3 ms·

We know what it is. It is a socially constructed abstract concept, like "god" or "afterlife" or "pure substances" of Spinoza. BTW, the "substance propositions"

by lngnmn 10y ago

We know what it is. It is a socially constructed abstract concept, like "god" or "afterlife" or "pure substances" of Spinoza. BTW, the "substance propositions" Spinoza has been developed are perfectly sound, except one small flaw - no such phenomena as pure substance ever existed. Dark Matter and related crap is of exactly the same nature - much more sophisticated phantoms of the mind supported by a sect of believers.

iaw 10y ago
I've downvoted your comment because your tone isn't constructive and you're making a rather illogical jump to the philosophical arguments of Spinoza in comparison to questions around modern measurable/observable phenomena in science. If you'd like to make a less hostile post with a clearer justification of your reasoning I'd be more than happy to debate the subject with you.
- lngnmn 10y ago
  I do not have anything to add. As a student of philosophy I have seen way to many socially constructed chimeras and memes to not notice modern ones. The only criteria for establishing a scientific truth is still a replicable experiment which proves an implementation according to some established law. Any simulation does not account for such kind of experiment, being mere a "cartoon" made according to some abstract model. The difference between experiment and simulation is of the same kind as between a cartoon and actual reality.
  - iaw 10y ago
    > " As a student of philosophy I have seen way to many socially constructed chimeras and memes to not notice modern ones." There's a willful ignorance in this sentence that belies your youth and intelligence. I suspect you don't have an adequate background to understand the observational evidence for our expectation of dark matter (I barely do to be quite honest). I don't think you can fairly dismiss offhand the conclusions drawn by hundreds of expert physicists based on your experience. I've known more than one physicist that were also well-studied students of philosophy. If you have reached a brilliant and well-justified conclusion that they failed to see you should clearly write it to justify your case. >"The only criteria for establishing a scientific truth is still a replicable experiment which proves an implementation according to some established law. Any simulation does not account for such kind of experiment, being mere a "cartoon" made according to some abstract model. The difference between experiment and simulation is of the same kind as between a cartoon and actual reality." Science (and philosophy for that matter) are defined from consistency of observation. I fail to see your point about an experiment measuring a "cartoon" when that is the reality in which we intrinsically exist and for which prediction will provide the most value.
    - lngnmn 10y ago
      Try this. This is a particularly good one. Science is definitely not a consensus of observations. It is a systematic effort to unveil what is. http://oyc.yale.edu/ecology-and-evolutionary-biology/eeb-122/lecture-23 http://oyc.yale.edu/ecology-and-evolutionary-biology/eeb-122...
      - iaw 10y ago
        I'm not asking you to send me a resource that has led you to your current conclusions. I'm asking that you formulate an argument that I can read that will make me believe that your arguments are well-formulated here. You made a very strong statement and I think that if you could logically justify it in written form it would be a valuable contribution to the thread.
        lngnmn 10y ago
        I could only try to clarify the same principles a bit more. Non-falsifiable and non empirically verified hypothesis does not amount for a science and constitutes a set of beliefs similar to religion among a community of its followers. As long as there is absolutely no way to reliably test or even measure, leave alone empirically validate anything, this set of beliefs is technically is a non-science and should be explicitly named as mere speculation. My first comment was the claim that what we deal with is a socially constructed phenomena, similar to a religious belief or a mass-hysteria because it is a) cannot be tested and b) constructed by a certain social group. Technically, I do not see any contradiction in my claim.

by lngnmn 10y ago

iaw 10y ago

I've downvoted your comment because your tone isn't constructive and you're making a rather illogical jump to the philosophical arguments of Spinoza in comparison to questions around modern measurable/observable phenomena in science. If you'd like to make a less hostile post with a clearer justification of your reasoning I'd be more than happy to debate the subject with you.

lngnmn 10y ago
I do not have anything to add. As a student of philosophy I have seen way to many socially constructed chimeras and memes to not notice modern ones. The only criteria for establishing a scientific truth is still a replicable experiment which proves an implementation according to some established law. Any simulation does not account for such kind of experiment, being mere a "cartoon" made according to some abstract model. The difference between experiment and simulation is of the same kind as between a cartoon and actual reality.
- iaw 10y ago
  > " As a student of philosophy I have seen way to many socially constructed chimeras and memes to not notice modern ones." There's a willful ignorance in this sentence that belies your youth and intelligence. I suspect you don't have an adequate background to understand the observational evidence for our expectation of dark matter (I barely do to be quite honest). I don't think you can fairly dismiss offhand the conclusions drawn by hundreds of expert physicists based on your experience. I've known more than one physicist that were also well-studied students of philosophy. If you have reached a brilliant and well-justified conclusion that they failed to see you should clearly write it to justify your case. >"The only criteria for establishing a scientific truth is still a replicable experiment which proves an implementation according to some established law. Any simulation does not account for such kind of experiment, being mere a "cartoon" made according to some abstract model. The difference between experiment and simulation is of the same kind as between a cartoon and actual reality." Science (and philosophy for that matter) are defined from consistency of observation. I fail to see your point about an experiment measuring a "cartoon" when that is the reality in which we intrinsically exist and for which prediction will provide the most value.
  - lngnmn 10y ago
    Try this. This is a particularly good one. Science is definitely not a consensus of observations. It is a systematic effort to unveil what is. http://oyc.yale.edu/ecology-and-evolutionary-biology/eeb-122/lecture-23 http://oyc.yale.edu/ecology-and-evolutionary-biology/eeb-122...
    - iaw 10y ago
      I'm not asking you to send me a resource that has led you to your current conclusions. I'm asking that you formulate an argument that I can read that will make me believe that your arguments are well-formulated here. You made a very strong statement and I think that if you could logically justify it in written form it would be a valuable contribution to the thread.
      - lngnmn 10y ago
        I could only try to clarify the same principles a bit more. Non-falsifiable and non empirically verified hypothesis does not amount for a science and constitutes a set of beliefs similar to religion among a community of its followers. As long as there is absolutely no way to reliably test or even measure, leave alone empirically validate anything, this set of beliefs is technically is a non-science and should be explicitly named as mere speculation. My first comment was the claim that what we deal with is a socially constructed phenomena, similar to a religious belief or a mass-hysteria because it is a) cannot be tested and b) constructed by a certain social group. Technically, I do not see any contradiction in my claim.