|>> || >>55300 |
Yeah, this is exactly why I stopped trying to have sensible discussions with people who are this committed to an absolute scientism (note I didn't say science!) world view. Frankly, you have no idea what I know about cosmology, or anything else for that matter. This is exactly the kind of blind arrogance I was talking about. For example, my criticism was primarily leveled at Dark Matter, which has been postulated since the 1930s. I recognize that alternative models make different assumptions, what I'm saying is that many of our for granted assumptions are so poor, we may be blind to legitimate alternatives, because of any number of biases, in our observations, in our mathematics, in our basic assumptions about what the model needs to entail.
Statistics is a science particularly suited to being able to massage data into whatever you want to see in it. The rejection of models can occur when an observation is fundamentally inconsistent with a model we are more committed to, but in many cases an earlier rejection has been in the service of maintaining a model that itself was later rejected based on new data. I am merely making the observation that any number of elements of Lambda CDM could be where our bias is hiding, such as our suppositions about what kind of mass tachyons would have to have, whether modified or classical Newtonian dynamics are closer to being accurate, etc, which was the pertinent matter of the OP thought experiment. Any off an ensemble of the parameters we think aren't free could actually be so, if there is just the slightest bias or misunderstanding of fundamental principles, and our science I'm sure could go on for centuries, dealing with the limited amount of the universe we interact with, before the error would become apparent and require a fundamental reconfiguration. My point is precisely that, that much of what we are committed to in our model are actually artifacts of circular thinking originating in our cherished assumptions in the model, which could be something as basic as a modification a true quantum explanation of gravity would have on general relativity.
If the supra-galactic dynamics of gravity can be explained by differences in the law of inverse squares when dealing with extremely low degree so acceleration for extremely massive structures (MOND) then why doesn't Occam's Razor prefer this, rather than an invisible woo-woo who accounts for 97% of everything that is, when that woo-woo itself we can answer no real fundamental questions about (of what particle is it composed, if any? If its massless, then why does it interact with matter so much, when we seem to think tachyons cannot? How do we know observations of distant galaxy motion from which the whole idea started haven't been influenced by things like say, changes in the speed of light across cosmological timescales? Too many what ifs that undercut the entire operation that to my mind, make this kind of vitriolic, unquestioning defense of it an evidence of stubbornness, and arrogance, again, my whole point)it seems to me the answer is we have been saying dark matter-energy for so long that whole generations of physicists have become culturally committed to it, even if common sense might suggest there are more fruitful avenues of exploration (or at least that this present one doesn't yet merit such overwhelming commitment.) And, we do pick models based on elegance. That is precisely what Occam's Razor is, even, granting, that it is a heuristic, not a principle or a law.
As for the short time we've been looking for WIMPs, ok, but do I really need to come up with a litany of supposed physical phenomena that scientists spent decades and whole lives chasing after, only for it later to be found that the whole idea was a ghost in some data or some artifact of a mathematical construct? Just because WIMPs are the new favored explanation, and we're building ridiculously expensive pieces of technology to hunt for them, doesn't mean that they will be found or, even if they are, that they will fully satisfy the missing mass problem, or that even if they seem to, that this itself might not be due to some other thing we're leaving out (even one additional undiscovered fundamental particle, for example.)
As for 'that will always be true of empirical science' yeah, I agree that's exactly what I'm championing. Empiricism is amazing, is the only way of truly moving forward with knowledge. My suggestion is that modern physicists have forgone the basic premises of empiricism (data first model second) and the scientific method (if an observation violates a model, revise the entire model back to the nearest point we can confirm, not chase adjacent phantoms) in order to hunt phantoms of their own mathematics which, like any kind of beings affected by observational bias, means they often do indeed find some evidence, or what appears to be, but that doesn't mean that the model isn't incomplete, or deserves the kind of unthinking (or unquestioningly parroting) devotion many (you, others like you) are giving to it. But, just tell me that the only reason I think that is because I'm just not LCDM cool enough for school, won't get it because I just can't see the brilliance of nearly everything we say exists being an invisible sumthin that well, we just don't really know shit about apart from how maybe it probably would interact with out mathematical models and we can spend a lot of fucking time and money trying to find proof for it. Would pretty much confirm my basic suspicion that most people in hard sciences are hopelessly, dangerously close minded.