Fermi and dark matter

Michael Mozina said:
What empirical evidence can you provide to demonstrate that neutrinos annihilate one another and release gamma rays in that process?
Click to expand...

What else would they produce in an annihilation? The process should conserve energy, should it not?

And recall what you said: "they cannot and do not release gamma rays when they "annihilate"." As any idiot knows, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, so regardless of whether or not we've seen neutrinos do that, where's the evidence that they cannot? That we haven't seen it? That only shows that it's at least rare, but considering the low neutrino-matter cross section, we should rather expect that neutrino-neutrino annihilations should be rare.
 
Ziggurat said:
What else would they produce in an annihilation? The process should conserve energy, should it not?

And recall what you said: "they cannot and do not release gamma rays when they "annihilate"." As any idiot knows, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, so regardless of whether or not we've seen neutrinos do that, where's the evidence that they cannot? That we haven't seen it? That only shows that it's at least rare, but considering the low neutrino-matter cross section, we should rather expect that neutrino-neutrino annihilations should be rare.
Click to expand...

Shall I take that to mean: "None"?
 
Michael Mozina said:
Shall I take that to mean: "None"?
Click to expand...

Take it to mean whatever you want it to. You will anyways. But you seem to have missed the fact that you moved the goalpost from neutrinos being unable to annihilate and produce gamma rays to there being no evidence that they do. You can pretend all you want to that these are the same claims, but everyone else can recognize that they are not.
 
Ziggurat said:
Take it to mean whatever you want it to. You will anyways. But you seem to have missed the fact that you moved the goalpost from neutrinos being unable to annihilate and produce gamma rays to there being no evidence that they do. You can pretend all you want to that these are the same claims, but everyone else can recognize that they are not.
Click to expand...

Well, in fairness I should have said (was actually thinking) that they don't release positrons. That was the claim being made in the article I read this morning that "set me off" and why I started this thread to begin with.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/05/04/fermi-waffles-on-dark-matter/
 
Michael Mozina said:
In all my years of posting on websites, nobody has ever tried to claim that science was dependent upon a logical fallacy. That's a first. :)
Click to expand...

I didn't either. It's clear that you do not understand the difference between deduction and induction.

In fact, I said this explicitly.

Since science is the inductive process of testing hypotheses to strenghten their acceptance, and since the purpose of every experiment is to deny or confirm the consequent, the only one here claiming that science is based on a fallacy is yourself.

Show me an experiment that isn't structured in the form of "If A then B"!





Michael Mozina said:
Then we should be able to demonstrate that claim in an empirical test with real control mechanisms. That was never done.
Click to expand...

You have a different definition of 'empirical' than scientists do.

Regardless: no. There is no need for local experiments, although it can be nice to reinforce other findings.





Michael Mozina said:
This is actually a SECOND assumption about the nature of a hypothetical entity. Since there is no evidence that exotic forms of matter exist, there's also no evidence that it annihilates. Both of these claims are "assumptions."
Click to expand...

Yes. It seems we are in agreement.











Michael Mozina said:
Cause is still "undetermined". There could be any number of other valid scientific reasons why gamma rays come from these areas.
Click to expand...

Of course.





Michael Mozina said:
The problem is you never demonstrated exotic forms of matter exist, that they emit gamma rays, that it "collect" anywhere, nor show us what is "normal" without the presence of DM.
Click to expand...

I understand that you consider it a problem. You understand that scientists disagree, right?







Michael Mozina said:
The only thing that technically falsifies is the idea that DM emits visible gamma rays. That does not falsify the idea of "dark matter". It doesn't falsify the possibility that DM annihilates and emits gamma rays for that matter. It wouldn't falsify anything other than the single belief that we should "see" gamma rays from DM annihilation. That's not a real falsification mechanism for either the claim of exotic manner or the claim that these particles annihilate each other, so what have you actually falsified? The only thing you might falsify that way is the belief we should be able to "observe" them. The annihilation could occur inside of suns for instance and never be seen.
Click to expand...

That's right.



