is right, he undermines the whole enterprise of science as I understand it: our whole argument is whether or not science can deal with the non-empirical. He is arguing against abiogenesis and for God as abductively the best explanation for life, and I am arguing that this violates science’s methods, which restrict it to empirical claims. I just put a thread up in philosophy and bio sections with much more of what he said if anyone is interested in discussing/helping more 

5 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Is he wrong? Seems like a pretty sound argument to me.

Perhaps, though, we are both misunderstanding what empirical means, or some other term/concept. I just want to defend the methodology of science against religious dogmatic intrusion and philosophical overreach. 

 

I should note that his core contention is: if science can deal with the non-empirical in inference (inferring dark matter in this example, as in the quote above) God can be abduced as the best explanation for life (against abiogenesis) without violating the methods of science 

Edited August 21, 2018 by Kyle Taggart

[StringJunky]

27 minutes ago, Kyle Taggart said:

Yes taeto, based on our discussion (which has been very broad, this is just one snippet) he would hold this. His main contention is that science can deal with the non-empirical, that accepting abductive reasoning as valid means science can infer God and the like, and that what I hold science to be (I believe science rests on three pillars: falsifiability, testability, and reproducibility. He rejects these, especially reproducibility) is wrong and unfounded. 

If he is right, he undermines the whole enterprise of science as I understand it: our whole argument is whether or not science can deal with the non-empirical. He is arguing against abiogenesis and for God as abductively the best explanation for life, and I am arguing that this violates science’s methods, which restrict it to empirical claims. I just put a thread up in philosophy and bio sections with much more of what he said if anyone is interested in discussing/helping more 

Perhaps, though, we are both misunderstanding what empirical means, or some other term/concept. I just want to defend the methodology of science against religious dogmatic intrusion and philosophical overreach. 

 

I should note that his core contention is: if science can deal with the non-empirical in inference (inferring dark matter in this example, as in the quote above) God can be abduced as the best explanation for life (against abiogenesis) without violating the methods of science 

Right. I  just looked at his quote in isolation. Empirically, dark matter is not directly measurable. It can only be observed in a roundabout way via effects on other stuff.  It sounds like he's pushing it too far. More generally, you can't argue against the faithful and devout because they will alter reality to fit their beliefs. Confirmation bias is their loyal companion.

Edited August 21, 2018 by StringJunky

[Kyle Taggart]

Okay. In that light, any suggestions on responding? As I understand it, his argument is that since we know of the existence of dark matter through abduction (inference to the best explanation), indirectly through observing other entities as you said, empiricism is shut down: science can deal with the non-empirical as it supposedly does here, and so it can, hypothetically, deal with God (that’s all this is: we’re not arguing over whether the arguments for God from science are valid or invalid. We’re arguing over whether they can even be made in the first place given the parameters of science). 

Let me rephrase his argument, and then respond if you like:

Dark matter is inferred for its explanatory power. It is not directly observed. It explains the data, so it’s rationally posited using the scientific method. If this is the case, why can’t one, hypothetically, posit God if He is the best available explanation for physical observations using scientific abductive reasoning? 

It won’t be enough to just say he’s going too far, believe me  

As a Christian revert from atheism myself, I’m with you in abhorring the prevelance of confirmation bias among the devout. Just look at the evidence folks, as hard as I know from experience that is to do...

Thanks a lot :). 

@studiot the definition of empirical as I understand it: Empirical evidence includes measurements or data collected through direct observation or experimentation. It relies essentially on experimental verification. If a scientific proposition cannot be verified experimentally (tested), is not falsifiable (can’t be shown to be wrong through experiment), or is not reproducible experimentally, it is not scientific, as I understand science (perhaps I’m wrong). I understand empirical to essentially mean physical, experimental. 

Edited August 21, 2018 by Kyle Taggart

[studiot]

2 hours ago, Kyle Taggart said:

dark matter, which he claimed was non-empirical,

There are too many steps missing from both your and his arguments.

I suppose you should start by agreeing what empirical means.

Then everything that does not satisfy the agreed definition is non empirical.

 

So what do you think it means?

In particular do you consider empirical or non empirical measurable?

Looking at the way you are using the word I have a different concept. Further I have no problem with both non empirical and empirical methods and data in Science.

