3 ms·

> Proponents of all of the above are looking for a grand unifying cosmology. Dark matter and dark energy are confusing and unknown, so people want to just simpl

> Proponents of all of the above are looking for a grand unifying cosmology. Dark matter and dark energy are confusing and unknown, so people want to just simplify them away. Flat earthers want to simplify away the existence of other planets. Antivaxers want to simplify away medicine. Ironically, you are positing a grand unifying theory here by stating that detractors from mainstream opinions just want simpler answers. But isn't it simpler to just go with the mainstream opinion and go with the flow? Alternative models of the earth are typically rooted in Biblical or ancient belief systems. Any specific argument based on physics come long after a person's acceptance of, e.g., the Bible. And I can't even imagine how you might think anti-vax beliefs are simpler so I can't speak to that. Homeopathy sounds pretty dumb to me, sure, but also there are tons of reasons to distrust the medical system in the USA, I'd be surprised if anyone seriously argued against that. I can understand why people suspicious of America's medical culture of prescribing 10 medications to someone instead of lifestyle changes might see a bottle of sugar pills at the store labeled with "natural remedy" and think it could be a better alternative. > Every new observation has completely overturned the predictions of every MOND or modified gravity theory, and they just come back with a totally different explanation to fit the new data. That's how science works. Scientists are not prophets, they do not have the luxury of starting with all the answers. It's really disheartening to see you make these theories into an "us vs them" ego contest. I'm guess I'm just a dyed-in-the-wool agnostic, but when I hear someone suggest an alternative theory I don't immediately feel the need to group them with everything I think is wrong with the world. Instead I think, "That's really cool they came up with a different model of the universe. I wonder how they account for everything we observe and how it will be refined over time and whether it will predict new discoveries." Even if your current theory never gets overturned, I think your attitude is a perfect example of why science is said to advance one funeral at a time. Just because they got it wrong in the past doesn't mean they can never get it right, and it doesn't mean there's a 100% certainty that you got it right.