Michael Mozina said:
FYI I didn't claim "all of science" is based upon a logical fallacy, I said *THIS* claim is based on a logical fallacy. Big difference.
Click to expand...

Every experiment is of the format "If A then B" testing for B. When we get B, we say the hypothesis is supported (not 'proven'). This is affirming the consequent. When we get ~B we say the null hypothesis is supported (~A).

Every experiment follows the same format. Your error was not understanding induction, and you misrepresented the nature of this experiment as deductive. If it had been deductive, then it would have been fallacious. But it is not: it is a scientific experiment, inductive, and not (necessarily) a fallacious reasoning.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Well, in fairness I should have said (was actually thinking) that they don't release positrons. That was the claim being made in the article I read this morning that "set me off" and why I started this thread to begin with.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/05/04/fermi-waffles-on-dark-matter/
Click to expand...

It's a shame you're so completely unreasonable, Michael, because this is actually an interesting topic. Contrary to your ridiculous assertions, this kind of data is exactly the kind of thing that leads to major scientific advances (whether it will in this case remains to be seen). The discovery of the cosmic microwave background and the solar neutrino deficit are two excellent examples of things like this in the recent past.

Fermi has confirmed that there is an excess of positrons over the expected background. That means one of three things:

1) DM annihilations are producing the excess, or
2) something else previously unknown is producing the excess, or
3) the experiment is mis-calibrated, or the result is a coincidence

How can we differentiate between these?

3) is tough to say much about if you're not on the experiment, but since the results go in the same direction as previous experiments I'm inclined to dismiss it for now.

To confirm 1), we need first a model for DM that predicts the positron excess and also is consistent with everything else we know, and then we need some additional predictions from it to test. Many people are working on that.

To confirm 2) , we need a model for this other effect that matches everything else we know, preferably with some additional predictions to test. People are working on that too (pulsars are a strong possibility).

It's a mystery to me what it is that you think is wrong with this process. Not that it makes the slightest difference what some internet crank thinks, but it's curious that I honestly have absolutely no idea what your problem with it is.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
Please read my last response to your previous post and tell me how that particular "test" can be used to falsify either the claim of the existence of DM or the annihilation claim?
Click to expand...

Unknown. I defer to astronomers.

My comment was about the philosophy underlying scientific investigation.
 
blutoski said:
Show me an experiment that isn't structured in the form of "If A then B"!
Click to expand...

Well, for starters, the argument in question isn't structured that way. It's structured:

If A (exotic forms of DM exist in nature) *AND* B (they emit gamma rays) *and* C (we observe gamma rays in space) then A+B=C.

It's along the lines of:

If invisible gnomes exist *AND* they emit gamma rays *AND* we see gamma rays in space, then invisible gnomes exist and they emit gamma rays in space. C is actually a given so anything we postulate as A and B will be "acceptable" by your logic.

Since A and B were never demonstrated, the argument is actually "If C (a given) then A and B". A and B can be anything.

In either case (inductive/deductive) logic if your premises are flawed, your argument is still invalid. A) was never demonstrated. B) was never demonstrated. C) is a given and it doesn't necessarily follow even if A) and B) are valid. C doesn't follow A or B nor is it demonstrated to be related to A or B.

Every experiment is of the format "If A then B" testing for B.
Click to expand...

Not this one. This one is pure "junk science" that involve *MULTIPLE* assumptions. This is also not an "experiment" since there is not a single thing being "tested", nor any control mechanism. It's simply an observation of gamma rays. The cause of these observed emissions remains unknown.

When we get B, we say the hypothesis is supported (not 'proven'). This is affirming the consequent. When we get ~B we say the null hypothesis is supported (~A).
Click to expand...

Where is the null hypothesis for A and B individually? There isn't one.

Every experiment follows the same format. Your error was not understanding induction, and you misrepresented the nature of this experiment as deductive. If it had been deductive, then it would have been fallacious. But it is not: it is a scientific experiment, inductive, and not (necessarily) a fallacious reasoning.
Click to expand...

