Scientifically Observed?

[Emilio Primo]

Science is able to study dark matter through observing its interactions with other things.

 

Here is an example for some of the evidence for dark matter:

 

 

Press Release

More Info

 

Here is a site published by Harvard affiliated with Chandra about the evidence for dark matter.

 

 

You should have proof read your sources:

 

 

These observations provide the strongest evidence yet that most of the matter in the universe is dark. Despite considerable evidence for dark matter, some scientists have proposed alternative theories for gravity where it is stronger on intergalactic scales than predicted by Newton and Einstein, removing the need for dark matter. However, such theories cannot explain the observed effects of this collision.

 

 

"We've closed this loophole about gravity, and we've come closer than ever to seeing this invisible matter," Clowe said.

 

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/aug/HQ_06297_CHANDRA_Dark_Matter.html

 

 

To the contrary, the hot gas in clusters of galaxies provides an independent confirmation of dark matter. As with giant elliptical galaxies, the measurement of the hot gas pressure in galaxy clusters shows that there must be about 5-6 times as much dark matter as all the stars and gas we observe, or the hot gas in the cluster would escape.

 

 

http://chandra.harvard.edu/xray_astro/dark_matter/index2.html

Edited August 7, 2010 by Emilio Primo

[DJBruce]

You should have proof read your sources:

 

 

These observations provide the strongest evidence yet that most of the matter in the universe is dark. Despite considerable evidence for dark matter, some scientists have proposed alternative theories for gravity where it is stronger on intergalactic scales than predicted by Newton and Einstein, removing the need for dark matter. However, such theories cannot explain the observed effects of this collision.

 

 

"We've closed this loophole about gravity, and we've come closer than ever to seeing this invisible matter," Clowe said.

 

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/aug/HQ_06297_CHANDRA_Dark_Matter.html

 

 

To the contrary, the hot gas in clusters of galaxies provides an independent confirmation of dark matter. As with giant elliptical galaxies, the measurement of the hot gas pressure in galaxy clusters shows that there must be about 5-6 times as much dark matter as all the stars and gas we observe, or the hot gas in the cluster would escape.

 

 

http://chandra.harvard.edu/xray_astro/dark_matter/index2.html

 

I am confused how do those not show evidence for dark matter? I mean phrase such as "provides an independent confirmation of dark matter" and "these observations provide the strongest evidence yet that most of the matter in the universe is dark." seem to tell me that their is strong evidence for the existence of dark matter.

[Bignose]

 

Limited to what? Study, observe, evidence? Can we stop all the game playing and get down to the topic..

 

 

this is in reply to my question about which tools count as direct or indirect -- an answer I didn't get by the way.

 

I want to know where exactly your limit is. I'm not playing semantics, I'm not playing games. I am just asking because I want to understand your position.

 

For example, if using an x-ray telescope is okay, why doesn't gravitational interactions with other matter in the universe count as evidence for black holes? If interactions on the atomic level to observe electrons are ok, why aren't interactions on a galactic level to observe dark matter and black holes ok? I really want to understand why you make a distinction... (so, can I ask you to drop the attitude, please?)

Edited August 7, 2010 by Bignose

[Ringer]

So, in your theory on what should be seen as unscientific we should throw out all of history, anthropology, physics, etc. As an example that's not really science to make put this in perspective if everything had to be directly observed we would say that there were no accurate way to say where languages come from. Spanish, French, Italian, etc. have no common ancestral language (latin) because we never watched the languages diverge. Even though we see writing styles change slowly throughout history we can never say that the languages changed in any way because we weren't there and we didn't see it happen in a single generation. Also, we cant say why languages change because we never saw two languages interact to change the language as a whole. Again even though all evidence points to this we can't say for sure because we didn't listen to every word. That's how your theory sounds. P.S. Darwin's explanation of evolution was commonly compared with linguistic change so I thought it fitting

[Sayonara]

How are the premises incorrect? So life coming about by chance is not random? If it is not random, then that would mean intent, and if there is intent, then there would have to be an intelligence behind this intent.

In addition to what Sisyphus said about randomness, a lack of randomness might coincide with intent but it does not by any means necessitate it.

