3 ms·

> You can find scientists who refute climate change, too. That's an appeal to nature as well as a false equivalency. It is difficult to refute climate change b

> You can find scientists who refute climate change, too. That's an appeal to nature as well as a false equivalency. It is difficult to refute climate change because we have incredible amounts of tactile observations that match predictions - the stuff from which the scientific method stems. At one point science (well, philosophy as the progenitor of science) said that the Earth was flat. It was a small number of rebellious scientists that corrected this misconception. Group-think and consensus do not mean that you are correct, it could mean that you are collectively wrong. We've never seen dark matter. The so-called "evidence" that is continuously regurgitated[1] is an image of the problem. It would be like making a map of the missing periodic table of elements and calling it all "Dark Elements," never bothering to figure out what the missing elements individually are. We didn't do that, which is why we can do so many useful things with heavier elements today. If axion decay is observed, I will have no choice but to agree with the WIMP theories. As it stands, there is zero credible and scientific evidence for the stuff. [1]: http://www.esa.int/spaceinimages/Images/2007/01/3D_map_of_dark_matter_as_seen_by_Hubble http://www.esa.int/spaceinimages/Images/2007/01/3D_map_of_da...

civilitty 9y ago
> We didn't do that, which is why we can do so many useful things with heavier elements today. This article is literally about the development of new sensor technologies designed to make that kind of progress for dark matter. It seems you just have a chip on your shoulder and a complete misunderstanding of the concept of dark matter.
- zamalek 9y ago
  > This article is literally about the development of new sensor technologies designed to make that kind of progress for dark matter. Which is exactly what the last paragraph in my comment addresses.
davidcuddeback 9y ago
> It is difficult to refute climate change because we have incredible amounts of tactile observations that match predictions And yet people try. If this were a discussion on climate change, someone could link to a scientist trying to refute it and say "some disagree." We both agree that linking to a single blog post that refutes climate change would be unconvincing. Why hold this topic to a different standard? > The so-called "evidence" that is continuously regurgitated is an image of the problem. That's what evidence is, isn't it? Then scientists get to solve the mystery that's revealed by the evidence. Just like detectives solve a crime based on evidence at a crime scene. Evidence can precede answers. Having evidence doesn't mean we've figured out what dark matter is. It means we can put constraints on possible explanations. So far, scientists have ruled out several theories, because they don't fit the evidence. > As it stands, there is zero credible and scientific evidence for the stuff. If there were no evidence, there wouldn't be a mystery to solve.

civilitty 9y ago

> We didn't do that, which is why we can do so many useful things with heavier elements today. This article is literally about the development of new sensor technologies designed to make that kind of progress for dark matter. It seems you just have a chip on your shoulder and a complete misunderstanding of the concept of dark matter.

zamalek 9y ago
> This article is literally about the development of new sensor technologies designed to make that kind of progress for dark matter. Which is exactly what the last paragraph in my comment addresses.

davidcuddeback 9y ago

> It is difficult to refute climate change because we have incredible amounts of tactile observations that match predictions And yet people try. If this were a discussion on climate change, someone could link to a scientist trying to refute it and say "some disagree." We both agree that linking to a single blog post that refutes climate change would be unconvincing. Why hold this topic to a different standard? > The so-called "evidence" that is continuously regurgitated is an image of the problem. That's what evidence is, isn't it? Then scientists get to solve the mystery that's revealed by the evidence. Just like detectives solve a crime based on evidence at a crime scene. Evidence can precede answers. Having evidence doesn't mean we've figured out what dark matter is. It means we can put constraints on possible explanations. So far, scientists have ruled out several theories, because they don't fit the evidence. > As it stands, there is zero credible and scientific evidence for the stuff. If there were no evidence, there wouldn't be a mystery to solve.