The argument is still fallacious reasoning and you're hiding the very serious flaws in the argument behind semantics IMO. There is no if A then B "experiment", in fact there is no "experiment" here at all. It's a simply an uncontrolled "observation" of gamma rays. Period. What you choose to attribute those emissions to is purely arbitrary in this case. There is no connection between gamma rays and DM. It's purely an ad hoc assertion.
 
Last edited:
sol invictus said:
It's a mystery to me what it is that you think is wrong with this process. Not that it makes the slightest difference what some internet crank thinks, but it's curious that I honestly have absolutely no idea what your problem with it is.
Click to expand...

There's an old Woody Allen joke about the difference between psychosis and neurosis.

Psychosis: "2 + 2 = 5."
Neurosis: "2 + 2 = 4. But I have serious issues with that."
 
Michael Mozina said:
Well, for starters, the argument in question isn't structured that way. It's structured:

If A (exotic forms of DM exist in nature) *AND* B (they emit gamma rays) *and* C (we observe gamma rays in space) then A+B=C.

It's along the lines of:

If invisible gnomes exist *AND* they emit gamma rays *AND* we see gamma rays in space, then invisible gnomes exist and they emit gamma rays in space. C is actually a given so anything we postulate as A and B will be "acceptable" by your logic.

The argument is actually "If C (actually a given) then A and B".

In either case (inductive/deductive) logic if your premises are flawed, your argument is still invalid. A) was never demonstrated. B) was never demonstrated. C) is a given and it doesn't necessarily follow even if A) and B) are valid. C doesn't follow A or B nor is it demonstrated to be related to A or B.
Click to expand...

An hypothesis can contain multiple assumptions. It's called substitution.

Let D be "If A and B and C"

  • If D then E
  • E (observed)
  • therefore D is supported

or
  • If D then E
  • ~E (not observed)
  • therefore D is not supported

The observations may not be intended to resolve among the hypotheses' components.




Michael Mozina said:
Not this one. This one is pure "junk science" that involve *MULTIPLE* assumptions. This is also not an "experiment" since there is not a single thing being "tested", nor any control mechanism. It's simply an observation of gamma rays. The cause of these observed emissions remains unknown.
Click to expand...

Yes, I think we understand your opinion on this. We're trying to understand how you come to it.




Michael Mozina said:
Where is the null hypothesis for A and B individually? There isn't one.
Click to expand...

Probably not, no. Resolution would require further experiments. Looks like astronomers have their work cut out for them.

I'm not sure why these facts bother you.




Michael Mozina said:
The argument is still fallacious reasoning and you're hiding the very serious flaws in the argument behind semantics IMO. There is no if A then B "experiment", in fact there is no "experiment" here at all. It's a simply an uncontrolled "observation" of gamma rays. Period. What you choose to attribute those emissions to is purely arbitrary in this case. There is no connection between gamma rays and DM. It's purely an ad hoc assertion.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if you're using ad hoc correctly, either.

In any case, what it is is an hypothesis that appears to be testable, and it looks like you're upset about it. Beyond that, I'm not sure what's going on.
 
sol invictus said:
It's a shame you're so completely unreasonable, Michael, because this is actually an interesting topic.
Click to expand...

Imagine me claiming you were being "unreasonable" for not accepting my "God emits gamma rays from space" theory. We observe gamma rays from space so God obviously did it. I'm not being "unreasonable", your logic is simply flawed.

Contrary to your ridiculous assertions, this kind of data is exactly the kind of thing that leads to major scientific advances (whether it will in this case remains to be seen). The discovery of the cosmic microwave background and the solar neutrino deficit are two excellent examples of things like this in the recent past.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but your comparisons are simply invalid IMO. Neutrinos can actually be "measured" so that we can tell if there is an actual "deficit". What's "normal" as it relates to gamma ray emissions from a galaxy without DM? What is a "normal" amount DM gamma ray emissions?

Fermi has confirmed that there is an excess of positrons over the expected background. That means one of three things:

1) DM annihilations are producing the excess, or
Click to expand...

That not even a valid option! What "experiment" demonstrates that DM releases positrons?

