Dark matter - methodologically non-empirical?

[Kyle Taggart]

9 minutes ago, studiot said:

Well you should be.

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

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.

 

Yes +1

Why should I be? 

I suppose I am, in a sense. I am suggesting that, since the experiment you speak of is irreproducible in principle, we do not have a valid scientific knowledge of the breaking strength of the piece of wood A. Since we can't perform multiple experiments with identical conditions and variables to reproduce the data we have on the breaking strength of A, we don't know it in a scientific sense, but we do have a strong enough prudential knowledge of it for practical purposes, I suppose. 

8 minutes ago, Strange said:

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. 

I think I will ask him that question, yes. He insists it is falsifiable "via analogy", and I can't seem to convince him...THAT IS NOT SCIENCE 

[Strange]

32 minutes ago, Kyle Taggart said:

If the explanation that currently explains the data in the simplest (Occam's razor) and most effective way is God, we should accept that.

This is another example of a category error. We have highly detailed and accurate models based on facts, mathematics and models (ie chemistry and physics) on the one hand. On the other we have the vague, unquantifiable and untestable “god-did-it”. 

The scientific approach to abiogenesis can come up with various possible explanations and then test them to see which work and which don’t. All he can do is wave his hands and repeat “god did it” louder and louder. Nothing can disprove it so it has zero explanatory power. 

On that, the scientific method works. In other words, it produces useful results. We have technology based on science (eg your computer). There is no equivalent technology based on theology or philosophy. For all the benefits it may provide to the faithful, it isn’t a productive methodology. 

P.S. you are wasting your time: https://xkcd.com/386/

 

Edited August 22, 2018 by Strange

[studiot]

3 minutes ago, Kyle Taggart said:

Why should I be? 

I suppose I am, in a sense. I am suggesting that, since the experiment you speak of is irreproducible in principle, we do not have a valid scientific knowledge of the breaking strength of the piece of wood A. Since we can't perform multiple experiments with identical conditions and variables to reproduce the data we have on the breaking strength of A, we don't know it in a scientific sense, but we do have a strong enough prudential knowledge of it for practical purposes, I suppose. 

I was drawing in Structural Engineering because its processes (which I hope are as properly scientific as any other part of the technical world) can show by example all the issues in this discussion about dark matter -including dark matter or dark energy itself, but if you really don't want to know then I will give it up.

Edited August 22, 2018 by studiot

[Kyle Taggart]

14 minutes ago, studiot said:

Well you should be.

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

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.

 

Yes +1

Hm...let me think about that. I could be wrong, but I think that's just playing with words. For one, that doesn't seem to be applicable because it isn't science as I understand it (I see it as an artistic question. Tell me if I am way off). But anyway, it seems that it IS a picture of a star. What you showed there. That's the case. The larger picture is not of a star, because it isn't the same picture in the first place

[Strange]

45 minutes ago, Kyle Taggart said:

No no. Reproducibility doesn't mean testing the exact same object twice.

Exactly. 

Otherwise we get into ridiculous arguments like “well if you can’t reproduce the Big Bang [or abiogenesis] I’m a lab then it isn’t science.” which we occasionally get from anti-science types. 

[Kyle Taggart]

3 minutes ago, Strange said:

This is another example of a category error. We have highly detailed and accurate models based on facts, mathematics and models (ie chemistry and physics) on the one hand. On the other we have the vague, unquantifiable and untestable “god-did-it”. 

The scientific approach to abiogenesis can come up with various possible explanations and then test them to see which work and which don’t. All he can do is wave his hands and repeat “god did it” louder and louder. Nothing can disprove it so it has zero explanatory power. 

On that, the scientific method works. In other words, it produces useful results. We have technology based on science (eg your computer). There is no equivalent technology based on theology or philosophy. For all the benefits it may provide to the faithful, it isn’t a productive methodology. 

P.S. you are wasting your time: https://xkcd.com/386/

 

I agree with you there. I will try to get this across to him. I have been trying to emphasize that I can never disprove the idea, through experiment, that God intervened in the primordial soup to make the first prokaryotic cell, but he's having none of that.

I think knowledge is valuable and useful in itself, which is why I regard it as also being a useful methodology. However I agree it does not exhibit physical usefulness: it doesn't improve health, wealth, and standard of living like science does :). 

Just now, Strange said:

Exactly. 

