Community Messageboard: Re: I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should. by Joel

Back to Messageboard

Post New Thread

Help

Stats

Rules

Re: I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should. Joel Send a noteboard - 24/05/2011 11:19:43 PM

Fair enough; I'm not demanding all the answers immediately, I just don't want to ask the wrong questions indefinitely because we expect a given answer. When you cite a preliminary measurement as evidence isn't it reasonable to note that it's significantly different from the predicted one?

Because it's a preliminary result, the point is that it's significantly close to a predicted one. As we do more measurements and analysis, we can improve techniques to get more precise results. 10% difference from a preliminary astrophysical measurement is not a big deal by itself.

Maybe not in the grand scheme of things, but since we're discussing the literal grand scheme of things a 10% discrepancy only looks good because the previous discrepancy was 100+ orders of magnitude. It's still a significant variance, and the extent of its improvement only underscores the fact previous estimates covered a range just shy of the set of all numbers, which still inspires little confidence.

Mainly in the fact that their nature was actively MISunderstood to be that of fundamental particles. It was only after they continued to multiply at an alarming rate that very capable physicists had the common sense and temerity to suggest that if there were THAT many of them maybe they weren't fundamental particles at all, but composites of more fundamental ones. Had no one every questioned the canon we'd still have dozens of "fundamental" particles and a much more impoverished (and not understood right away) grasp of physics.

What reason to you have to believe that "no one ever questioning the canon" is a legitimate concern in modern science? Sometimes it takes people a while to figure things out; I don't see how your persistent worrying ameliorates that at all.

I've stated my reasons: It was a problem with the particle zoo in the '50s and '60s, and again with GUTs in the '80s and '90s (and to some extent, I believe, remains one). Those are just the recent/contemporary examples a layman can quickly cite. It wasn't something banished with geocentrism and other superstitions during the Age of Reason as you previously suggested. It's ultimately a problem of human psychology that I don't think can be evolved past in a few centuries. Ideas are more readily disseminated now, and to that extent more likely challenged, but man himself has changed little if any. We're still susceptible to the same institutional and disciplinary errors, even where particular institutions and actors have given way to others.

Those increasingly seem to be ruled out entirely. I really don't have a problem with throwing out a theory contradicted by the evidence, which seems to be the case for MACHOs as well, but by that same token I'm leery of the impression I'm getting that refuting MACHO and MOND theories proves exotic dark matter by default. That amounts to saying, "Once we've conclusively demonstrated x isn't 2 or 3, it MUST be 4". Um, not really. Even if we know it must lie between 2 and 4 it may just mean we need to stop looking at whole numbers exclusively.

We have evidence of some phenomena that disagrees with predictions based on the amount of visible matter in the universe. We have evidence that modifying our theories of gravity doesn't help the situation very much. We have evidence that the phenomena acts like matter in that it gravitates, but not in other ways. We have evidence that it's not just ordinary matter that isn't lit up.

With all of that evidence, exotic dark matter is very clearly selected from the space of possible theories. Exotic dark matter is still a pretty big theory space in itself, but that's why we're still gathering evidence. What other part of theory space has a decently high probability, given all of that?

None I'm aware of, but that doesn't mean no accurate ones of which NO ONE is aware exist. See my reply to your last response on GUTs.

I'm not saying we should ignore the best extant theory that fits the evidence to pursue hypothetical better ones, I'm just saying we should keep our eyes open for them as we evaluate existing theories, and for flaws experiment and observation indicate in those theories that should spur us to look for others. If an existing theory consistently matches the data we're seeing obviously we should stick with it for as long as that remains so, but not automatically EXPECT it to remain so, or confine investigation of the "dreaded anomaly" to ways we can reconcile it with our favorite theory.

My point was that before any experimental evidence of the charm (beyond the anomaly that led to its postulation as an explanation) people were already postulating additional quarks based on it eventually being found. That all three eventually were found doesn't vindicate that approach; it amounts to extrapolating a cosmological theory that requires dark energy to exist: You're making a fairly weighty assumption your PREMISE.

So what? People came up with hypotheses and made predictions based on those hypotheses. If the predictions had been wrong, we would have moved on. Seriously, what is your problem?

