But they have interventionist gods, with interventions with physical effects. They also have communicative gods. Both these phenomena, should they be real, could potentially be tracked by scientific research. — Coben
Scientists, not just journalists, take as real things that have not been directly confirmed — Coben
They draw conclusions about what happens inside Black Holes due to relativity, since this holds in other places. — Coben
Most astrophysicists believe in dark matter and energy because the effects have been observed. — Coben
We don't observe quarks or particles in superposition. We observe effects, sometimes effects of effects or machine interpretations of effects. — Coben
See, I find all this extremely speculative. But even nere their might be facets that are predictable in the ways that intelligence responses are predictable, but not mechanical. And of course there is no reason to argue that God, say, is not deterministic in the complicated sense that we are. IOW he would, say, respond to prayers for intervention when the attitude was of the kind God is looking for. Or some other pattern that indicates the criteria of what could only be consider an intelligent and in this case vastly powerful other - who could create anomolies in what we call natural laws. And all this is just me speculating possibility. Sitting around and saying we can rule out what science could possibly detect and decide is confirmed, is as problematic as a scientist in early enlightenment ruling out what we could detect and corfirm now.This would only be possible if God deterministically responded to a particular input with the same output. In that case, it would be a function. If you feed input I to God, the effect will be output O, i.e. O=f(I).
In that case, God would be a deterministic device. — alcontali
A scientist is the author of an experimental test report in which he fed input I and received output O. If he did not receive output O, then his experiment has failed. If this person then still considers the hypothesis to be scientifically justified, then he is simply not a scientist.
The scientific method simply does not allow for claiming that a theory is justified in absence of successful experimental testing. — alcontali
I am not familiar enough with very low-scale research to pinpoint what exactly in contemporary research is merely hypothesis and what has been properly confirmed by experimental testing.
Some researcher may deliberately confuse things, but in principle the concept of scientific status is easy: If you can confirm it by reproducible experimental testing, then the theory is scientifically justified. Otherwise, it is just a hypothesis, possibly awaiting successful experimental testing. — alcontali
I can't see how we can rule out that this would never be the case with a deity. — Coben
Precisely. Because test reports do not explain how physicist think in general. And in the mainstream astrophysicist position is that there is dark matter and dark energy. They are a mass of reports that lead them to these conclusions. What I was addressing was your confusion about 'observations' and also presenting how scientists, in that field think. But you consider anyone who disagrees with you about dark matter and energy as non-scientists. Good luck with that.Yes, but just the title sounds already impossibly inept: "Is dark matter theory or fact?" I am not even going to read it. Furthermore, this article is not an experimental test report — alcontali
I already addressed this issue. In a couple of ways. But now you repeat an opinion from an earlier post of yours. Snore.According to Abrahamic religious rules, God has no physical incarnation. Therefore, God cannot be tracked down by conducting a search for his physical presence. Hence, the scientific method cannot possibly apply. Furthermore, I personally see no value in furthering that kind of heresies. — alcontali
Well, pass that on to the astrophysics community.I do not deny (or confirm) that there is unexplained, excess gravitation that can be observed through its effects on observable matter. I do not deny that it could be interesting to design experiments that would further shed light on the problem. In the meanwhile, however, we must considered any explanation for this "calculated excess gravity" to be hypothetical. — alcontali
Oh, heavens, you mean that a scientific position might need to be revised in the future? Any postion that might need to be revised in the future, well that just ain't science. There are so many entities and processes that scientific theories now include that are not directly observable. in fact that whole line of reasoning in my earlier posts you just ignore.Further research could even discover that there is actually something wrong with existing calculation rules. Why not? — alcontali
But you go ahead and act like it is knowledge that science will never be able to take a position on God. — Coben
But since your defense of your deduction here is mere repetition of your opinion without addressing my points, consider the possibility you are just speculating wildly. — Coben
The journalist whom you referred to is not a scientist.
He is just some kind of sycophant.
Furthermore, there was no reason to believe that these people had ever authored any original experimental test report. Therefore, on what grounds do you call them scientists? — alcontali
Still, that does not make any difference because you cannot freely choose the input to feed into the test. Without that ability, the test is not "experimental". Other people will not be able to reproduce the test either. — alcontali
I cannot guarantee that their scientific research efforts will yield a successful experiment. I never did — alcontali
The scientific method can possibly handle the issue of invisible matter -- not sure -- but it cannot handle evidence of God, simply because God has no physical incarnation. That is an epistemic issue that you keep ignoring. — alcontali
Yes, the scientific method can verify scientific theories by experimentally testing them. Popper never said that scientific theories cannot be verified. — alcontali
https://arxiv.org/abs/1201.3942 : From astronomical observations, we know that dark matter exists — leo
Go tell them that Wikipedia is a more reputable source. — leo
What reputable source do you have to show that if the 'input' of the test cannot be chosen freely then it isn't an experiment? — leo
And I argued extensively how the criterion of reproducibility is not applied consistently by scientists, but you're just ignoring that. — leo
What you are doing is applying your own definition and own criteria of what science is and what it isn't, — leo
and scientists mostly disagree with your criteria — leo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verificationism
Popper regarded scientific hypotheses to be unverifiable — leo
As such, the problem of determining the identity of dark matter has largely shifted to the fields of astroparticle and particle physics. In this talk, I will review the current status of the search for the nature of dark matter
"Dark Matter" means "calculated excess amount of gravitation in current model of universe". This calculated excess "exists" in a sense that you can observe total gravitation and calculate the excess part. — alcontali
Wikipedia does not contain original research. It is supposed to only refer to externally-published research. Do you have any reason to believe that they are guilty of original research concerning dark matter? — alcontali
A controlled science experiment is setup to test whether a variable has a direct causal relationship on another.