dventimi 1y ago
"It's really disheartening to see you make these theories into an "us vs them" ego contest." "I think your attitude is a perfect example of why science is said to advance one funeral at a time" Hey now, don't you think that's a little uncalled-for? It's difficult to determine the attitude of a stranger over the internet via text. "just because they got it wrong in the past doesn't mean they can never get it right, and it doesn't mean there's a 100% certainty that you got it right." Nobody said either of these things, but people are entitled to extend to or withhold trust from purported experts based on the successful or not-so-successful application of their claimed expertise. If the MOND people and the MOG people keep getting things wrong, they're still free to persevere just as we're free to ignore them.
- Validark 1y ago
  I'm specifically referring to: > There are- things like flat or hollow earth, antivax and HIV deniers, homeopaths etc. Proponents of all of the above are looking for a grand unifying cosmology. Dark matter and dark energy are confusing and unknown, so people want to just simplify them away. I think that's pretty uncalled for. To me, positing and exploring alternative views of the universe is a noble and interesting goal, even if the currently accepted answers don't get overturned. The generated ideas might still have other value. Maybe there is a piece of it that's salvageable and can be integrated with other concepts. Or it can inspire future ideas. I think it's pretty uncalled for to lump them in with "flat or hollow earth, antivax and HIV deniers, homeopaths". Do MOND and MOG people make conspiracy YouTube videos about how governments of the world just want you to believe in dark matter and energy to shutter your mind from realizing the truth of their theories? Are they telling people to stop taking chemotherapy and be healed through faith alone instead? Perhaps I'm simply unaware of some nasty behavior, but if not it's pretty rude to lump them in with those other groups. From my perspective they're engaging in a theoretical pursuit and you're just taking a dump on them. > If the MOND people and the MOG people keep getting things wrong, they're still free to persevere just as we're free to ignore them. Are you ignoring them? There are a lot of things I don't pay attention to, MOND/MOG included, but I also don't feel the need to demonize them for getting out of bed in the morning and trying out a new idea. Couldn't you just say, "Interesting concept. I doubt it works out for cosmic background radiation, but would make for a cool Star Trek episode". Or just say nothing? Why do you have to accuse them of being small-minded, simplistic thinkers who are really just motivated by being too dumb to understand the current meta and not unlike harmful idiots that earnestly believe space is just government propaganda and viruses aren't real? > people are entitled to > they're still free to persevere just as we're free to ignore them. I don't think we were talking about what people should be penalized for by the government, in which case rights and freedoms are primary considerations. We're talking about what things people can do to deserve to be considered unreasonable and be ridiculed, looked down upon, and likely considered harmful to society. I don't think MOND/MOG people qualify.
  - dventimi 1y ago
    "I think that's pretty uncalled for." I don't share your thoughts on the passage you're specifically referring to. It seems pretty anodyne to me. "I think it's pretty uncalled for to lump them in with "flat or hollow earth, antivax and HIV deniers, homeopaths" I don't share that view, either, but I also don't think they were lumping things together. They were giving examples to answer a specific question I had asked. "From my perspective they're engaging in a theoretical pursuit and you're just taking a dump on them." You're entitled to your perspective, just as I'm entitled to my perspective that yours is overblown. "Are you ignoring them?" Like many things, that's a matter of degree. I'm mostly ignoring, though not so much that I won't occasionally engage the subject on HN. "I also don't feel the need to demonize them." I'm not aware of anyone here who's doing that "Couldn't you just say, "Interesting concept. I doubt it works out for cosmic background radiation, but would make for a cool Star Trek episode". Or just say nothing?" I could, but I won't, because I don't consider MOND and MOG to be interesting concepts. Why do you want me to say that I do? "Why do you have to accuse them of being small-minded, simplistic thinkers who are really just motivated by being too dumb to understand the current meta and not unlike harmful idiots that earnestly believe space is just government propaganda and viruses aren't real?" I'm not. "I don't think we were talking about what people should be penalized for by the government." We're not talking about that at all. That's a non-sequitur. I was just emphasizing that what people can do and still be considered reasonable is a matter of personal judgement. It's a matter of personal judgement if I want to scorn the MOND and MOG people. I don't, but I could if I wanted to. I DON'T scorn them, but I do largely ignore them. I'm ignoring them even now.
hwillis 1y ago
> when I hear someone suggest an alternative theory I don't immediately feel the need to group them with everything I think is wrong with the world Modified theories of gravity are not new and there is nothing immediate about my feelings on them. I understand homeopathy, and I am very confident that the idea that water has a special memory for particular chemicals is very silly. In the same way I understand MOND theories, and they are mostly silly. > That's how science works. Scientists are not prophets, they do not have the luxury of starting with all the answers. You are unfamiliar with the history of these theories if you think that their changes have been in any way scientific. MOND originates when the first observations of dark matter were very simple: galactic rotation curves. It was a reasonable attempt to explain why stars at galactic edges rotate faster than you would expect. Later, we got much more detailed observations which revealed that there was actual, complex structure to those orbital perturbations. Structure that is totally independent of the visible matter. We found the Bullet cluster, where 2 galaxy clusters are orbiting a third invisible cluster. Rather than admit some of this structure could not be explained, MOND theories grew wildly more complicated, and starting adding in more and more terms with arbitrary constants attempting to fit each new piece of data. That is not scientific. It's not how we got from Newton to Einstein. It's Aether theory. There are certainly physicists who do respectable work on MOND. They put that work out as a proposal, and recognize how good the evidence for dark matter is. They are a minority of the proponents, and I really mean that. There are a huge number of people publishing fringe time-cube types of theories about it. I am not lightly comparing it to homeopathy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Cube https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Cube

dventimi 1y ago

"It's really disheartening to see you make these theories into an "us vs them" ego contest." "I think your attitude is a perfect example of why science is said to advance one funeral at a time" Hey now, don't you think that's a little uncalled-for? It's difficult to determine the attitude of a stranger over the internet via text. "just because they got it wrong in the past doesn't mean they can never get it right, and it doesn't mean there's a 100% certainty that you got it right." Nobody said either of these things, but people are entitled to extend to or withhold trust from purported experts based on the successful or not-so-successful application of their claimed expertise. If the MOND people and the MOG people keep getting things wrong, they're still free to persevere just as we're free to ignore them.