My problem is that people did more than that: One group of people came up with a hypothesis and, before it was proven or even tested, another group of people came up with ANOTHER hypothesis based on the first. They took a very new and completely untested theory for granted, and made it the foundation of an even newer one. It worked out in the end, and that's great but, IMHO, science shouldn't encourage building a house of cards.

Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.

Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!

LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.

Reply to message

Exciting video about the universe Camilla - 28/04/2011 10:14:55 AM 1175 Views

Cool, and true *NM* Stephen - 28/04/2011 11:46:29 AM 359 Views

I still think dark matter's just non-luminous matter without a convenient light source to reflect. Joel - 28/04/2011 10:34:21 PM 888 Views

We've just about ruled out the idea that dark matter is just non-luminous "ordinary" matter. Dreaded Anomaly - 28/04/2011 11:44:34 PM 827 Views

I'm aware of the Bullet Cluster, though admittedly not much more than that. Joel - 29/04/2011 01:52:49 AM 767 Views

Re: I'm aware of the Bullet Cluster, though admittedly not much more than that. Dreaded Anomaly - 29/04/2011 02:56:32 AM 867 Views

Re: I'm aware of the Bullet Cluster, though admittedly not much more than that. Joel - 30/04/2011 05:02:49 PM 802 Views

Re: I'm aware of the Bullet Cluster, though admittedly not much more than that. Dreaded Anomaly - 30/04/2011 08:56:35 PM 697 Views

Re: I'm aware of the Bullet Cluster, though admittedly not much more than that. Joel - 02/05/2011 01:28:30 AM 731 Views

Re: I'm aware of the Bullet Cluster, though admittedly not much more than that. Dreaded Anomaly - 04/05/2011 04:18:18 AM 826 Views

There's such a thing as knowing when you're licked, and I believe I am.

Joel - 07/05/2011 02:04:53 AM 905 Views

Re: There's such a thing as knowing when you're licked, and I believe I am.

Dreaded Anomaly - 09/05/2011 11:28:48 PM 751 Views

Re: There's such a thing as knowing when you're licked, and I believe I am.

Joel - 14/05/2011 05:36:45 AM 699 Views

Re: There's such a thing as knowing when you're licked, and I believe I am.

Dreaded Anomaly - 17/05/2011 02:09:40 AM 780 Views

Re: There's such a thing as knowing when you're licked, and I believe I am.

Joel - 19/05/2011 04:55:21 AM 705 Views

Re: There's such a thing as knowing when you're licked, and I believe I am.

Dreaded Anomaly - 24/05/2011 09:32:27 PM 778 Views

The Pati-Salam model was the one I had in mind. Joel - 24/05/2011 10:34:04 PM 720 Views

Re: The Pati-Salam model was the one I had in mind. Dreaded Anomaly - 24/05/2011 11:08:01 PM 939 Views

Re: The Pati-Salam model was the one I had in mind. Joel - 25/05/2011 01:27:10 AM 748 Views

Re: The Pati-Salam model was the one I had in mind. Dreaded Anomaly - 31/05/2011 09:16:18 AM 815 Views

Apologies for the delay; internet's been spotty and I've been busy lately. Joel - 10/06/2011 12:09:04 AM 1067 Views

Re: Apologies for the delay; internet's been spotty and I've been busy lately. Dreaded Anomaly - 14/06/2011 03:38:18 AM 1061 Views

Also, re: lensing from ordinary matter: Dreaded Anomaly - 29/04/2011 05:18:47 AM 766 Views

This seems like another example of what confuses the issue. Joel - 30/04/2011 05:25:04 PM 886 Views

Re: This seems like another example of what confuses the issue. Dreaded Anomaly - 30/04/2011 08:56:40 PM 851 Views

That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible". Joel - 02/05/2011 01:29:03 AM 846 Views

Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible". Dreaded Anomaly - 04/05/2011 04:18:24 AM 810 Views

Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible". Joel - 07/05/2011 02:05:02 AM 980 Views

Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible". Dreaded Anomaly - 09/05/2011 11:29:36 PM 751 Views

Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible". Joel - 14/05/2011 05:35:56 AM 1040 Views

Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible". Dreaded Anomaly - 17/05/2011 02:09:55 AM 652 Views

Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible". Joel - 19/05/2011 02:47:25 AM 995 Views

Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible". Dreaded Anomaly - 24/05/2011 09:46:30 PM 774 Views

Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible". Joel - 25/05/2011 12:20:10 AM 1073 Views

Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible". Dreaded Anomaly - 31/05/2011 09:16:22 AM 879 Views

Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible". Joel - 10/06/2011 12:04:06 AM 1116 Views

Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible". Dreaded Anomaly - 14/06/2011 03:38:12 AM 886 Views

Re: I still think... (apparently, there is a 100 character limit on subjects, and yours was 99) Tor - 28/04/2011 11:57:15 PM 1069 Views

Seems to happen to me a lot; sorry. Joel - 29/04/2011 12:56:14 AM 747 Views

None of this reflects on the actual facts of dark matter. Dreaded Anomaly - 29/04/2011 01:32:52 AM 743 Views

I concede my grasp (or grope) is a somewhat superficial laymans, yes. Joel - 30/04/2011 04:30:28 PM 870 Views

Re: I concede my grasp (or grope) is a somewhat superficial laymans, yes. Dreaded Anomaly - 30/04/2011 08:56:44 PM 696 Views

Re: I concede my grasp (or grope) is a somewhat superficial laymans, yes. Joel - 02/05/2011 01:28:58 AM 1221 Views

Re: I concede my grasp (or grope) is a somewhat superficial laymans, yes. Dreaded Anomaly - 04/05/2011 04:18:27 AM 732 Views

I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should. Joel - 07/05/2011 02:05:09 AM 944 Views

Re: I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should. Dreaded Anomaly - 09/05/2011 11:32:17 PM 857 Views

Re: I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should. Joel - 14/05/2011 05:36:24 AM 1040 Views

Re: I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should. Dreaded Anomaly - 17/05/2011 02:10:03 AM 766 Views

Re: I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should. Joel - 19/05/2011 04:33:06 AM 1023 Views

Re: I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should. Dreaded Anomaly - 24/05/2011 09:59:38 PM 768 Views

Re: I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should. Joel - 24/05/2011 11:19:43 PM 722 Views

Re: I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should. Dreaded Anomaly - 24/05/2011 11:33:58 PM 682 Views

Re: I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should. Joel - 25/05/2011 12:55:36 AM 782 Views

Re: I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should. Dreaded Anomaly - 31/05/2011 09:16:24 AM 733 Views

Re: I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should. Joel - 10/06/2011 12:09:13 AM 902 Views

Re: I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should. Dreaded Anomaly - 14/06/2011 03:38:05 AM 864 Views

Might help if you clarified where your skepticism is at Isaac - 29/04/2011 02:32:07 AM 708 Views

Potentially either, or a combination of the two. Joel - 30/04/2011 02:36:50 PM 779 Views

It's hard to discuss without knowing your objections a bit more clearly Isaac - 30/04/2011 04:58:03 PM 690 Views

My primary objection is that alternatives to dark matter seem to have been ruled out prematurely. Joel - 02/05/2011 01:29:14 AM 838 Views

Well, they weren't, not really sure how else to put that Isaac - 10/05/2011 03:19:57 AM 885 Views

Alright then, objection withdrawn (cautious skepticism intact). Joel - 14/05/2011 05:34:17 AM 993 Views