Identify your independent and dependent variables. The independent variable is commonly known as the cause, while the dependent variable is the effect. For example, in the statement A causes B, A is the independent variable and B is the dependent. A controlled scientific experiment can only measure one variable at a time. If more than one variable is manipulated, it is impossible to say for certain which caused the end result and the experiment is invalidated. — alcontali
I think I actually made it clear what my possibly original idea is: to only consider theories backed by controlled experiments only, and no longer consider mere predictive modelling, to be science. — alcontali
I do not believe that anybody else has ever looked into the matter. — alcontali
The full quote is:
Popper regarded scientific hypotheses to be unverifiable, as well as not "confirmable" under Carnap's thesis. — alcontali
Types of verification
Ayer distinguishes between ‘strong’ and ‘weak’ verification, noting that there is a limit to how conclusively a proposition can be verified. ‘Strong’ (fully conclusive) verification is not possible for any empirical proposition, because the validity of any proposition always depends upon further experience. ‘Weak’ (probable) verification, on the other hand, is possible for any empirical proposition.
To verify under Carnap's thesis means 'strong' verification, which means 'proof' in proof theory, while 'weak' verification means experimental testing. — alcontali
In 1936, Carnap sought a switch from verification to confirmation. Carnap's confirmability criterion (confirmationism) would not require conclusive verification (thus accommodating for universal generalizations) but allow for partial testability to establish "degrees of confirmation" on a probabilistic basis. Carnap never succeeded in formalizing his thesis despite employing abundant logical and mathematical tools for this purpose. In all of Carnap's formulations, a universal law's degree of confirmation is zero.
In the context of verificationism, it is needed to clarify if "to verify" is meant as "strong" or "weak". — alcontali
Verificationism has been replaced a long time ago by falsificationism:
Karl Popper's The Logic of Scientific Discovery proposed falsificationism as a criterion under which scientific hypothesis would be tenable. Falsificationism would allow hypotheses expressed as universal generalizations, such as "all swans are white", to be provisionally true until falsified by evidence, in contrast to verificationism under which they would be disqualified immediately as meaningless. — alcontali
they're talking about identifying dark matter through particle physics — leo
Wikipedia articles are not neutral reports of original research written by researchers. — leo
By that they mean the existence of matter, not the mere existence of a "calculated excess amount of gravitation". — leo
Popper introduced the criterion of falsification because he believed that theories cannot be verified in any way (neither in the 'strong' nor 'weak' sense), because of the problem of induction. — leo
As an example, again, observations that didn't fit the predictions of the theory of general relativity didn't falsify that theory, because an invisible matter was invoked to make up for the difference, and it's always possible to do that. If an observation doesn't match the theory, invoke some invisible phenomenon, and the theory is not falsified. Which makes the criterion of falsification flawed just like the others. — leo
They are trying to do that, but this approach has not succeeded until now. — alcontali
The term "verify" is common language, and therefore, highly ambiguous. In my opinion, it is not suitable as a technical term. — alcontali
Outside the very narrow context of verificationism — alcontali
it means probabilistic sampling for counterexamples, with no pretension that it would constitute full or fail-safe proof. Therefore, "experimentally testing" is a suitable synonym for "verifying" in the context of falsificationism. — alcontali
Yet that world view is taught in schools as if it was fact, as if it was more certain than other world views. Science has become the religion of the modern age. — leo
It may be your kids, but that does not mean that you have a say in what the ruling elite's indoctrination machine will teach them. The populace gave up that right when they implicitly agreed to compulsory schooling schemes in State-run indoctrination factories, to be paid by extracting the money upfront out of the parents' wallets.
The current type of government naturally emerges out of the population's take on what government is supposed to be. If the population believes that the government should have wide-ranging power to coerce other people, that is exactly what will emerge out of the fray.
By catering to the populace's false belief in scientism, the ruling elite successfully manages to transfer even more authority from the family to themselves. — alcontali
The term "verify" is common language, and therefore, highly ambiguous. In my opinion, it is not suitable as a technical term. — alcontali
"Verify" is no more common or uncommon than "falsify". :chin: :chin: :chin: — Pattern-chaser
They were obviously deeply mired in the heresy of scientism and clearly beyond salvation ... — alcontali
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.