 

Randomness in events is reduced or removed by the occurrence of constraints. A constraint can occur regardless of whether or not there is any conscious intent to influence the outcome of the events in question.

[Emilio Primo]

So, in your theory on what should be seen as unscientific we should throw out all of history, anthropology, physics, etc. As an example that's not really science to make put this in perspective if everything had to be directly observed we would say that there were no accurate way to say where languages come from. Spanish, French, Italian, etc. have no common ancestral language (latin) because we never watched the languages diverge. Even though we see writing styles change slowly throughout history we can never say that the languages changed in any way because we weren't there and we didn't see it happen in a single generation. Also, we cant say why languages change because we never saw two languages interact to change the language as a whole. Again even though all evidence points to this we can't say for sure because we didn't listen to every word. That's how your theory sounds. P.S. Darwin's explanation of evolution was commonly compared with linguistic change so I thought it fitting

 

 

Why can't any(Except One) of you defend your position against the questions I raise? Why is every post dealing in semantics? Is this not a science forum?

 

In addition to what Sisyphus said about randomness, a lack of randomness might coincide with intent but it does not by any means necessitate it.

 

Randomness in events is reduced or removed by the occurrence of constraints. A constraint can occur regardless of whether or not there is any conscious intent to influence the outcome of the events in question.

 

 

This is incorrect. There is no in between regarding randomness and intent, it's either one or the other.

 

So if a constraint occurs without any conscious intent or influence that means it is random. You either have randomness or you either have intent.

Edited August 7, 2010 by Emilio Primo

[Sisyphus]

Why is every post dealing in semantics?

 

Because the objections you raise are semantic.

 

This is incorrect. There is no in between regarding randomness and intent, it's either one or the other.

 

No, it is either random or deterministic. If I toss a ball in the air and it follows a parabolic path back to earth, that path wasn't random, it was the result of natural laws. It was deterministic.

[Emilio Primo]

Because the objections you raise are semantic.

 

Which ones?

 

 

 

No, it is either random or deterministic. If I toss a ball in the air and it follows a parabolic path back to earth, that path wasn't random, it was the result of natural laws. It was deterministic.

 

Sorry, but THAT is randomness, or we can tak into account YOU threw the ball which would be intent.

 

No. The difference is between it happening over time as a result of natural processes, and a bunch of matter being tossed together and a living thing popping out. "Intent" is not the opposite of "random."

 

Without randomness you have intent, there is no inbetween.

 

 

 

It is observed in nature. Why do you keep saying it isn't?

 

Because it is not, why do you keep stating it is.

 

 

 

Yes, we did cover it. Literally everything is observed through "indirect evidence." I believe there was a discussion about a table.

 

 

 

Yes, of course.

 

Even though it violates scientific laws?

 

 

 

Yes. Or rather, more specific hypotheses can be falsified. "Life arose from nonlife" is a very general statement. Abiogenesis is still poorly understood.

 

How so? Pasteur seemed to falsify life from non life over a hundred years ago, but yet this theory still persist.

 

Scientist try to create life in conditions that assume may have been early earths atmosphere, but with each failed experiment, they assume that they had the conditions of early earth's atmosphere inaccurate.

 

So how would they know if they ever get them right, this process could go on forever, with the same reason for failure... We still have yet to replicate earth's early atmosphere.

 

Which to me makes it impossible to falsify this theory.

Edited August 7, 2010 by Emilio Primo

[Sisyphus]

Which ones?

 

Your argument that things are not observed are semantic arguments.

 

Sorry, but THAT is randomness, or we can tak into account YOU threw the ball which would be intent.

 

What? How is that random? It has to follow an exact path, as determined by physical laws. It seems you're using a different definition of "random" than everyone else.

 

Because it is not, why do you keep stating it is.

 

Because it has been observed many times:

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

 

Don't just say "no it hasn't." We're talking about facts here.

 

Even though it violates scientific laws?

 

What does?

 

How so? Pasteur seemed to falsify life from non life over a hundred years ago, but yet this theory still persist.

 

No, he falsified a more specific hypothesis. Nobody is currently suggesting that anything like that kind of spontaneous generation occurs.

