I assume we are talking about the issue with Newton's Laws. It's fine to give references to smart people who are familiar with the subject. I can find plenty of quotes to support my position. I am also capable of seeing for myself. This isn't really a matter of fact. It's a matter of the definition of the word "flawed." — T Clark
As I stated the last time we had this discussion, I've tried my best arguments and failed to convince you of my position. I don't see any reason to continue. — T Clark
Seeing how your arguments are flawed, they fail to convince me. Meanwhile you fail to point out the flaw in my argument, which I stated as concisely as possible again. — leo
Saying that my arguments are flawed because they failed to convince you is ....arrogant certainly. I'll go further - laughable. — T Clark
I made my best effort to point out the flaws in your argument last time we talked. I failed and gave up. I don't see any reason to try again. — T Clark
Seeing that observations do not match Einstein's general relativity is not detecting dark matter, it is assuming that the difference between observation and theory is due to invisible stuff rather than due to the theory being flawed. "But the theory is so well-tested!", yea plenty of well-tested theories were found to be flawed and replaced by other ones. Dozens of experiments have failed to detect dark matter, they're doing these experiments because they are looking for independent evidence for dark matter, because they have a tiny bit of integrity left, otherwise every time a theory doesn't work we could just invoke invisible stuff to make it work again, no need for Einstein if we invoke invisible stuff Newton's gravitation works just fine! — leo
I said that they failed to convince me because they are flawed, not the other way around. — leo
And I addressed every one of them. Here is my argument again, where is the flaw? — leo
Yes, you are correct. Still arrogant. Still laughable. — T Clark
As I've said numerous times now, I'm not interested in going any further with this discussion. I see it as futile. — T Clark
I don't remember saying your argument was flawed. — T Clark
I made my best effort to point out the flaws in your argument last time we talked. I failed and gave up. I don't see any reason to try again. — T Clark
Is that conclusion based on scientific research? If not why should anyone accept it?Surely if scientists found philosophy useful for achieving their scientific goals and purposes, they would embrace it. — Brainglitch
Scientists have philosophies. The issue is how good is it? Could an investigation of philosophy improve some facet of their studies? Might it help them see ungrounded assumptions`?Thus, anyone whose opinion it is that scientists need philosophy, or would better able to achieve their goals, or would choose better goals, needs to present compelling arguments for those opinions. — Brainglitch
There are intellectual underpinnings to science I would typically consider as part of philosophy. — T Clark
I haven't convinced you with my best argument. I don't have anywhere else to go. I'll fall back on an unimpeachable source - Because Wikipedia says so. — T Clark
Surely if scientists found philosophy useful for achieving their scientific goals and purposes, they would embrace it.
Thus, anyone whose opinion it is that scientists need philosophy, or would better able to achieve their goals, or would choose better goals, needs to present compelling arguments for those opinions. — Brainglitch
Galactic rotation curves that are observed do not match the ones predicted by theory. Either it's because there is invisible matter, or because the theory is flawed. The discrepancy between observation and theory is not a detection of invisible matter, because we don't know that the theory is not flawed. I can't make it simpler than that. — leo
I have studied the subject for years, — leo
numerous hypotheses have been proposed to explain the discrepancy, and that most of these involve changes/enhancements to the existing theories of gravitation. However, every alternative hypothesis - at least up to now - has made predictions which are not matched by the data.
Currently, dark matter is the hypothesis which best matches the data, but it is still only a hypothesis - it is not established theory. If you could present an alternative explanation that successfully matches all the data and does not involve hypothetical invisible particles — EricH
Food, shelter, comfort, all of these things can be found in nature. We distribute these according to money. In nature, all of these are also unevenly distributed. Your problem with money is just the same problem we would have without money. — TogetherTurtle
My point was that they literally believe that the greater good is serving themselves.
I think world leaders believe that people are foolish without their guidance, and so they attempt to stay in power. — TogetherTurtle
Rome wasn't built in a day, and I assure you those cave paintings weren't painted in a day either. That was likely the product of multiple lifetimes of free time. — TogetherTurtle
And why would people believe in you, when it is only in our nature to believe things that benefit us? Nobody ever gets the benefit of the doubt for this reason. — TogetherTurtle
Imagine living in the city your whole life, and then being forced into the wilderness. How stressful would it be to not know which berries will kill you? How stressful would it be to encounter even a small animal without a means to protect yourself? How stressful would it for your shelter to collapse because you didn't know how to build a sturdy one?