Otherwise we get into ridiculous arguments like “well if you can’t reproduce the Big Bang [or abiogenesis] I’m a lab then it isn’t science.” which we occasionally get from anti-science types. 

Friend, you should check out my thread in the philosophy section here - there I have provided a more detailed account of this person's arguments (sadly I haven't gotten any responses yet). He said exactly this: he claims that we can't reproduce the Big Bang, so the criterion of reproducibility does not hold. He even linked me to an article he wrote about it. The thing as, as someone said earlier, reproducibility operates IN PRINCIPLE - since the Big Bang is a physical event, it can hypothetically be reproduced. We could hypothetically, with very advanced technological capabilities, reproduce this even if at a smaller scale. But we cannot, IN PRINCIPLE, reproduce a divine act. 

8 minutes ago, studiot said:

I was drawing in Structural Engineering because its processes (which I hope are as properly scientific as any other part of the technical world) can show by example all the issues in this discussion about dark matter -including dark matter or dark energy itself, but if you really don't want to know then I will give it up.

No don't give up, I am interested in the discussion.

[studiot]

7 minutes ago, Strange said:

Exactly. 

Otherwise we get into ridiculous arguments like “well if you can’t reproduce the Big Bang [or abiogenesis] I’m a lab then it isn’t science.” which we occasionally get from anti-science types. 

Contra argument by ridicule is not acceptable.

9 minutes ago, Kyle Taggart said:

Friend, you should check out my thread in the philosophy section here - there I have provided a more detailed account of this person's arguments (sadly I haven't gotten any responses yet). He said exactly this: he claims that we can't reproduce the Big Bang, so the criterion of reproducibility does not hold. He even linked me to an article he wrote about it. The thing as, as someone said earlier, reproducibility operates IN PRINCIPLE - since the Big Bang is a physical event, it can hypothetically be reproduced. We could hypothetically, with very advanced technological capabilities, reproduce this even if at a smaller scale. But we cannot, IN PRINCIPLE, reproduce a divine act. 

The sad thing is that many of his points are valid, but inconclusive.
if you weren't so hell bent on dissing him you  might see that and be able to out debate him.

Science can handle the proposition of God and the big bang and the pink unicorns at the bottom of my garden.

So what?

13 minutes ago, Kyle Taggart said:

I have been trying to emphasize that I can never disprove the idea, through experiment, that God intervened in the primordial soup to make the first prokaryotic cell, but he's having none of that.

Since Strange, who is fond of pointing out that Science never 'proves or disproves anything, but is strangely quiet here I will say it.

[Strange]

15 minutes ago, Kyle Taggart said:

He said exactly this: he claims that we can't reproduce the Big Bang, so the criterion of reproducibility does not hold.

Doh. 

16 minutes ago, Kyle Taggart said:

The thing as, as someone said earlier, reproducibility operates IN PRINCIPLE - since the Big Bang is a physical event, it can hypothetically be reproduced. We could hypothetically, with very advanced technological capabilities, reproduce this even if at a smaller scale. But we cannot, IN PRINCIPLE, reproduce a divine act. 

That’s a good point. But, also, science can reproduce observations and we can reproduce subsets of the conditions.

So, no, we can’t reproduce the Big Bang or abiogenesis, but we can reproduce and test the components that make up our model individually. So we have a good understanding of what (probably) happened in the early universe based on the physics we can reproduce. 

That is why our theory only goes back so far (and says nothing at all about a “creation” event). Because we are not able to reproduce, and therefore model, the conditions earlier than that. 

Of course, we can never disprove that god created the Universe 13.8 billion years ago in such a way that it precisely matches our theories. (Or even 15 minutes ago. ) And that is why god is outside the scope of science. 

[studiot]

2 hours ago, Kyle Taggart said:

(I've posted his full comments in the philosophy section but haven't gotten a response yet)

You have said this a couple of times, but didn't provide a link so why are you expecting a response?

There is no such thread in the philosophy section.

I did find it here

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/115815-defending-scientific-methodology/?tab=comments#comment-1066183

 

[Kyle Taggart]

On 8/22/2018 at 5:45 PM, studiot said:

Contra argument by ridicule is not acceptable.

The sad thing is that many of his points are valid, but inconclusive.
if you weren't so hell bent on dissing him you  might see that and be able to out debate him.

Science can handle the proposition of God and the big bang and the pink unicorns at the bottom of my garden.

So what?