 

Scientist try to create life in conditions that assume may have been early earths atmosphere, but with each failed experiment, they assume that they had the conditions of early earth's atmosphere inaccurate.

 

They don't assume that. They hypothesize that, and then they falsify it. They're doing science.

[DJBruce]

Because it is not, why do you keep stating it is.

 

I, along with many other members, have given you more than enough examples to prove you wrong, and you have failed to find any response other than ignoring my evidence and continuing saying, "it is not". In science ignoring evidence is not an acceptable argument. So you have no validity to say evolution does not have an enormous amount of proof.

 

If you do not believe in evolution what theory do you propose in its place?

 

Scientist try to create life in conditions that assume may have been early earths atmosphere, but with each failed experiment, they assume that they had the conditions of early earth's atmosphere inaccurate.

 

So how would they know if they ever get them right, this process could go on forever, with the same reason for failure... We still have yet to replicate earth's early atmosphere.

 

I am going to assume you are trying to discuss The Miller-Urey Experiment, and you are completely off base on you ideas about it. The Miller-Urey experiment was meant to show that Earth's early atmosphere had the potential for forming more complex compounds like the amino acids. In this respect Miller-Urey found that the reducing atmosphere of early earth would provide an excellent chance of forming these compounds.

 

As for your claims about the Earth's early atmosphere those are completely bogus. I would suggest you look at the evidence I provide in these two posts:

 

Post#1

Post #2

[swansont]

 

 

I am going to assume you are trying to discuss The Miller-Urey Experiment, and you are completely off base on you ideas about it. The Miller-Urey experiment was meant to show that Earth's early atmosphere had the potential for forming more complex compounds like the amino acids. In this respect Miller-Urey found that the reducing atmosphere of early earth would provide an excellent chance of forming these compounds.

 

 

 

It's also useful for rebutting the "that can't randomly!" argument, since clearly the formation of more complex molecules does happen, despite the (flawed) calculation that such events would have a small probability. It's not random, and yet there is no intent.

 

 

 

Sorry, but THAT is randomness, or we can tak into account YOU threw the ball which would be intent.

 

 

 

This is precisely why your posts are being tagged with "semantic argument" label. What is intent? It doesn't matter who threw the ball; the landing point is determined by the conditions. My intent could be that the ball never come down, but that is irrelevant. Random, as it is being used in this thread, means that all outcomes are equally likely, and that is simply not the case here. There are more examples of non-randomness where you might think it applies — take a can of mixed nuts or a tub of popcorn and shake them, and you will find that the large pieces will be sorted to the top and the smaller ones to the bottom. You don't get a random distribution.

 

The main problem here is that the terms being thrown about are not well-defined. You have yet to clarify what constitutes direct and indirect measurement, and why indirect measurement is OK for determining electron and atom behaviors, but the same approach is somehow unscientific if applied to evolution, black holes and dark matter. You're just asserting it, but not backing it up with any consistent, substantive argument.

 

State specifically what constitutes a direct observation. That would be a great start. We can follow up with a discussion of why you think indirect observation is not scientific, but all of that is moot if we don't know what differentiates a direct and an indirect observation.

[Emilio Primo]

This is precisely why your posts are being tagged with "semantic argument" label.

 

What does any of the questions I proposed in my OP have to do with semantics? Please point this out?

 

 

What is intent? It doesn't matter who threw the ball; the landing point is determined by the conditions. My intent could be that the ball never come down, but that is irrelevant. Random, as it is being used in this thread, means that all outcomes are equally likely, and that is simply not the case here. There are more examples of non-randomness where you might think it applies — take a can of mixed nuts or a tub of popcorn and shake them, and you will find that the large pieces will be sorted to the top and the smaller ones to the bottom. You don't get a random distribution.

 

 

It just seems in order to avoid the true debate of my questions misdirection is being used and a semantic debate begins.

 

Here is the definition for intent:

 

Intent: something that is intended; purpose; design; intention: The original intent of the committee was to raise funds.

 

SO let's go with that...

 

And to answer your question:

 

Yes it matters who threw the ball, because that means there was intent behind the throw, the ball did not pick up and throw itself, it matters NOT what you intended the ball to do the fact remains you threw the ball so intent was behind it.