Validark 1y ago
I'm specifically referring to: > There are- things like flat or hollow earth, antivax and HIV deniers, homeopaths etc. Proponents of all of the above are looking for a grand unifying cosmology. Dark matter and dark energy are confusing and unknown, so people want to just simplify them away. I think that's pretty uncalled for. To me, positing and exploring alternative views of the universe is a noble and interesting goal, even if the currently accepted answers don't get overturned. The generated ideas might still have other value. Maybe there is a piece of it that's salvageable and can be integrated with other concepts. Or it can inspire future ideas. I think it's pretty uncalled for to lump them in with "flat or hollow earth, antivax and HIV deniers, homeopaths". Do MOND and MOG people make conspiracy YouTube videos about how governments of the world just want you to believe in dark matter and energy to shutter your mind from realizing the truth of their theories? Are they telling people to stop taking chemotherapy and be healed through faith alone instead? Perhaps I'm simply unaware of some nasty behavior, but if not it's pretty rude to lump them in with those other groups. From my perspective they're engaging in a theoretical pursuit and you're just taking a dump on them. > If the MOND people and the MOG people keep getting things wrong, they're still free to persevere just as we're free to ignore them. Are you ignoring them? There are a lot of things I don't pay attention to, MOND/MOG included, but I also don't feel the need to demonize them for getting out of bed in the morning and trying out a new idea. Couldn't you just say, "Interesting concept. I doubt it works out for cosmic background radiation, but would make for a cool Star Trek episode". Or just say nothing? Why do you have to accuse them of being small-minded, simplistic thinkers who are really just motivated by being too dumb to understand the current meta and not unlike harmful idiots that earnestly believe space is just government propaganda and viruses aren't real? > people are entitled to > they're still free to persevere just as we're free to ignore them. I don't think we were talking about what people should be penalized for by the government, in which case rights and freedoms are primary considerations. We're talking about what things people can do to deserve to be considered unreasonable and be ridiculed, looked down upon, and likely considered harmful to society. I don't think MOND/MOG people qualify.
- dventimi 1y ago
  "I think that's pretty uncalled for." I don't share your thoughts on the passage you're specifically referring to. It seems pretty anodyne to me. "I think it's pretty uncalled for to lump them in with "flat or hollow earth, antivax and HIV deniers, homeopaths" I don't share that view, either, but I also don't think they were lumping things together. They were giving examples to answer a specific question I had asked. "From my perspective they're engaging in a theoretical pursuit and you're just taking a dump on them." You're entitled to your perspective, just as I'm entitled to my perspective that yours is overblown. "Are you ignoring them?" Like many things, that's a matter of degree. I'm mostly ignoring, though not so much that I won't occasionally engage the subject on HN. "I also don't feel the need to demonize them." I'm not aware of anyone here who's doing that "Couldn't you just say, "Interesting concept. I doubt it works out for cosmic background radiation, but would make for a cool Star Trek episode". Or just say nothing?" I could, but I won't, because I don't consider MOND and MOG to be interesting concepts. Why do you want me to say that I do? "Why do you have to accuse them of being small-minded, simplistic thinkers who are really just motivated by being too dumb to understand the current meta and not unlike harmful idiots that earnestly believe space is just government propaganda and viruses aren't real?" I'm not. "I don't think we were talking about what people should be penalized for by the government." We're not talking about that at all. That's a non-sequitur. I was just emphasizing that what people can do and still be considered reasonable is a matter of personal judgement. It's a matter of personal judgement if I want to scorn the MOND and MOG people. I don't, but I could if I wanted to. I DON'T scorn them, but I do largely ignore them. I'm ignoring them even now.

hwillis 1y ago

> when I hear someone suggest an alternative theory I don't immediately feel the need to group them with everything I think is wrong with the world Modified theories of gravity are not new and there is nothing immediate about my feelings on them. I understand homeopathy, and I am very confident that the idea that water has a special memory for particular chemicals is very silly. In the same way I understand MOND theories, and they are mostly silly. > That's how science works. Scientists are not prophets, they do not have the luxury of starting with all the answers. You are unfamiliar with the history of these theories if you think that their changes have been in any way scientific. MOND originates when the first observations of dark matter were very simple: galactic rotation curves. It was a reasonable attempt to explain why stars at galactic edges rotate faster than you would expect. Later, we got much more detailed observations which revealed that there was actual, complex structure to those orbital perturbations. Structure that is totally independent of the visible matter. We found the Bullet cluster, where 2 galaxy clusters are orbiting a third invisible cluster. Rather than admit some of this structure could not be explained, MOND theories grew wildly more complicated, and starting adding in more and more terms with arbitrary constants attempting to fit each new piece of data. That is not scientific. It's not how we got from Newton to Einstein. It's Aether theory. There are certainly physicists who do respectable work on MOND. They put that work out as a proposal, and recognize how good the evidence for dark matter is. They are a minority of the proponents, and I really mean that. There are a huge number of people publishing fringe time-cube types of theories about it. I am not lightly comparing it to homeopathy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Cube https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Cube