2) something else previously unknown is producing the excess, or
Click to expand...

Since it can't be number 1, it must be number 2 or 3.

3) the experiment is mis-calibrated, or the result is a coincidence

How can we differentiate between these?
Click to expand...

You can differentiate between 2 and 3 but not 1 and 2 because 1 isn't even a viable scientific option. Whereas electrical discharges can and do release gamma rays, "DM" never has. I might be able to create experiments that emit gamma rays from electricity, but I could never do so with DM because gamma ray emitting DM doesn't even exist as far as I know. Where can I even get a gram of "dark matter" to experiment with?

It's a mystery to me what it is that you think is wrong with this process.
Click to expand...

What's wrong with this process is that you never demonstrated that item number one was even a valid scientific option, you *assumed* it was a valid possibility. You're willing to explore "other" possibilities but you never demonstrated that item number one was even *A* possibility. When considering other options you will likely only consider "realistic" options, but you never demonstrated that item number one was actually a valid option.
 
Last edited:
blutoski said:
You have a different definition of 'empirical' than scientists do.
Click to expand...

I don't think so, and I think I know how to demonstrate it to you.

Do you have "empirical" scientific evidence of "God"? If so, what is it, if not what definition of "empirical" are you using exactly?
 
blutoski said:
An hypothesis can contain multiple assumptions. It's called substitution.

Let D be "If A and B and C"
Click to expand...

Let A be "God", B be "God emits positrons", and C be "God emits them in space". Let D be "Michael's new theory". Let E be gamma ray emissions in space.

If D, then E. E is observed. Is D a valid theory?
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
I don't think so, and I think I know how to demonstrate it to you.

Do you have "empirical" scientific evidence of "God"? If so, what is it, if not what definition of "empirical" are you using exactly?
Click to expand...

As a scientist, I don't use it much at all in my work. That's why I'm confused about what looks like a confusing and unusual use of a particular word.

When I use it, it refers to data that results from observations.

Collecting information with a special telescope is precisely what I'd call an exercise in empiricism.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Let A be "God", B be "God emits positrons", and C be "God emits them in space". Let D be "Michael's new theory". Let E be gamma ray emissions in space.

If D, then E. E is observed. Is D a valid theory?
Click to expand...

It is supported by the observations, yes.
 
Michael Mozina said:
That not even a valid option! What "experiment" demonstrates that DM releases positrons?
Click to expand...
No experiment demonstrates that dark matter releases positrons.

There is a theory that dark matter particles annihilate and emit electron/positron pairs. A good explanation of the analysis of the Fermi data is on Sean Carroll's Cosmic Variance blog: Has Fermi Seen New Evidence for Dark Matter?
In English: if the dark matter is a weakly-interacting massive particle (WIMP), individual WIMPs should occsasionally annihilate with other WIMPs, giving off a bunch of particles, including electron/positron pairs as well as high-energy photons (gamma rays).
Click to expand...

Basically if we look at a source of gamma rays like the center of the galaxy and eliminate all known sources of gamma rays then we are left with unknown sources of gamma rays. One of these unknown sources may be dark matter annihilation.
The paper notes that this excess agrees with what we expect from the excess in the WMAP data (the WMAP haze). The authors in fact do not claim that their analysis is evidence for dark matter.

IMO, the title of the blog entry is wrong. It should be "Has Fermi Seen New Evidence for the Composition of Dark Matter?". The evidence for the existence of dark matter is very strong. But I will not go into it and derail this thread. This evidence has been supplied to you several times and you have ignored it. There is no reason to think that you will not do the same.
 
Michael Mozina said:
What's wrong with this process is that you never demonstrated that item number one was even a valid scientific option, you *assumed* it was a valid possibility. You're willing to explore "other" possibilities but you never demonstrated that item number one was even *A* possibility.
Click to expand...

How could a theory not be a "valid possibility" or "valid scientific option"? I suppose it could be logically inconsistent, but the theories at issue here are certainly logically consistent.