 

Then with your mixed nuts or popcorn scenario, YOU shook the can of nuts/popcorn to mix them, the intent, YOUR intent was to intentional shake and mix the nuts/popcorn. The intelligence behind the shake or intent was YOU or whoever shook the popcorn/nuts.

 

 

There is either randomness or intent. There is no inbetween.

 

The main problem here is that the terms being thrown about are not well-defined. You have yet to clarify what constitutes direct and indirect measurement, and why indirect measurement is OK for determining electron and atom behaviors, but the same approach is somehow unscientific if applied to evolution, black holes and dark matter. You're just asserting it, but not backing it up with any consistent, substantive argument.

 

Let's go with this definition for observe:

 

 

ob·serve: to see, watch, perceive, or notice: He observed the passersby in the street.

 

This should put an end to the semantic debate.

 

To even make my stance even more precise... To observe, watch, perceive, or notice, study with an aided or unaided eye.

 

 

State specifically what constitutes a direct observation. That would be a great start. We can follow up with a discussion of why you think indirect observation is not scientific, but all of that is moot if we don't know what differentiates a direct and an indirect observation.

 

This should be absolutely clear by now.

Edited August 7, 2010 by Emilio Primo

[Sisyphus]

What does any of the questions I proposed in my OP have to do with semantics? Please point this out?

 

It just seems in order to avoid the true debate of my questions misdirection is being used and a semantic debate begins.

 

Your questions were ill-defined and hence could not be addressed directly. "Does indirect observation make it not science?" Well, what does "indirect observation" mean? Etc.

 

Here is the definition for intent:

 

Intent: something that is intended; purpose; design; intention: The original intent of the committee was to raise funds.

 

SO let's go with that...

 

Alright.

 

And to answer your question:

 

Yes it matters who threw the ball, because that means there was intent behind the throw, the ball did not pick up and throw itself, it matters NOT what you intended the ball to do the fact remains you threw the ball so intent was behind it.

 

Then with your mixed nuts or popcorn scenario, YOU shook the can of nuts/popcorn to mix them, the intent, YOUR intent was to intentional shake and mix the nuts/popcorn. The intelligence behind the shake or intent was YOU or whoever shook the popcorn/nuts.

 

There is either randomness or intent. There is no inbetween.

 

Ok. If the ball is too confusing, go with the Earth's orbit. Given the Earth's current position and velocity, what will its position and velocity be 3 days from now? There is only one possible answer, because its path is determined by the laws of physics, not by random chance.

 

Let's go with this definition for observe:

 

 

ob·serve: to see, watch, perceive, or notice: He observed the passersby in the street.

 

This should put an end to the semantic debate.

 

To even make my stance even more precise... To observe, watch, perceive, or notice, study with an aided or unaided eye.

 

What's an "aided eye?" What is the alternative? What is the significance of the difference, and why would one not qualify as science?

[swansont]

What does any of the questions I proposed in my OP have to do with semantics? Please point this out?

 

 

 

 

 

It just seems in order to avoid the true debate of my questions misdirection is being used and a semantic debate begins.

 

Here is the definition for intent:

 

Intent: something that is intended; purpose; design; intention: The original intent of the committee was to raise funds.

 

SO let's go with that...

 

And to answer your question:

 

Yes it matters who threw the ball, because that means there was intent behind the throw, the ball did not pick up and throw itself, it matters NOT what you intended the ball to do the fact remains you threw the ball so intent was behind it.

 

Then with your mixed nuts or popcorn scenario, YOU shook the can of nuts/popcorn to mix them, the intent, YOUR intent was to intentional shake and mix the nuts/popcorn. The intelligence behind the shake or intent was YOU or whoever shook the popcorn/nuts.

 

 

There is either randomness or intent. There is no inbetween.

 

 

How can intent cause the ball to travel a path other than that determined by kinematics? If it can't, then intent doesn't matter.

 

What if the ball rolls down a hill and is launched off of a ledge? Where is the intent there? What if the can is shaken by a machine, or an earthquake? How will the outcomes differ? If they don't, then intent doesn't matter.

 

And yet, the outcomes are still not random.

 

 

 

Let's go with this definition for observe:

 

 

ob·serve: to see, watch, perceive, or notice: He observed the passersby in the street.