Since Strange, who is fond of pointing out that Science never 'proves or disproves anything, but is strangely quiet here I will say it.

Dissing him? I'm not aware of having dissed him. If I did inadvertently, please quote me and point out how so I can avoid it in the future. This was not my intention. I respect him (he's quite bright, I just think he is wrong here), but respect for your interlocuter does not amount to respect for his position.

On 8/22/2018 at 5:53 PM, Strange said:

Doh. 

That’s a good point. But, also, science can reproduce observations and we can reproduce subsets of the conditions.

So, no, we can’t reproduce the Big Bang or abiogenesis, but we can reproduce and test the components that make up our model individually. So we have a good understanding of what (probably) happened in the early universe based on the physics we can reproduce. 

That is why our theory only goes back so far (and says nothing at all about a “creation” event). Because we are not able to reproduce, and therefore model, the conditions earlier than that. 

Of course, we can never disprove that god created the Universe 13.8 billion years ago in such a way that it precisely matches our theories. (Or even 15 minutes ago. ) And that is why god is outside the scope of science. 

On your last point, I agree completely: now let's see if I can get that across :).

Interesting point of view about reproducing conditions! I'm going to ponder that...however as far as abiogenesis goes, this is very different from the Big Bang: we've come very close to reproducing abiogenesis under laboratory conditions, and there is a general confidence among biochemists that it can, in principle, be done (not that their confidence really means anything until we have results). This is the closest we have come so far: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25803468

On 8/22/2018 at 5:45 PM, studiot said:

Contra argument by ridicule is not acceptable.

The sad thing is that many of his points are valid, but inconclusive.
if you weren't so hell bent on dissing him you  might see that and be able to out debate him.

Science can handle the proposition of God and the big bang and the pink unicorns at the bottom of my garden.

So what?

Since Strange, who is fond of pointing out that Science never 'proves or disproves anything, but is strangely quiet here I will say it.

Could you please explain exactly how science can deal with God? Thanks!

On 8/22/2018 at 6:30 PM, studiot said:

You have said this a couple of times, but didn't provide a link so why are you expecting a response?

There is no such thread in the philosophy section.

I did find it here

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/115815-defending-scientific-methodology/?tab=comments#comment-1066183

 

Odd. I posted the same thing in the philosophy and biology forums. Could mods have removed it from philosophy? It really has more to do with phil than bio lol

[studiot]

36 minutes ago, Kyle Taggart said:

On 22/08/2018 at 10:45 PM, studiot said:

Contra argument by ridicule is not acceptable.

The sad thing is that many of his points are valid, but inconclusive.
if you weren't so hell bent on dissing him you  might see that and be able to out debate him.

Science can handle the proposition of God and the big bang and the pink unicorns at the bottom of my garden.

So what?

Since Strange, who is fond of pointing out that Science never 'proves or disproves anything, but is strangely quiet here I will say it.

Dissing him? I'm not aware of having dissed him. If I did inadvertently, please quote me and point out how so I can avoid it in the future. This was not my intention. I respect him (he's quite bright, I just think he is wrong here), but respect for your interlocuter does not amount to respect for his position.

The first line was not addressed to you but to another (here) who tried to use the argument by ridicule technique.

 

Now look again at the remaining paragraph and the quoted statements you made.

Do you realise I was talking about your debating partner not anyone here?

And yes, I think your debating partner is honestly but mistakenly, or deliberately as has been suggested,  wrong as well.

 

36 minutes ago, Kyle Taggart said:

Could you please explain exactly how science can deal with God? Thanks!

Put forward the 'God did it' hypothesis and treat it in a scientific manner. That is compare it with other competing hypotheses about the same event.

Of course this requires an explanation of what exactly God did.

Thjis is where most religous types slip in the fallacy of assuming what they inted to 'prove'.

This is very subtly done and we have had many (some firey) debates about this here.
The usual method is to look around and say see the universe around me it was created so it must have had a creator.

This automatically rules out debate about alternatives and focuses on the nature of that creator.
It also distracts away from discussion about the alleged creation itself - what God did assunes there is/was a God.

 

I think  a much more reasonable interpretation might compare the hypothetical creation process to a scrabble (or other ) board game.

In the beginning, God set up the board, complete with a set of rules.

However he leaves you free to play within those rules so you might choose to put your X or Z tile on a triple letter score or you might place it on a singler value space or even leave it unused on your rack.
The Bible even has a parable (of the talents) about this.

