What is a skeptic?

[Sriram]

No matter how sceptical he is. he has to admit that it is a faculty that he doesn't have. He has been shown unequivocally that it exists.

How can you convince him of that?!

[Sriram]

You confuse scepticism with stubborness.  They are not synonyms.  We cannot see dark matter; we cannot detect dark matter directly, but we do not go around claiming it does not exist.

That is blind belief in science.  Like the emperors new clothes...you claim something exits all around us that cannot be sensed at all. It could very well be proved that DM does not exist at all.

[Sriram]

What you need to understand is reason and logic are appropriate to some questions and emotion is applicable to others. If you try to apply emotion to a question of objective fact, then you are being foolish.

Again, if you are trying to assess if something is objectively real, then reason, logic and evidence are required - applying emotion and feelings is crass stupidity.

Trying to (for example) appreciate art, music and literature using only reason and logic is equally foolish. It's about using what is appropriate.

You are thinking of feelings and reason as two different things like hands and legs....useful for two different purposes.  That is so only up to a point.

We can perceive the world through reason and through emotions.   They present two very different views. 

Integrating them is what leads to a unified world view. That is what Yoga and meditations achieve.

Your impression that the view taken by reason and logic is the right view that represents reality.....is not correct. 

[Stranger]

That is blind belief in science.  Like the emperors new clothes...you claim something exits all around us that cannot be sensed at all. It could very well be proved that DM does not exist at all.

We have evidence for dark matter. Something is affecting visible matter via gravity - we have labelled it "dark matter" because we don't know exactly what it is.

Zero faith required.

[Stranger]

Your impression that the view taken by reason and logic is the right view that represents reality.....is not correct.

I didn't say it was the right view to represent reality - I said if you are trying to assess objective facts, then you can only sensibly use reason, logic and evidence. Emotions are, by their nature, subjective and therefore not appropriate to the task of assessing matters of objective fact.

[Bubbles]

We have evidence for dark matter. Something is affecting visible matter via gravity - we have labelled it "dark matter" because we don't know exactly what it is.

Zero faith required.

 Shouldn't that be? something is affecting visible matter we don't know what it is, we have called it dark matter, but there is no evidence of dark matter, it's just a label for an effect we don't understand yet.

The only evidence is that something is happening......

[Stranger]

Shouldn't that be? something is affecting visible matter we don't know what it is, we have called it dark matter, but there is no evidence of dark matter, it's just a label for an effect we don't understand yet.

The term dark matter essentially means "whatever it is that is affecting visible matter via gravity". So, we do have evidence for it - in fact the evidence is all we have - no tested theory.

[BeRational]

Shouldn't that be? something is affecting visible matter we don't know what it is, we have called it dark matter, but there is no evidence of dark matter, it's just a label for an effect we don't understand yet.

The only evidence is that something is happening......

I think that is what is being said.

Dark matter and dark energy are place holder names for an unexplained phenomenon.

Whatever the answer is, it will change our current understanding.

[ippy]

IF the blind person is as skeptical as you people are....he will not believe the person. He will first ask how does he know it is because of 'light' and not because of some other phenomenon or some other method used by the other person.  What the heck is 'light' anyway?!

Define it and show evidence of how it can exist everywhere and make people 'see' (whatever that is!  ) without itself being felt or heard or sensed in any way. Rubbish!

I assume you would rather travel in a plane guided and kept safe by radar than another plane without the assistance of radar?

Do you know of anybody that can see radar without the necessary electronic equipment?

Most blind people wouldn't have much difficulty understanding how sonar works, how radar works all very similar all easily understandable, you must be aware of how easy it is for us to point to where someone is, provided they make some noise, when we use our stereoscopic hearing, they're all differing forms of energy telling an almost similar story, as is sight an interpretation of another energy source.

None of the above descriptions of how we interpret incoming information can be described exactly cutting edge science, more every day knowledge, how come you missed it, anyway it's an answer to a rather simplistic lack of understanding you've demonstrated in your post 43 on this thread.

ippy 

[torridon]

That is blind belief in science.  Like the emperors new clothes...you claim something exits all around us that cannot be sensed at all. It could very well be proved that DM does not exist at all.