The essence of science, the whole point of it, is that you don't know in advance which theories are correct and which aren't. They're all "valid scientific options" until you collect some evidence. Then you use that evidence to rule out some, and then try to differentiate between those that remain standing.

If, like you, you exclude some theories based on your faith that they are "invalid", you're religious. And that's is what all the other threads you've been involved in have boiled down to as well - you're unwilling to accept science as a valid way of approaching the world. Instead, you substitute faith.
 
sol invictus said:
How could a theory not be a "valid possibility" or "valid scientific option"? I suppose it could be logically inconsistent, but the theories at issue here are certainly logically consistent.
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with logical consistency, it has to do with what can be shown to exist and emit positrons. DM does not exist as far as you can demonstrate. It has never released a single positron in the lab, so what makes you think it does so "out there somewhere"?
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
It has nothing to do with logical consistency,
Click to expand...

OK.

it has to do with what can be shown to exist and emit positrons.
Click to expand...

But these theories can be shown to exist and be correct (by collecting evidence), and in them the annihilation produces positrons (that's the whole point). So then what's the problem?

Not that that objection makes any sense, but it doesn't even apply to these theories.

DE does not exist as far as you can demonstrate. It has never released a single positron in the lab, so what makes you think it does so "out there somewhere"?
Click to expand...

Why are you talking about DE?

Michael, this is really, really, really simple. There are some extra positrons coming from somewhere. We don't know from what. No matter what explanation is proposed, it will be something that has not been demonstrated yet (because if it had been, we'd know where they're coming from, but we don't).

So if your criterion is that we can only consider theories that have been shown to be correct in the lab, then we cannot consider any theory to explain the origin of these positrons.

If we followed your rules, science would stop. That's because your rules are the exact antithesis of science.
 
MattusMaximus said:
Are neutrinos a leading candidate for DM? Just wondering.
Click to expand...

Neutrinos are 'hot' or at least 'warm'. Dark matter for cosmological purposes needs to be cold (hence CDM).

Basically, cold dark matter will sit and gather up in one place and help galaxies form and all that stuff. Neutrinos won't - they'll just whizz off at near light-speed.
 
sol invictus said:
But these theories can be shown to exist and be correct (by collecting evidence),
Click to expand...

You cannot demonstrate that a new form of matter exists based on evidence you collected from a telescope. The most you could demonstrate is "missing mass".

and in them the annihilation produces positrons (that's the whole point). So then what's the problem?
Click to expand...

The problem is you never demonstrated that DM exists or that it emits positrons! You simply *assumed* both of these things.

Why are you talking about DE?
Click to expand...

My bad. It should have been "DM", not "DE".

Michael, this is really, really, really simple. There are some extra positrons coming from somewhere. We don't know from what. No matter what explanation is proposed, it will be something that has not been demonstrated yet (because if it had been, we'd know where they're coming from, but we don't).
Click to expand...

Huh? Just because you don't know where they come from, that's not evidence that they come from "dark matter".

So if your criterion is that we can only consider theories that have been shown to be correct in the lab, then we cannot consider any theory to explain the origin of these positrons.
Click to expand...

Positrons are clearly involved in ordinary matter and the sun emits wavelengths consistent with matter/antimatter annihilation. What's the need for 'dark matter' when there are billions of known sources for positron/electron annihilation that are already identified?

If we followed your rules, science would stop. That's because your rules are the exact antithesis of science.
Click to expand...

No. My rules are the rules of empirical science. Answer that same question I posed earlier about Michael's new theory. Do we also have evidence of God?
 
Ziggurat said:
edd, perhaps you have not met Michael Mozina before. I think you should know a few things about him before you delve in too deeply. He's the owner of this web page:
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/
Among other unconventional beliefs, he believes that the sun has a solid shell surface, and this web page advocates for this idea. Aside from the obvious mechanical instability of such a system, it also contradicts thermodynamics. But Michael refuses to believe what is plain for everyone else to see.

Now my point here isn't actually to discuss the faults of Michael's ideas, because that's been done at length in other threads. We don't need to go over them here. But before you waste too much time trying to convince Michael about rather basic science issues, you should be aware of how futile the task is likely to be.
Click to expand...