This offers the much vaunted and argued 'free will' side of religion.

But, like the person who created scrabble, God does not interfere in the play; that is up to the players.

Alternatively, we have happenstance and/or evolution. Many games can be show to have developed from simpler ones.

Which interpretation is correct?

Frankly I don't care - It make not a jot of difference to me.

 

36 minutes ago, Kyle Taggart said:

Odd. I posted the same thing in the philosophy and biology forums. Could mods have removed it from philosophy? It really has more to do with phil than bio lol

Ask them, it's tedious enough spreading this discussion over two threads as you have already done.

When you find out agree with them where it should be and ask them to merge them all there.

It might be best if you can place it where it will catch the eye of by far the best Philosopher here (Eise) .

Edited August 24, 2018 by studiot

[Kyle Taggart]

3 minutes ago, studiot said:

The first line was not addressed to you but to another (here) who tried to use the argument by ridicule technique.

 

Now look again at the remaining paragraph and the quoted statements you made.

Do you realise I was talking about your debating partner not anyone here?

And yes, I think your debating partner is honestly but mistakenly, or deliberately as has been suggested,  wrong as well.

 

Put forward the 'God did it' hypothesis and treat it in a scientific manner. That is compare it with other competing hypotheses about the same event.

Of course this requires an explanation of what exactly God did.

Thjis is where most religous types slip in the fallacy of assuming what they inted to 'prove'.

This is very subtly done and we have had many (some firey) debates about this here.
The usual method is to look around and say see the universe around me it was created so it must have had a creator.

This automatically rules out debate about alternatives and focuses on the nature of that creator.
It also distracts away from discussion about the alleged creation itself - what God did assunes there is/was a God.

 

I think  a much more reasonable interpretation might compare the hypothetical creation process to a scrabble (or other ) board game.

In the beginning, God set up the board, complete with a set of rules.

However he leaves you free to play within those rules so you might choose to put your X or Z tile on a triple letter score or you might place it on a singler value space or even leave it unused on your rack.
The Bible even has a parable (of the talents) about this.

This offers the much vaunted and argued 'free will' side of religion.

But, like the person who created scrabble, God does not interfere in the play; that is up to the players.

Alternatively, we have happenstance and/or evolution. Many games can be show to have developed from simpler ones.

Which interpretation is correct?

Frankly I don't care - It make not a jot of difference to me.

 

Ask them.

Oh, you were saying it is he who is dismissing me? My apologies for misunderstanding you friend!

I think I understand what you're saying here. However, I fail to see how it is treated in a "scientific manner". It's very interesting for analogical purposes, but science operates on experimentation (testing the hypothesis; this is why evolution, for example, reached an important point in its theoretical history when biologists developed actual laboratory experiments (such as Shaposhnikov's aphids or Rose's fruit flies) to verify it), and the interesting thought experiment you posed doesn't accomplish this. We can't perform an experiment to accept or reject the hypothesis "an intelligent, immaterial agent spontaneously generated organisms about 3.8 byo on Earth". We can test the hypothesis "the informational, compartment-forming, and metabolic subsystems of the prokaryotic cell came together in the 'primordial' soup to form a unified, living entity 3.8 byo". In fact, as the article I posted on the common origins of these precursors shows, we have synthesized all these components independently from inorganic material, repeating what we understand to have been the conditions at the time. The next step is reproducing their synthesis with each other.  

[studiot]

You clearly know a great deal more about Biology than I do.

And I, perhaps, know more about Mechanics and applied Mathematics.

So I am sorry if I keep offereing mechanical examples.

But you must accept that Science is a broad church as they say where there is room enough for both and more.

 

[Kyle Taggart]

7 minutes ago, studiot said:

You clearly know a great deal more about Biology than I do.

And I, perhaps, know more about Mechanics and applied Mathematics.

So I am sorry if I keep offereing mechanical examples.

But you must accept that Science is a broad church as they say where there is room enough for both and more.

 

Eh, I wouldn't say that so soon. I could just be pulling crap out of quick google searches you know  I'm not, but it's a very real possibility haha

I'm perfectly comfortable with your examples. Physics is my second love after biology, and it was a hard choice when time for uni came to choose between the two. Please continue, it's well in my domain of interest and past study. Glad to speak to someone knowledgeable like yourself friend. 

Certainly, it is