 

[beecee]

7 hours ago, Kyle Taggart said:

Yes taeto, based on our discussion (which has been very broad, this is just one snippet) he would hold this. His main contention is that science can deal with the non-empirical, that accepting abductive reasoning as valid means science can infer God and the like, and that what I hold science to be (I believe science rests on three pillars: falsifiability, testability, and reproducibility. He rejects these, especially reproducibility) is wrong and unfounded. 

If we accept that science can infer god, then what about the claims that are associated in general with any God? Testing for the actual existence of God may not be possible, but what is possible is to put under scientific scrutiny the stuff that is generally attributed to this supernatural being. You know creating the world 6000 years ago, is easily falsified as total nonsense, or  the same scientific scrutiny can be put to work to falsify  other examples of the supernatural, say a ghost for example and a haunted house.

With regards to the final rejection by our friend re falsifiability, testability and reproducibility, this appears as simply rejecting outright the scientific method. Perhaps as the scientific method has demoted any need for any god like creature via those three pillars would be strong reasons for some fanatical religious person to automatically reject them without any logical reason to do so.

The same also goes for his outright rejection of abiogenisis. The eternal question then always remains, how is any god like creature able to have infinite powers and have existed for eternity? At least science in speculative arguments based on already current knowledge and observational data, can speculate about all of spacetime, matter energy arising via quantum fluctuations from nothing. 

 

 

Edited August 22, 2018 by beecee

[Strange]

10 hours ago, Kyle Taggart said:

It's existence is assessed because of its explanatory power.”

And, what needs to be explained? The evidence. 

You can’t make the evidence go away by playing with words. 

11 hours ago, Kyle Taggart said:

1) dark matter was believed because of it being tested and 2) that the testing comes from direct observation and not inference

It is tested and it is based on direct observation.

That is for the existence of something we call "drama matter".

We don't know what "dark matter" is and there have been many hypothesis -- some of them being that it is a form of matter -- some have been rejected because of testing and direct observation others are still consistent with the evidence.

Even if we make "direct" observations of dark matter particles, those will be indirect -- as all such detections are.

 

9 hours ago, Kyle Taggart said:

Okay. In that light, any suggestions on responding?

There is no point. You are talking about different things.

When he uses the word "science" he is talking about something he has made up, not science as it is actually done. Therefore nothing you can say about science is relevant. Similarly, whatever he says about his "science" is irrelevant because he is not talking about science but is invented (strawman) version of it.

You could point out he is making a category error of his own invention. And then walk away.

[studiot]

Hello Kyle,

Let me first say that it is poor practice to add answers as an Edit.
If this happened as a result of the stupid forum software I apologise and will direct my ire elsewhere.

I looked for an answer but did not notice that you had replied since it is placed a the post preceeding mine until much later.
So it apppears as if you had answered my points before I made them.

 

OK so the definition of empirical.

This goes back a very long way, to the ancient Greeks and a sect of physicians who "Drew their rules of practice only from experience".
These were called empirics.

I have emphasised the word only since it is key.

This has translated into modern usage as an adjective empirical

Quote

OED

Based on, guided by or employing observation and experiment rather than theory.

Note the practical bias is still there.

Further note that this is observation v theory.

'Belief' is not included as a valid source.

 

Earlier you noted three pillars

14 hours ago, Kyle Taggart said:

I believe science rests on three pillars: falsifiability, testability, and reproducibility.

This is where I offer my favourite comment that reality or nature is stranger than Man's wildest fiction.

So reproducibility?

Consider a length of wood or a steel bar.

How strong is it?

A simple straightforward scientific question, yes?

Well suppose I actually want to use that bar and need to know how strong it is.

So I test it to destruction.

Is that reproducible?

OK falsifiability.

Here is a photo of a star taken by a Scientist from John Hopkins.

The Scientist said that this plus the second photo gave him a Damascene moment about the difference between local and global truth.

Spoiler

So testability.

Testability implies you have some hypothesis or postulate to test.

So how about the postulate

"There are unexplainable phenomena in Science, that we can never explain"

[Kyle Taggart]

15 hours ago, beecee said:

If we accept that science can infer god, then what about the claims that are associated in general with any God? Testing for the actual existence of God may not be possible, but what is possible is to put under scientific scrutiny the stuff that is generally attributed to this supernatural being. You know creating the world 6000 years ago, is easily falsified as total nonsense, or  the same scientific scrutiny can be put to work to falsify  other examples of the supernatural, say a ghost for example and a haunted house.