Thats a poor comparison.  With the emperor's new clothes, there aren't any clothes, that is the point of fable. With dark matter, there is definitely something going on because we have indirect evidence for it, we just haven't figured it out yet.  That is not a faith position, it is an honest position to say we don't know yet

[Sriram]

Thats a poor comparison.  With the emperor's new clothes, there aren't any clothes, that is the point of fable. With dark matter, there is definitely something going on because we have indirect evidence for it, we just haven't figured it out yet.  That is not a faith position, it is an honest position to say we don't know yet

No...you're not saying that 'you don't know'. You are saying that something called Dark Matter that is five times more abundant than normal matter exists all over the universe...and this DM cannot be detected because it does not interact with normal matter at all. 

Similarly with Dark Energy and Parallel Universes etc.

These are now fundamental concepts based on which many larger theories of the cosmos are being built.  However, these are only conjectures and the entire model on which these assumptions are made could eventually be proved wrong. 

Let me add that I have no problem with such conjectures. They become necessary as we venture into areas that are more and more distant, abstract and nebulous.

But similar conjectures are also necessary in matters dealing with the mind, biofield, death, after-life and so on.  These cannot be dismissed as nonsense for want of direct evidence.

Problem is that the doubts surfacing about Christian ideas and its mythology have created a mindset that is being used to eradicate all ideas of spirituality and non material aspects of life.

[Stranger]

No...you're not saying that 'you don't know'. You are saying that something called Dark Matter that is five times more abundant than normal matter exists all over the universe...and this DM cannot be detected because it does not interact with normal matter at all.

Good grief, did you bother to read anything that has been posted explaining this? It does interact with normal matter, via gravity. Dark matter is just a term used to label the cause of the observed evidence of that interaction.

Similarly with Dark Energy and Parallel Universes etc.

I do wish you could be bothered to learn something before posting - it really isn't hard to find out the basics. Dark energy is like dark matter in that it is a label for the cause of an observed phenomenon; in this case the increasing rate of expansion of the universe.

"Parallel universes" (of various kinds) are speculation based on indications from various theories that attempt to describe what we observe in this universe. As such they are in a totally different category to dark energy and dark matter.

These are now fundamental concepts based on which many larger theories of the cosmos are being built.

Utter drivel.

They are, in the case of dark energy and dark matter, phenomena that we are attempting to understand, while parallel universes are speculations based on theoretical attempts to explain the cosmos as observed.

However, these are only conjectures and the entire model on which these assumptions are made could eventually be proved wrong.

Dark matter and dark energy are evidence - whatever the explanations are, they are not going away. Parallel universes are conjectures; nobody is basing anything on their existence, they are conjecture based on possible explanations that are being explored for other reasons.

Let me add that I have no problem with such conjectures. They become necessary as we venture into areas that are more and more distant, abstract and nebulous.

But similar conjectures are also necessary in matters dealing with the mind, biofield, death, after-life and so on.  These cannot be dismissed as nonsense for want of direct evidence.

People are free to speculate as they wish but when there is neither logical basis nor evidence, it is nothing but guesswork...

[ippy]

Looks like you've been well and truly chewed up and all of the bits spat out, again, Sriram.

ippy

[Sriram]

Dark matter and dark energy are evidence - whatever the explanations are, they are not going away. Parallel universes are conjectures; nobody is basing anything on their existence, they are conjecture based on possible explanations that are being explored for other reasons.

People are free to speculate as they wish but when there is neither logical basis nor evidence, it is nothing but guesswork...

Dark Matter and Dark Energy are evidence of what exactly?! LOL!   

[Stranger]

Dark Matter and Dark Energy are evidence of what exactly?! LOL!   

It is really is quite difficult to imagine a more ignorant response.

This is how science works when new phenomena are observed; gather the evidence; formulate hypotheses; test hypotheses.

We have got to the formulate hypotheses stage. Repeating yet again: the terms dark energy and dark matter are labels for the causes of the observed phenomena. So, we have evidence for these two "somethings" but we don't have tested theories to explain them yet. They are observations that require explanations; evidence that is being used to formulate hypotheses.

How many ways do you want it said before it sinks in?

Please try to think and read the information already given before posting next time.

[Brownie]

Dark Matter and Dark Energy are evidence of what exactly?! LOL!   

At first (and second glance), I thought your comment was from floo, Sririam!  Could hardly believe it was you.

The rest of the universe appears to be made of a mysterious, invisible substance called dark matter (25 percent) and a force that repels gravity known as dark energy (70 percent). Scientists have not yet observed dark matter directly.

I see SKofS has explained it better.  It is still largely unknown.

