4 ms·

I think your response makes sense (neutrinos are another example where the theory predicted an as yet undetected particle and it was eventually found). But the

I think your response makes sense (neutrinos are another example where the theory predicted an as yet undetected particle and it was eventually found). But the other reply to your comment is good too - at what point, after failing to detect any OTHER signs of these invisible elephants, do you wonder if there’s other explanations? What it would take to falsify dark matter, given that you can invent it in whatever distribution you like to fit the data? There’s nothing that logically compels us to assume the existing model of gravity is correct, and its discrepancy with observation is explained by assuming the inputs aren’t what we can observe. It is also logical to consider that the existing model of gravity isn’t quite right. Of course any tweaks to gravity have to be compatible with a lot of other observations but it would be wrong to rule out the possibility of an alternate model.

perl4ever 7y ago
"What it would take to falsify dark matter, given that you can invent it in whatever distribution you like to fit the data?" What does it take to falsify any observation of any kind of matter? Isn't the chair you are sitting on just as unfalsifiable? In an effort to be consistent, you might concede that the belief your chair (or anything!) exists is not scientific, so then I ask if that's not a problem, why is dark matter a problem?
- pchiusano 7y ago
  Ok, so epistemologically we can’t know what reality “really” is, only what we observe, and we can come up with models that fit our observations. Your (I’d say vacuous) point is that my model of reality that includes a chair is epistemologically on the same level as a model of the cosmos that includes dark matter... though it’s also on the same level as a model that gravity is caused by invisible purple dinosaurs. :) So this perspective doesn’t really get us anywhere in judging models of reality. I’d say models are useful when they are simple and predictive. Dark matter isn’t really predictive, it’s what is hypothesized to compensate for the prediction error of our current model of gravity. (Doesn’t mean it’s wrong but am just pointing this out) So I don’t think dark matter is inherently problematic, just that it’s not predictive and it’s worth considering whether the model of gravity we have needs tweaking instead (much like GR refined Newtonian gravity).

perl4ever 7y ago

"What it would take to falsify dark matter, given that you can invent it in whatever distribution you like to fit the data?" What does it take to falsify any observation of any kind of matter? Isn't the chair you are sitting on just as unfalsifiable? In an effort to be consistent, you might concede that the belief your chair (or anything!) exists is not scientific, so then I ask if that's not a problem, why is dark matter a problem?

pchiusano 7y ago
Ok, so epistemologically we can’t know what reality “really” is, only what we observe, and we can come up with models that fit our observations. Your (I’d say vacuous) point is that my model of reality that includes a chair is epistemologically on the same level as a model of the cosmos that includes dark matter... though it’s also on the same level as a model that gravity is caused by invisible purple dinosaurs. :) So this perspective doesn’t really get us anywhere in judging models of reality. I’d say models are useful when they are simple and predictive. Dark matter isn’t really predictive, it’s what is hypothesized to compensate for the prediction error of our current model of gravity. (Doesn’t mean it’s wrong but am just pointing this out) So I don’t think dark matter is inherently problematic, just that it’s not predictive and it’s worth considering whether the model of gravity we have needs tweaking instead (much like GR refined Newtonian gravity).