Ahhh, nut case. Never mind I'm outta here!!!
 
You know sol.....

You sort of sidestepped that last question based on my typo.

DM has never been show to exist or release a single positron here on Earth, so what makes you think it exists and does that "out in space" somewhere?
 
Michael Mozina said:
You cannot demonstrate that a new form of matter exists based on evidence you collected from a telescope. The most you could demonstrate is "missing mass".
Click to expand...

You're totally wrong as always, but in this case it doesn't matter. Many - perhaps all - of the theories we're discussing can be tested by future colliders, and some will be by the LHC.

The problem is you never demonstrated that DM exists or that it emits positrons! You simply *assumed* both of these things.
Click to expand...

That's the way science works, Michael. What was the very first step in the scientific method as it was taught to you in grade school? I'll remind you: formulate a hypothesis.

Huh? Just because you don't know where they come from, that's not evidence that they come from "dark matter".
Click to expand...

That is not a response to my comment. Please read it again.

Positrons are clearly involved in ordinary matter
Click to expand...

What? No they're not.

and the sun emits wavelengths consistent with matter/antimatter annihilation.
Click to expand...

What??

What's the need for 'dark matter' when there are billions of known sources for positron/electron annihilation that are already identified?
Click to expand...

We're talking about excess positrons. But anyway, the reason is the known sources don't add up to enough to explain the data.

No. My rules are the rules of empirical science. Answer that same question I posed earlier about Michael's new theory. Do we also have evidence of God?
Click to expand...

As far as I can tell, you're simply insane. Nothing you say makes sense to anyone else. That's a good sign you're crazy.
 
sol invictus said:
You're totally wrong as always, but in this case it doesn't matter. Many - perhaps all - of the theories we're discussing can be tested by future colliders, and some will be by the LHC.
Click to expand...

Oddly enough we both agree that these would be legitimate "experiments" that could actually "test" such a theory. Of course by that logic it's been "tested" by other collider experiments too and so far - nothing.

That's the way science works, Michael. What was the very first step in the scientific method as it was taught to you in grade school? I'll remind you: formulate a hypothesis.
Click to expand...

So by your logic, you God theory is also a great example of the "scientific method" in action, and we now have evidence of God?


What? No they're not.
Click to expand...

Really? It's just a fluke that they are able to form subatomic particles with them (and electrons) in the lab?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Electron–Positron_Collider

What??
Click to expand...

Oh for crying out loud.....
http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1538-...quest-id=95cf3135-0485-4213-9c8e-e8a01297d0d8
 
Michael Mozina said:
You cannot demonstrate that a new form of matter exists based on evidence you collected from a telescope. The most you could demonstrate is "missing mass".
Click to expand...
Scientists can demonstrate that a new form of matter exists based on evidence they have collected from telescopes.

As you have been told several times and are persistently ignoring: they observe colliding galactic clusters and see that there are two kinds of matter there. One kind is matter that interacts strongly, i.e. normal matter. Another kind is is not interacting much (if at all), i.e. dark matter.
If you want to continue this discussion then it should be in the previous thread where you stated this "missing matter" stuff.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Sure, you guys are peddling three forms of invisible metaphysical buddies, and *I'm* the nutcase. :)
Click to expand...
We guys are pedding 2 scientific obsersverations (dark matter and dark energy) and a scientific theory that matches observations (inflation).
You are the nutcase whose idea explicitly violates the laws of themodynamics. For those unaware of the non-science in his idea have a look at the list of outstanding questions for Michael Mozina in the "Electric Universe theories here" thread.
 
Michael Mozina said:
I'm willing to "wait and see" what the future holds, but I have no reason to believe that exotic forms of matter exist in the first place, I have no reason to believe it emits gamma rays, and I have no reason to believe it collects near the center of galaxies.
Click to expand...

You don't believe in the existence of exotic forms of matter?
Not the lambda particle?
Not the eta meson or the J/psi?
Not the tau lepton?
Not positronium or muonium?
How about antihydrogen?
10He, 11Li?
 
