ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags dark energy , dark fluid , dark matter

Reply
Old 13th December 2018, 02:55 PM   #121
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,508
Originally Posted by baron View Post

Do both.
Hey buddy, I can do nothing to further the discussion on DM/DE but you completely missed the reference to loading a question. It's a logic fallacy that makes the question unanswerable.

This question, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" is often used as an example of a loaded question.

If you answer yes it means you admit you did it before, but stopped.
If you answer no it means you still are beating your wife.
Since you can't answer yes or no, it is not really a question at all, but rather a rhetorical trap.

I have no idea who is setting rhetorical traps in this thread, because it was well over 30 years ago that I took physics. I did well, but the years have gradually reduced my ability to follow new developments since I don't use any of this stuff any more. But I can suggest that you and maybe others might want to at least agree to critical thinking and logical discourse, otherwise the thread degenerates. No more "logic traps"?
__________________
Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison
Biome Carbon Cycle Management
Red Baron Farms is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2018, 03:03 PM   #122
Diablo
Muse
 
Diablo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 660
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
Hey buddy, I can do nothing to further the discussion on DM/DE but you completely missed the reference to loading a question. It's a logic fallacy that makes the question unanswerable.

This question, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" is often used as an example of a loaded question.

If you answer yes it means you admit you did it before, but stopped.
If you answer no it means you still are beating your wife.
Since you can't answer yes or no, it is not really a question at all, but rather a rhetorical trap.

I have no idea who is setting rhetorical traps in this thread, because it was well over 30 years ago that I took physics. I did well, but the years have gradually reduced my ability to follow new developments since I don't use any of this stuff any more. But I can suggest that you and maybe others might want to at least agree to critical thinking and logical discourse, otherwise the thread degenerates. No more "logic traps"?
That's a stupid example. Replies are not yes or no, you can just say I've never beaten my wife. That's why we have language.
Diablo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2018, 05:00 PM   #123
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,508
Originally Posted by Diablo View Post
That's a stupid example. Replies are not yes or no, you can just say I've never beaten my wife. That's why we have language.
And loaded questions don't exist? And that is not a commonly used reference to loaded questions?

Really?

Gee it's the very first example: Loaded question

and here too:
Fallacy files

and here:
Loaded Questions: What They Are and How to Counter Them

and on and on....
__________________
Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison
Biome Carbon Cycle Management
Red Baron Farms is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2018, 08:54 AM   #124
JeanTate
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,344
Time for some "set the record straight" posts.

Originally Posted by steenkh View Post
I do not understand why DM is regarded as a "mysterious" substance. It can be readily detected, in fact if it was undetectable, it would never have been an issue! We know it is a particle, because it is unevenly distributed, and it is independent of other known masses. We know it has no charge, but we do not know its mass or its spin, which is the only mystery about it.
A bit overstated: we do not know that it's a particle (or particles); no DM particles have been detected, and astrophysics is quite agnostic as to whether DM is particles or not.

Also, if DM is particles, then the only reason we know it/they has/have no charge is that we have great confidence in QED, the theory which includes electromagnetism.

Quote:
There are lots of other particles that cannot be detected "directly", like quarks and neutrinos, but few people doubt their existence based on the detectability, Indeed, what does it mean that a particle is "directly detected"?

The picture that Steve just referred to showing the overall distribution of DM, or the picture of the Bullet Cluster where DM has been separated from ordinary matter because of a collision, or the picture of the dwarf galaxy NGC1052-DF2 that has no dark matter, all point to a kind of matter that cannot be explained away by a new theory of gravity.
Maybe.

But since there are, likely, a very large number of "new theories of gravity", and only a few examined in much detail wrt DM so far, it's kinda premature to declare this avenue of research at complete dead end.
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th December 2018, 03:08 PM   #125
JeanTate
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,344
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
Only in the sense that everything is just a model. When you look at an apple on a table, that's just a model that your brain constructs based on the light hitting your retina. But that doesn't mean that the apple isn't real.

When Newton says F=ma he's telling us about a relationship between those three things, and that relationship is measureable and it holds. That seems pretty real to me. When you apply a force (which you can measure with high precision) to a mass (which you can measure) you will find a particular acceleration (which, again, you can measure). The math is just a statement of that relationship.

If I say "I'm sitting on my couch and with my laptop computer on my lap and my lap, my feet up and a cup of coffee on the coffee table in front of me." that's also just a model, but it's still both true and a description of reality.

So, I don't see how the objection "it's just a model" alters the fact that it's real. Electrons are just as real as apples and coffee cups. To some extent I'd say we understand them better, the former being a very simple particle whose interactions are fully understood, the latter being an incredibly complex system of a vast number of particles which, because of the stable relationships created by some of the forces involved forms an organisation that can also be relatively accurately modelled in a way which drops almost all of that complexity.




Everything, whether words or math, is really just a description (with greater or lesser accuracy) of what's going on. Those descriptions are still describing something real and they do so with incredible accuracy, to the point that the discrepancy between the description and the reality is, for most purposes, beyond our (very powerful) ability to measure.
One needs some care in using the word/noun "model", as you have noted.

The kind that appears in physics papers, for example, has a rather narrow range of meanings, and at least in principle, one that involves numbers and equations. Elsewhere a model may be a word-picture, devoid of numbers.
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th December 2018, 04:12 PM   #126
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 11,844
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
One needs some care in using the word/noun "model", as you have noted.

The kind that appears in physics papers, for example, has a rather narrow range of meanings, and at least in principle, one that involves numbers and equations. Elsewhere a model may be a word-picture, devoid of numbers.
Absolutely, but I think that speaks in favour of the physics models, not against them.

My objection to the statement that "it's just a model" isn't that it's not true of quarks and gluons, it's that it's true of literally every description of reality we have. I think I've got a cup of coffee sitting in front of me, and I do, but that's also just a model of the stable configuration of matter at a large scale, and it's a much less precise (lacking the mathematical precision) model than, for instance, The Standard Model of particle physics.

Though, of course, even within physics (and in general) different models are developed to be more or less precise.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:28 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.