With regards to the final rejection by our friend re falsifiability, testability and reproducibility, this appears as simply rejecting outright the scientific method. Perhaps as the scientific method has demoted any need for any god like creature via those three pillars would be strong reasons for some fanatical religious person to automatically reject them without any logical reason to do so.

The same also goes for his outright rejection of abiogenisis. The eternal question then always remains, how is any god like creature able to have infinite powers and have existed for eternity? At least science in speculative arguments based on already current knowledge and observational data, can speculate about all of spacetime, matter energy arising via quantum fluctuations from nothing. 

 

 

He is rejecting the scientific method, I agree. But my problem is this: he challenges me (I've posted his full comments in the philosophy section but haven't gotten a response yet) to defend the scientific method: why does it have to be this way? And I'm at a bit of a loss there.

Philosophy deals nicely with those questions, and he and I agree on that, but he insists that science can address them as well, which I reject. 

13 hours ago, Strange said:

And, what needs to be explained? The evidence. 

You can’t make the evidence go away by playing with words. 

It is tested and it is based on direct observation.

That is for the existence of something we call "drama matter".

We don't know what "dark matter" is and there have been many hypothesis -- some of them being that it is a form of matter -- some have been rejected because of testing and direct observation others are still consistent with the evidence.

Even if we make "direct" observations of dark matter particles, those will be indirect -- as all such detections are.

 

There is no point. You are talking about different things.

When he uses the word "science" he is talking about something he has made up, not science as it is actually done. Therefore nothing you can say about science is relevant. Similarly, whatever he says about his "science" is irrelevant because he is not talking about science but is invented (strawman) version of it.

You could point out he is making a category error of his own invention. And then walk away.

I don't think he is trying to ignore the evidence. He doesn't reject dark matter: he accepts it as you and I do. His contention is more fundamental: if dark matter is inferred as the best way to explain the evidence, and this (according to him) is non-empirical because it is an abstract rational process and doesn't rely on strict experimental observation, science can also infer a deity or a spiritual soul. And this I disagree with, but I'm not sure how to effectively prove the point. 

Can you point me to sources which show that it is directly tested and based on direct observation? Thanks

Drama matter? Forgive my ignorance

I would say there is no point as well, but I guess I'm a bit of a jerk in that I don't like to walk away from a debate...we've been discussing for a while now, and remember I will see this guy regularly around campus lol

I will try to point that out, but here is the problem: he asks me to prove that my conception of science (a raw empirical discipline that relies on falsifiability, testability, and reproducibility) is correct. And I am not sure how to do that. 

8 hours ago, studiot said:

Hello Kyle,

Let me first say that it is poor practice to add answers as an Edit.
If this happened as a result of the stupid forum software I apologise and will direct my ire elsewhere.

I looked for an answer but did not notice that you had replied since it is placed a the post preceeding mine until much later.
So it apppears as if you had answered my points before I made them.

 

OK so the definition of empirical.

This goes back a very long way, to the ancient Greeks and a sect of physicians who "Drew their rules of practice only from experience".
These were called empirics.

I have emphasised the word only since it is key.

This has translated into modern usage as an adjective empirical

Note the practical bias is still there.

Further note that this is observation v theory.

'Belief' is not included as a valid source.

 

Earlier you noted three pillars

This is where I offer my favourite comment that reality or nature is stranger than Man's wildest fiction.

So reproducibility?

Consider a length of wood or a steel bar.

How strong is it?

A simple straightforward scientific question, yes?

Well suppose I actually want to use that bar and need to know how strong it is.

So I test it to destruction.

Is that reproducible?

OK falsifiability.

Here is a photo of a star taken by a Scientist from John Hopkins.

The Scientist said that this plus the second photo gave him a Damascene moment about the difference between local and global truth.

  Reveal hidden contents

So testability.

Testability implies you have some hypothesis or postulate to test.

So how about the postulate

"There are unexplainable phenomena in Science, that we can never explain"

Hello. I was on my iPhone and there was no option to submit a reply (there had previously been). I didn't have access to my laptop (which I am currently using) and so I could only edit my previous comment and tag you so you'd be more likely to see it. So kindly redirect that ire. 

So it seems we're not quite on the same page on that definition. I don't deny that that is the original etymological sense of the word, and how it was understood in antiquity. But I stand by the previously stated definition as the one currently used in the universal practice of natural science. Feel free to offer a critique of that point, I'd like to continue this dialogue

Yes, that is reproducible. Obtain a length of wood or steel bar identical in dimensions, composition, and density to the original. Then perform your tests again. There you go. 

Forgive my ignorance, I don't understand the star photo point. And I can only access one photo, are there two?

That is not a scientific postulate, because it is not experimentally testable as far as I can tell. Keep in mind I regard scientism as self-defeating and regard deductive philosophical reasoning as an equally valid approach to truth as science. I hope I didn't give the impression that I subscribe to scientism ")

[studiot]

32 minutes ago, Kyle Taggart said:

Yes, that is reproducible. Obtain a length of wood or steel bar identical in dimensions, composition, and density to the original. Then perform your tests again. There you go

Gosh patent this quickly, you will become a millionaire.

How do you test something to destruction twice?

31 minutes ago, Kyle Taggart said:

Forgive my ignorance, I don't understand the star photo point. And I can only access one photo, are there two?

 

I've put the second photo in a 'spoiler' ; Click on 'reveal contents' to see it.

There now I've returned the edit compliment.

Edited August 22, 2018 by studiot

[Kyle Taggart]

Just now, studiot said:

Gosh patent this quickly, you will become a millionaire.

How do you test something to destruction twice?

No no. Reproducibility doesn't mean testing the exact same object twice. You obtain an object of the same dimensions, molecular composition, density, etc (shouldn't be too hard in a laboratory setting) and test that to reproduce your results. If you test two objects that are physically identical, you are meeting the criterion of reproducibility. 

[swansont]

22 hours ago, Kyle Taggart said:

 the definition of empirical as I understand it: Empirical evidence includes measurements or data collected through direct observation or experimentation. It relies essentially on experimental verification. If a scientific proposition cannot be verified experimentally (tested), is not falsifiable (can’t be shown to be wrong through experiment), or is not reproducible experimentally, it is not scientific, as I understand science (perhaps I’m wrong). I understand empirical to essentially mean physical, experimental. 

Direct observation or experiment. It does not require naked-eye observation of the item or phenomenon, since that would mean we don't have empirical knowledge of electron, or even atoms, which is ridiculous. Of course experiment requires inference. To deny that is also ridiculous.

The empirical data for dark matter would include the rotation curves (experimental data of rotation rates) or gravitational lensing (observation of images in a particular pattern)

[beecee]

25 minutes ago, Kyle Taggart said:

 His contention is more fundamental: if dark matter is inferred as the best way to explain the evidence, and this (according to him) is non-empirical because it is an abstract rational process and doesn't rely on strict experimental observation, science can also infer a deity or a spiritual soul. And this I disagree with, but I'm not sure how to effectively prove the point. 

But inferring any deity generally is associated with magical supernatural powers that such a deity is said to perform. If we take YECs, they say [I think] that the Earth was created 6000 years ago. That is easily debunked. I'm sure there are many other examples. So in my opinion, debunking all these magical deeds that said deity has performed, show that said deity is superfluous and plainly not needed. Science obviously is a discipline in continued progress. Highlighting the fact that science does not know everything, and thereby invoking some deity, is the old "god of the gaps" fallback on his part. Reality more likely is that at this time we just don't know.

[swansont]

36 minutes ago, Kyle Taggart said:

I don't think he is trying to ignore the evidence. He doesn't reject dark matter: he accepts it as you and I do. His contention is more fundamental: if dark matter is inferred as the best way to explain the evidence, and this (according to him) is non-empirical because it is an abstract rational process and doesn't rely on strict experimental observation, science can also infer a deity or a spiritual soul. And this I disagree with, but I'm not sure how to effectively prove the point. 

Unless one has a model for a deity or a spiritual soul, it's not the same thing. One needs to be able — at least in principle — to falsify a claim. Prediction from a model, for example.

Dark matter is inferred because we have a well-tested model.

[Kyle Taggart]

Just now, swansont said:

Direct observation or experiment. It does not require naked-eye observation of the item or phenomenon, since that would mean we don't have empirical knowledge of electron, or even atoms, which is ridiculous. Of course experiment requires inference. To deny that is also ridiculous.

The empirical data for dark matter would include the rotation curves (experimental data of rotation rates) or gravitational lensing (observation of images in a particular pattern)

I agree with you 100% on the definition (by direct observation I didn't mean only directly apprehension with the senses). My problem remains: my interlocuter holds that since inference is acceptable in science, and this inference (according to him) is an abstract process, science can deal with the "non-empirical," including God.