Michael Mozina said:
Oddly enough we both agree that these would be legitimate "experiments" that could actually "test" such a theory. Of course by that logic it's been "tested" by other collider experiments too and so far - nothing.
Click to expand...

Nope, they haven't been tested.

So by your logic, you God theory is also a great example of the "scientific method" in action, and we now have evidence of God?
Click to expand...

What?

Really? It's just a fluke that they are able to form subatomic particles with them (and electrons) in the lab?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Electron–Positron_Collider
Click to expand...

What?

Oh for crying out loud.....
http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1538-...quest-id=95cf3135-0485-4213-9c8e-e8a01297d0d8
Click to expand...

Which has to do with this topic.... how?
 
Michael Mozina said:
So by your logic, you God theory is also a great example of the "scientific method" in action, and we now have evidence of God?
Click to expand...
Actually it is your logic that by replacing the phrase "dark matter" with the word "God" the scientific method states that the evidence of dark matter is evidence of God.
I do not know the name for this logical fallacy but it is a very bad one. You can replace the phrase "dark matter" with anything and get the same result, e.g. there is evidence for "Alffsrwbhv"!
Your post was:
Michael Mozina said:
Let A be "God", B be "God emits positrons", and C be "God emits them in space". Let D be "Michael's new theory". Let E be gamma ray emissions in space.

If D, then E. E is observed. Is D a valid theory?
Click to expand...
  • Let A be "Alffsrwbhv", B be "Alffsrwbhv emits positrons", and C be "Alffsrwbhv emits them in space". Let D be "Michael's new theory". Let E be gamma ray emissions in space.
  • Let A be "rock", B be "rock emits positrons", and C be "rock emits them in space". Let D be "Michael's new theory". Let E be gamma ray emissions in space.
  • Let A be "Michael Mozina", B be "Michael Mozina emits positrons", and C be "Michael Mozina emits them in space". Let D be "Michael's new theory". Let E be gamma ray emissions in space.
  • etc.
 
Last edited:
Is this about the scientific method or just DM? If its about DM then what is it that bothers you so much MM? It seems to me scientists are trying to find the answer to what appears to be a large amount of missing mass in the universe. How can this looking be wrong?
 
Last edited:
Humanzee said:
Is this about the scientific method or just DM?
Click to expand...

Evidently it's about DM. There's nothing wrong with the scientific method, just the fact that astronomers skirt around it.

If its about DM then what is it that bothers you so much MM? It seems to me scientists are trying to find the answer to what appears to be a large amount of missing mass in the universe. How can this looking be wrong?
Click to expand...

IMO there is absolutely nothing wrong with noticing that we have a "missing mass" problem. There's a lot wrong with trying to stuff those gaps with metaphysical band-aids however.

FYI, I didn't actually have any trouble with the way "dark matter" was presented to me in school (mainly a MACHO orientation). It's only recently that astronomers have started making up exotic and unsupported "properties" of DM in a purely ad hoc manner. Today's "new and improved" DM does magic tricks. It evidently passes right through normal matter. It supposedly emits gamma rays when it feels like it. It now supposedly has a 'half life". There simply no end to the ad hoc properties they now assign to DM. As long as they can simply "make up" whatever property they like, and never have to demonstrate it empirically, they can point at the sky and claim "my new made up property of DM did it". Anything and everything observed in space is now being used as supporting evidence of some exotic property of "dark matter". Baloney.
 
Reality Check said:
Actually it is your logic that by replacing the phrase "dark matter" with the word "God" the scientific method states that the evidence of dark matter is evidence of God.
Click to expand...

I used exactly the same logic you did! I took an ordinary observation and turned it into "evidence" of whatever I want.

I do not know the name for this logical fallacy but it is a very bad one.
Click to expand...

I already told you the name of the fallacy. It's called "affirming the consequent". You're right, it's a "bad" one.

You can replace the phrase "dark matter" with anything and get the same result, e.g. there is evidence for "Alffsrwbhv"!
Click to expand...

Gah! That's my whole point!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom