Dark Matter Image

[Walt34]

Who is building warp-drive ships these days? Musk? GM? We need to get a handle on this.

Nah, that's old and not nearly fast enough.

What we need is the spindizzy.

 

[SecondAttempt]

I was trained as a scientist. Theories evolve over time. Anyone remember Air Earth Fire Water as the 4 elements. I laughed as a young'un when I heard about it. I've since learned that it was actually a fairly good theory, based on the facts at the time. It explained observed phenomenon reasonably well in many cases and even predicted phenomena fairly well. Obviously, it was limited and was replaced as new facts were discovered. My point: Theories are theories - not facts. It's okay - even mandatory - to question theories and not accept them as fact - hopefully in an intelligent fashion. YMMV

Well, that is a little disingenuous. As I am sure you are aware, ancient Greek science was based on philosophy not experimentation so the comparisons with modern science are false. The ancient Greek approach was for great thinkers to decide how things "should" be and decide that it the way it was. Once they agreed there was no need for experiments. It was essentially "appeal to authority" rather than the scientific method.

Unfortunately this way of thinking persists in some state legislatures such as when the Indiana legislature passed a law defining pi as exactly 3.2.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill

And it goes on and on...

I learned that a theory is an accepted fact but I agree with you that a theory is better described as an accepted explanation rather than a fact. We have, for example, both a wave theory of light propagation and a particle theory of light propagation. They are essentially inconsistent yet both are necessary to make your TV, your fiber optic connections, and much more of modern life possible.

 

[eytonxav]

Unfortunately this way of thinking persists in some state legislatures such as when the Indiana legislature passed a law defining pi as exactly 3.2.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill

Interesting tidbit from 1897, but according to wiki link you posted it was never passed into law: "The bill, written by a physician who was an amateur mathematician, never became law due to the intervention of Professor C. A. Waldo of Purdue University, who happened to be present in the legislature on the day it went up for a vote."

 

[Koolau]

Well, that is a little disingenuous. As I am sure you are aware, ancient Greek science was based on philosophy not experimentation so the comparisons with modern science are false. The ancient Greek approach was for great thinkers to decide how things "should" be and decide that it the way it was. Once they agreed there was no need for experiments. It was essentially "appeal to authority" rather than the scientific method.

Unfortunately this way of thinking persists in some state legislatures such as when the Indiana legislature passed a law defining pi as exactly 3.2.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill

And it goes on and on...

I learned that a theory is an accepted fact but I agree with you that a theory is better described as an accepted explanation rather than a fact. We have, for example, both a wave theory of light propagation and a particle theory of light propagation. They are essentially inconsistent yet both are necessary to make your TV, your fiber optic connections, and much more of modern life possible.

I don't appreciate the "charge" of being disingenuous. I might be wrong, but if I am, I'm sincere and serious about it. Labels are rarely helpful - especially when words spoken (especially with body language) are often more acceptable than writen words - which are often hindered by the brevity required by time and space. Also grace is a good concept when reading responses here. I fail at times, but I attempt to assume the best motives - at least until proven otherwise. YMMV

All that being said...

Where we disagree, I'm willing to disagree and let it go at that.

I do wonder how much philosophy was affected by "science" over the years. I suspect it was significantly but can't point to a source.

The Alchemists whose goal was to turn lead into gold came up with some rudimentary science which eventually aided those with a more scientific bent.

One bit of knowledge - even if incomplete - builds on itself as new information is learned. We're still doing that (I recall when the accepted theory of the extinction of the dinosaurs was (wait for it) climate change. I think the meteor theory was postulated in the late '40s but only "accepted" (IIRC) in the late 80s.)

I thought that Indiana law was a real hoot Just think - We're still doing that kind of cwap today! I can say no more.

 

[RobLJ]

I was trained as a scientist. Theories evolve over time. Anyone remember Air Earth Fire Water as the 4 elements. I laughed as a young'un when I heard about it. I've since learned that it was actually a fairly good theory, based on the facts at the time. It explained observed phenomenon reasonably well in many cases and even predicted phenomena fairly well. Obviously, it was limited and was replaced as new facts were discovered. My point: Theories are theories - not facts. It's okay - even mandatory - to question theories and not accept them as fact - hopefully in an intelligent fashion. YMMV

In my experience it is the little proviso to question "hopefully in an intelligent fashion" that is rare. I grew up in an Evangelical church where "dinosaurs" and "evolution" are just theories was very common; informed discussion didn't go very far, but oh, how they loved, to cite the "hypothesis" or "theory" to just pull stuff out of their hindquarters and dismiss science. Most believed the earth revolved around the sun, however, so there had been some progress.

 

[SecondAttempt]

I don't appreciate the "charge" of being disingenuous. I might be wrong, but if I am, I'm sincere and serious about it. Labels are rarely helpful - especially when words spoken (especially with body language) are often more acceptable than writen words - which are often hindered by the brevity required by time and space. Also grace is a good concept when reading responses here. I fail at times, but I attempt to assume the best motives - at least until proven otherwise. YMMV

Well, I apologize. I will partly blame the medium (written words and we don't know each other etc.) but I understand why you took it the way you did. I could have chosen my words better.

I didn't even think you were wrong. I just meant that using the methodology of the ancient Greeks to debate semantics of the modern scientific method seemed to be quite a stretch to me.

Yes, theories get refined, tested, and occasionally thrown out entirely. But only when there is a great deal of counterevidence. Not on a whim or a belief that world should not be that way.

 

[Koolau]

In my experience it is the little proviso to question "hopefully in an intelligent fashion" that is rare. I grew up in an Evangelical church where "dinosaurs" and "evolution" are just theories was very common; informed discussion didn't go very far, but oh, how they loved, to cite the "hypothesis" or "theory" to just pull stuff out of their hindquarters and dismiss science. Most believed the earth revolved around the sun, however, so there had been some progress.

Wait. What?! You mean the sun DOESN'T revolve around the Earth?

But seriously, not all religious people are science deniers. Keep in mind that the guy who first postulated the Big Bang Theory was a Catholic priest.

Arthur Eddington, a Quaker, showed bending of star light by the mass of the sun - helping to confirm Einstein's theory of relativity.

 

[SecondAttempt]

But seriously, not all religious people are science deniers. Keep in mind that the guy who first postulated the Big Bang Theory was a Catholic priest.

The Vatican has operated an observatory since 1582. It was established to fix the calendar which had slipped because of the lack of leap years.

On their website they have a "Faith and Science Center" with lots of great articles and videos. Of course this naturally takes the Catholic perspective but the material is informative.

Here is a video from there on dark energy and dark matter:

https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/resources/cosmology/dark-matter-dark-energy/

 

[Koolau]

The Vatican has operated an observatory since 1582. It was established to fix the calendar which had slipped because of the lack of leap years.

On their website they have a "Faith and Science Center" with lots of great articles and videos. Of course this naturally takes the Catholic perspective but the material is informative.

Here is a video from there on dark energy and dark matter:

https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/resources/cosmology/dark-matter-dark-energy/

That's pretty cool. I've heard the proposed explanations before, but a review is warranted.