[studiot]

2 minutes ago, Kyle Taggart said:

No no. Reproducibility doesn't mean testing the exact same object twice. You obtain an object of the same dimensions, molecular composition, density, etc (shouldn't be too hard in a laboratory setting) and test that to reproduce your results. If you test two objects that are physically identical, you are meeting the criterion of reproducibility. 

No NO and No again.

I want (to know) the exact breaking stength of that piece of wood.

Not another  similar one.

No two pieces of wood have the exact same breaking strength.

Engineers address this issue every day by using testing to what is called proof strength.

[swansont]

1 minute ago, Kyle Taggart said:

I agree with you 100% on the definition (by direct observation I didn't mean only directly apprehension with the senses). My problem remains: my interlocuter holds that since inference is acceptable in science, and this inference (according to him) is an abstract process, science can deal with the "non-empirical," including God.

See my comment above about models and prediction.

The problem with "god-did-it" is that there is no predictive power and no falsifiability.

[Kyle Taggart]

18 minutes ago, beecee said:

But inferring any deity generally is associated with magical supernatural powers that such a deity is said to perform. If we take YECs, they say [I think] that the Earth was created 6000 years ago. That is easily debunked. I'm sure there are many other examples. So in my opinion, debunking all these magical deeds that said deity has performed, show that said deity is superfluous and plainly not needed. Science obviously is a discipline in continued progress. Highlighting the fact that science does not know everything, and thereby invoking some deity, is the old "god of the gaps" fallback on his part. Reality more likely is that at this time we just don't know.

You've hit on a soft spot in our argument: I accused him of "god of the gaps" long ago regarding abiogenesis, but he is making a decent argument for why that is not the case (I say decent not because he is right - I think he is wrong - but because I admit he has rhetorically trapped me). He says it is not god of the gaps because it follows a valid abductive reasoning process: historical science seeks the best explanation for a phenomena. If the explanation that currently explains the data in the simplest (Occam's razor) and most effective way is God, we should accept that. My contention is that science is an empirical discipline and so can't infer God. Philosophy is the valid academic field that can deal with the immaterial such as God or the soul. Not science. 

14 minutes ago, swansont said:

See my comment above about models and prediction.

The problem with "god-did-it" is that there is no predictive power and no falsifiability.

Ah, I see. I will use this, thank you. In addressing the pillars of the scientific method I left out predictive power. Of course I've been arguing falsifiability the whole time but he won't crack on it: the problem is that he is asking me to defend my conception of science as a whole. He places the burden of proof on me: WHY must the criteria of falsifiability, predictability, reproducibility, and testability be met in science? And I frankly don't know how to prove this.

15 minutes ago, studiot said:

No NO and No again.

I want (to know) the exact breaking stength of that piece of wood.

Not another  similar one.

No two pieces of wood have the exact same breaking strength.

Engineers address this issue every day by using testing to what is called proof strength.

Thanks for letting me know about the second pic friend. Unfortunately I still plee ignorance: how does this relate to falsifiability? 

As for this issue: I don't think we are talking about the same thing if this is what you mean. I am talking about the reproducibility of universal ideas in science to produce theories: eg reproducing an experiment to show the correlation between hormonal birth control and depressive symptoms. I'm not talking about the physical properties of a single object. But you've raised an interesting point. Anyone else have thoughts on this? @swansont?

I must add, I would still hold the criterion of reproducibility for the wood example: since we can't reproduce the experiment, we don't really KNOW the breaking point. We just have a decent guess from the data we can get. We can't reproduce it and account for flaws, so we don't actually know. We have a prudential idea for building purposes I guess.

Edited August 22, 2018 by Kyle Taggart

[Strange]

21 minutes ago, Kyle Taggart said:

if dark matter is inferred as the best way to explain the evidence, and this (according to him) is non-empirical because it is an abstract rational process and doesn't rely on strict experimental observation, science can also infer a deity or a spiritual soul

That doesn’t make sense though. Everthing we know about dark matter is completely based on evidence. It is entirely empirical. 

There are various hypotheses for what dark matter is, all are consistent to some degree with the evidence. 

There is, as far as I know, no objective, quantitative evidence that is consistent with god. But who cares? People don’t believe in god because of objective, quantitative evidence. 

26 minutes ago, Kyle Taggart said:

Drama matter? Forgive my ignorance

Aargh. Auto correct - should have been dark matter!