People operate best when they are in familiar surroundings. People fear difference. That is the source of their fear. — TogetherTurtle
Furthermore, I would add that these Amazonians did have a sort of civilization. Surely they organized their labor, some going to hunt while others cooked, no? That organization is the basis of civilization. — TogetherTurtle
If you really believe you can live on your own somewhere, I think you should try it. There is unused land out there that no one checks on. In fact, I think in Alaska the government still just gives it out. — TogetherTurtle
If you make it out there and make any scientific progress, I would like to know. Well, if you can connect to the internet. — TogetherTurtle
The dark matter hypothesis doesn't successfully match all the data, there are plenty of problems with it, — leo
How much work has been done on a model, and how easy it is to with the model with observations through fine-tuning, are two variables that have to be taken into account when we compare different models. — leo
For instance it's easy to come up with a model that successfully matches all the data while having a bunch of degrees of freedom. — leo
How much work has been done on a model is irrelevant. If person A spends 10 years working on a hypothesis and person B spends 10 minutes, the only thing that matters is which hypothesis better fits the data. — EricH
Well dang it man! If it's easy, then why are you posting here? Go come up with that better model. Fame & fortune will be your reward! :smile: — EricH
But kidding aside, it sounds to me that your gripe is that the dark matter hypothesis has been over-hyped, and that more work/attention should be paid to the alternative models. — EricH
When I first became skeptical, I started asking my colleagues what would shake their faith; i.e., what would falsify [L]CDM? I almost never got a straight answer. One of the few I did get was from Simon White, who said the cusps had to be there. They’re not. Did this lead the field to abandon the paradigm? No, it just led to the invocation of complicated mechanisms that “fix” things. These are band aids that patch a superficial symptom without addressing the underlying malady.
The hard-core cosmologists are more convinced than ever that LCDM has to be right. It has obtained the status of a religion.
Once dark matter is confirmed in one’s mind as having been established to exist, it is incredibly hard to dislodge it. Should it turn out to be wrong, how do we tell? The concept of dark matter is not falsifiable. It cannot ever be excluded as a logical possibility. So once it is established as the preferred choice, how do we get out of that?
It is hard to question one’s own belief in dark matter. It was the hardest thing I ever did to wrap my head around the possibility that maybe I was wrong to believe that there had to be dark matter. I don’t see many of my colleagues engaging with this problem in a serious way.
The problem is not the uneven distribution in itself, it is that those who have the most resources actively act against those who have little resources, to prevent them from having more, in essence those who have little resources are enslaved to those who have more, they do not have the freedom to acquire them by themselves. In order to gain their freedom, they have to work much harder than they would otherwise, or they have to be lucky, or they have to be criminals, and even then they're still all enslaved to money. — leo
In nature, what's working against you is the predators, but you don't have an army of predators enslaving you, you can fight them and win, or you can avoid them much more easily than you can avoid the whole of law enforcement and the military. — leo
By definition if you only care about yourself you don't care about the benefit of others, you don't care about the greater good. I'm not talking about leaders who believe people are foolish without their guidance, I'm talking about people who actually don't care about hurting others for their own personal gain. You seem to believe such people don't exist, I disagree. — leo
There is evidence that they did have a lot of free time. See the book Stone Age Economics for instance. There are some who say that agriculture was invented to fill the needs of a rising population which was itself the result of a lot of free time. It's surely not obvious at all that back then they had little free time, contrary to popular belief. — leo
The people who get their research funded are believed by whoever funds their research. — leo
I've lived in the city most of my life and it's the city that stresses me out, not nature. I feel at home in nature, I enjoy trying to survive on my own. Many city people find the city stressful and feel the need to be connected to nature. You're basically saying that we adapt well to whatever environment we grow up in and find difference always stressful, I disagree. — leo
Then you didn't address my other point, that they had to work much less to get food in nature than to get money to get food in the city. If your employer forces you to work 9 hours a day to give you your paycheck, you can't compress that time even if you become great at your job, whereas if you learn to hunt you can get food much more quickly. — leo
Civilization is usually defined as "the stage of human social and cultural development and organization that is considered most advanced". Even if in their group some went to hunt and others cooked, that doesn't mean they were forced to work 9 hours a day to get food or cook it. — leo
I'm not a US resident, and in my country as far as I know there is no land the government gives freely. Many people successfully live on their own in the wild. Obviously it's easier to live in the wild when education is focused on living in the wild rather than on living in the city. But if you're a bed potato I can understand why you would find that to be unimaginable. — leo
It would be possible to have some sort of internet in a world without money. People would simply build and take care of the infrastructures that they find useful. And research could be carried out in the plenty of free time that people would have. — leo
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.