[Sriram]

At first (and second glance), I thought your comment was from floo, Sririam!  Could hardly believe it was you.

The rest of the universe appears to be made of a mysterious, invisible substance called dark matter (25 percent) and a force that repels gravity known as dark energy (70 percent). Scientists have not yet observed dark matter directly.

I see SKofS has explained it better.  It is still largely unknown.

Brownie, 

No...no.    Dark Matter and Dark Energy are not evidence for anything. They are the presumed solutions for certain observations.

Scientists found that galaxies are receding away from one another at accelerating rates. This was not possible unless something was pushing them apart...  like some sort of an antigravity force. They gave this force the name of Dark energy.

Similarly, scientists calculated, based on gravitational forces in galaxy clusters, that the total mass of the universe was required to be considerably more than was observed in the known universe. Also certain structure formations etc. needed to be explained. Therefore they proposed something they called Dark Matter which is 5 times more abundant than normal matter but which cannot be sensed or detected by our instruments.

So....the 'evidence' are the above observed phenomena. DM and DE are the proposed solutions or answers for these observations. They are not evidence for anything !

In fact, there is absolutely no proof at all for either Dark Matter or Dark energy. They are conjectures that seek to explain the above observations. They could get disproved or eliminated anytime due to alternative explanations.

As I have said earlier...I have no problems with such conjectures. They are necessary and even inevitable given the nature of the cosmos.

But when similar conjectures or hypothesis are proposed for phenomena such as NDE's or 'miracle' cures or ESP or for the nature of the mind.....they are dismissed because we cannot prove the existence of such things as after-life, biofield, common consciousness and so on.  So our conjectures are invalid! LOL!!! 

This is where my earlier statement that 'reason and logic' are subject to background, culture, beliefs and mindset..... and are not uniformly applied, becomes relevant.

Cheers.

Sriram

[Stranger]

 

Do you really not see what you just did.....?

No...no.    Dark Matter and Dark Energy are not evidence for anything. They are the presumed solutions for certain observations.

Presumed solutions eh? Well, let's see...

Scientists found that galaxies are receding away from one another at accelerating rates. This was not possible unless something was pushing them apart...  like some sort of an antigravity force. They gave this force the name of Dark energy.

So, that's a name for something that causes an observed phenomenon. No solution, yet...

Similarly, scientists calculated, based on gravitational forces in galaxy clusters, that the total mass of the universe was required to be considerably more than was observed in the known universe. Also certain structure formations etc. needed to be explained. Therefore they proposed something they called Dark Matter which is 5 times more abundant than normal matter but which cannot be sensed or detected by our instruments.

So again, just a name for something that is needed to explain observations, no solutions...

So....the 'evidence' are the above observed phenomena. DM and DE are the proposed solutions or answers for these observations. They are not evidence for anything.

In fact, there is absolutely no proof at all for either Dark Matter or Dark energy. They are conjectures that seek to explain the above observations. They could get disproved or eliminated anytime due to alternate explanations.

And yet, you have just outlined the evidence that needs explaining and the names that have been attached to the (as yet unknown) solutions. They cannot possibly be just conjecture and you have outlined why!

I know those into superstition use names as if they were solutions ('soul', for example), but science is different. A solution would be a theory - a proposed solution is a hypothesis. You could take one of the hypotheses about DE or DM and claim that they were proposed or tentative solutions but there are no presumed solutions.

But when similar conjectures or hypothesis are proposed for phenomena such as NDE's or 'miracle' cures or ESP or for the nature of the mind.....they are dismissed because we cannot prove the existence of such things as after-life, biofield, common consciousness and so on.  So our conjectures are invalid! LOL!!!

This is where my earlier statement that 'reason and logic' are subject to background, culture, beliefs and mindset..... and are not uniformly applied, becomes relevant.

Now, we have why you are so determined to make names for the causes of observed phenomena into conjecture - so you can draw a parallel with your favourite woo woo.

Reason and logic are clearly (yet more) things that you don't understand....

[SteveH]

What is a skeptic?  A dyslexic sceptic.

[Sebastian Toe]

Sceptic vs. skeptic

http://grammarist.com/spelling/sceptic-skeptic/

Your etc
The dyslecksic septic.
 

[floo]

What is a skeptic?  A dyslexic sceptic.

Don't the Americans spell it with a 'k'?

[Brownie]

Yes, the Americans + Steve  .

[SteveH]

Don't the Americans spell it with a 'k'?

If they do, they shouldn't.