27 minutes ago, Kyle Taggart said:

Can you point me to sources which show that it is directly tested and based on direct observation? Thanks

I would suggest starting with the Wikipedia page. The ONLY reason we know something labelled “dark matter” (got it right that time) exist is because we see evidence of it. Measurable, quantifiable, objective evidence. 

I struggle to see how anyone can say it is non-empirical. I guess he has learnt a little bit in his way hilosophy course about how to challenge arguments and is over stretching his reach. (A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and all that)

31 minutes ago, Kyle Taggart said:

he asks me to prove that my conception of science (a raw empirical discipline that relies on falsifiability, testability, and reproducibility) is correct. And I am n

What does he mean by “correct”?

That is the standard (if simplistic) definition of the scientific method that you can find in many sources. The trouble is, there has been a lot of debate (among philosophers) about that definition since then. And practical science doesn’t always fit that pattern. 

So I suspect he is just trying to pull you out of your depth, hoping to confuse you and push you under. 

[studiot]

11 minutes ago, Kyle Taggart said:

I'm not talking about the physical properties of a single object.

Well you should be.

Are you suggesting Structural Engineering is not subject to Scientific processes?

12 minutes ago, Kyle Taggart said:

Thanks for letting me know about the second pic friend. Unfortunately I still plee ignorance: how does this relate to falsifiability?

The whole point I'm making is that popular phrase It's Complicated.

Your friend is trying (unsuccessfully) to simplify it to make it fit his form of logic.

But it isn't that simple.

The point here is that falsifiable means 'I can do a test to prove it wrong' ; if I can't it's not falsifiable.

So he does the closeup test and doesn't prove the star porposition wrong.

Then he looks at the overall picture.

So locally it is a star. But globally it is not.

 

Just now, Strange said:

So I suspect he is just trying to pull you out of your depth, hoping to confuse you and push you under. 

Yes +1

[Strange]

25 minutes ago, Kyle Taggart said:

My problem remains: my interlocuter holds that since inference is acceptable in science, and this inference (according to him) is an abstract process, science can deal with the "non-empirical," including God.

But inference in science is based off n s (mathematicall) model. Inferring the existence of gods isn’t, it is just based on faith. Which is fine, it just isn’t science. 

Maybe you should just ask him what (objective, quantifiable) evidence would falsify his God Model. 

[Kyle Taggart]

1 minute ago, Strange said:

That doesn’t make sense though. Everthing we know about dark matter is completely based on evidence. It is entirely empirical. 

There are various hypotheses for what dark matter is, all are consistent to some degree with the evidence. 

There is, as far as I know, no objective, quantitative evidence that is consistent with god. But who cares? People don’t believe in god because of objective, quantitative evidence. 

Aargh. Auto correct - should have been dark matter!

I would suggest starting with the Wikipedia page. The ONLY reason we know something labelled “dark matter” (got it right that time) exist is because we see evidence of it. Measurable, quantifiable, objective evidence. 

I struggle to see how anyone can say it is non-empirical. I guess he has learnt a little bit in his way hilosophy course about how to challenge arguments and is over stretching his reach. (A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and all that)

What does he mean by “correct”?

That is the standard (if simplistic) definition of the scientific method that you can find in many sources. The trouble is, there has been a lot of debate (among philosophers) about that definition since then. And practical science doesn’t always fit that pattern. 

So I suspect he is just trying to pull you out of your depth, hoping to confuse you and push you under. 

I gotcha, I think I can formulate it now, hopefully

To be fair, I subscribe to the classical theist God due to such deductive proofs as the Leibnizian rationalist proof, Aquinas' Second and Third Ways, the Neo-Platonic Proof, and the Aristotelian Proof from motion. But I fully agree, of course (it's why I'm arguing with this guy) that empirical, measurable, quantifiable data does not lead to God. God is by definition immaterial - how can quantitative, empirical data detect him? It makes no sense, I'm with you.

Yes, I agree that is what he is doing. By "correct" he means, why does every scientific statement/investigation/proposition have to meet these exact criteria? If they do not, then God is hypothetically viable. Keep this in mind - I should've made this clearer - my argument with this gentleman is NOT over whether or not scientific evidence ACTUALLY points to God. The argument is over science, methodologically, is COMPETENT to point to a deity. My contention is that no matter how overwhelming, hypothetically, quantifiable data for a deity may seem, science by its nature can't suppose an immaterial entity. It's about methodology, not actual evidence.

[studiot]

Perhaps your best bet to make him go away is to give him lots of red marks.

Edited August 22, 2018 by studiot
spelling