Back to Messageboard

Post New Thread

Help

Stats

Rules

Reply to Message

Subject

Formatting

Smiley Codes

Body

<quote id="209360">
<quote id="209342"><quote id="208416">Fair enough; I'm not demanding all the answers immediately, I just don't want to ask the wrong questions indefinitely because we expect a given answer. When you cite a preliminary measurement as evidence isn't it reasonable to note that it's significantly different from the predicted one?</quote>
Because it's a preliminary result, the point is that it's significantly close to a predicted one. As we do more measurements and analysis, we can improve techniques to get more precise results. 10% difference from a preliminary astrophysical measurement is not a big deal by itself.</quote>
Maybe not in the grand scheme of things, but since we're discussing the literal grand scheme of things a 10% discrepancy only looks good because the previous discrepancy was 100+ orders of magnitude. It's still a significant variance, and the extent of its improvement only underscores the fact previous estimates covered a range just shy of the set of all numbers, which still inspires little confidence.
<quote id="209342"><quote id="208416">Mainly in the fact that their nature was actively MISunderstood to be that of fundamental particles. It was only after they continued to multiply at an alarming rate that very capable physicists had the common sense and temerity to suggest that if there were THAT many of them maybe they weren't fundamental particles at all, but composites of more fundamental ones. Had no one every questioned the canon we'd still have dozens of "fundamental" particles and a much more impoverished (and not understood right away) grasp of physics.</quote>
What reason to you have to believe that "no one ever questioning the canon" is a legitimate concern in modern science? Sometimes it takes people a while to figure things out; I don't see how your persistent worrying ameliorates that at all.</quote>
I've stated my reasons: It was a problem with the particle zoo in the '50s and '60s, and again with GUTs in the '80s and '90s (and to some extent, I believe, remains one). Those are just the recent/contemporary examples a layman can quickly cite. It wasn't something banished with geocentrism and other superstitions during the Age of Reason as you previously suggested. It's ultimately a problem of human psychology that I don't think can be evolved past in a few centuries. Ideas are more readily disseminated now, and to that extent more likely challenged, but man himself has changed little if any. We're still susceptible to the same institutional and disciplinary errors, even where particular institutions and actors have given way to others.
<quote id="209342"><quote id="208416">Those increasingly seem to be ruled out entirely. I really don't have a problem with throwing out a theory contradicted by the evidence, which seems to be the case for MACHOs as well, but by that same token I'm leery of the impression I'm getting that refuting MACHO and MOND theories proves exotic dark matter by default. That amounts to saying, "Once we've conclusively demonstrated x isn't 2 or 3, it MUST be 4". Um, not really. Even if we know it must lie between 2 and 4 it may just mean we need to stop looking at whole numbers exclusively.</quote>
We have evidence of some phenomena that disagrees with predictions based on the amount of visible matter in the universe. We have evidence that modifying our theories of gravity doesn't help the situation very much. We have evidence that the phenomena acts like matter in that it gravitates, but not in other ways. We have evidence that it's not just ordinary matter that isn't lit up.

With all of that evidence, exotic dark matter is very clearly selected from the space of possible theories. Exotic dark matter is still a pretty big theory space in itself, but that's why we're still gathering evidence. What other part of theory space has a decently high probability, given all of that?</quote>
None I'm aware of, but that doesn't mean no accurate ones of which NO ONE is aware exist. See my reply to your last response on GUTs. ;) I'm not saying we should ignore the best extant theory that fits the evidence to pursue hypothetical better ones, I'm just saying we should keep our eyes open for them as we evaluate existing theories, and for flaws experiment and observation indicate in those theories that should spur us to look for others. If an existing theory consistently matches the data we're seeing obviously we should stick with it for as long as that remains so, but not automatically EXPECT it to remain so, or confine investigation of the "dreaded anomaly" to ways we can reconcile it with our favorite theory.
<quote id="209342"><quote id="208416">My point was that before any experimental evidence of the charm (beyond the anomaly that led to its postulation as an explanation) people were already postulating additional quarks based on it eventually being found. That all three eventually were found doesn't vindicate that approach; it amounts to extrapolating a cosmological theory that requires dark energy to exist: You're making a fairly weighty assumption your PREMISE.</quote>
So what? People came up with hypotheses and made predictions based on those hypotheses. If the predictions had been wrong, we would have moved on. Seriously, what is your problem?</quote>
My problem is that people did more than that: One group of people came up with a hypothesis and, before it was proven or even tested, another group of people came up with ANOTHER hypothesis based on the first. They took a very new and completely untested theory for granted, and made it the foundation of an even newer one. It worked out in the end, and that's great but, IMHO, science shouldn't encourage building a house of cards.
</quote>

Link title

Link url

Send notification emails?

Username

Password