 

This should put an end to the semantic debate.

 

To even make my stance even more precise... To observe, watch, perceive, or notice, study with an aided or unaided eye.

 

 

 

 

This should be absolutely clear by now.

 

All of the results you mention are studied with the aided or unaided eye. "Aided" is too vague. Do you require photons come directly from the item to be studied?

[Emilio Primo]

How can intent cause the ball to travel a path other than that determined by kinematics? If it can't, then intent doesn't matter.

 

Intent cause the ball to travel, be put into motion, thrown into the air, lifted off of the ground, ect ect.

 

What if the ball rolls down a hill and is launched off of a ledge? Where is the intent there? What if the can is shaken by a machine, or an earthquake? How will the outcomes differ? If they don't, then intent doesn't matter.

 

And yet, the outcomes are still not random.

 

What caused the ball to roll down the hill, who placed the ball on the hill? Who made the machine to shake the can of nuts/popcorn? Who placed the can of nuts/popcorn on the ground for an earthquake to shake them?

 

 

Randomness or intent, one or the other. There is no inbetween.

 

 

All of the results you mention are studied with the aided or unaided eye. "Aided" is too vague. Do you require photons come directly from the item to be studied?

 

"Aided" is not too vague, you are grasping for straws now, please stop.

Edited August 7, 2010 by Emilio Primo

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

"Aided" is not too vague, you are grasping for straws now, please stop.

 

Is my eye "aided" if I have to wear glasses?

[Emilio Primo]

Is my eye "aided" if I have to wear glasses?

 

Do you really need me to answer that question for you?

[Ringer]

Intent cause the ball to travel, be put into motion, thrown into the air, lifted off of the ground, ect ect.  What caused the ball to roll down the hill, who placed the ball on the hill? Who made the machine to shake the can of nuts/popcorn? Who placed the can of nuts/popcorn on the ground for an earthquake to shake them?   Randomness or intent, one or the other. There is no inbetween.

 

so nothing moves without intent? I think you confuse intent with kinetic energy. Is the flow of magma out of a volcano random or intended, neither. It is caused by measurable pressure and flows in ways that can be determined.

[Emilio Primo]

so nothing moves without intent?

 

Is that what I said?

 

 

I think you confuse intent with kinetic energy. Is the flow of magma out of a volcano random or intended, neither. It is caused by measurable pressure and flows in ways that can be determined.

 

I think you do not understand what is being debated?

[Ringer]

Intent cause the ball to travel, be put into motion, thrown into the air, lifted off of the ground, ect ect.

  

 

yes that is what you said.  

 

  I think you do not understand what is being debated?

  

 

Is that a question?  You said everything is either random or intended, my example is neither.

[Emilio Primo]

  

 

yes that is what you said.  

 

So me saying BALL moved with intent pertains to EVERYTHING, like you assumed I said:

 

 

so nothing moves without intent?

  

So read my post again. I never said that.

 

 

Is that a question?  You said everything is either random or intended, my example is neither.

 

Volcanic eruptions are random

[Ringer]

You assume balls have to have a human element to be in any situation and people are always interacting with them. It was an analogy that you were using to pertain to all situations, so yes I assumed you meant everything because you kept saying:

There is no inbetween.

 

 

Volcanic eruptions are random

 

even though you are wrong that wasn't my full example, explain how the flow of magma is random.

 

[edit] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_volcanic_eruptions#Eruption_mechanisms

 

I couldn't let saying eruptions are random stand. . . I really tried [/edit]

Edited August 7, 2010 by Ringer

[DJBruce]

"Aided" is not too vague, you are grasping for straws now, please stop.

 

Ok then. I defined aided as anything which allows one to observe, study, perceive, or predict a phenomena.

 

By my definition of aided. I can observe evolution, dark matter, and a black hole. Therefore since I can observe them your argument that they cannot be science is now bunk.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Do you really need me to answer that question for you?

 

Yes.

[Sisyphus]

 

 

Volcanic eruptions are random

 

No, they are not. Random would mean there is no reason the volcanic eruption occurs at a particular time and place. However, this is not the case. They are the result of consistent natural laws, and are predictable.

 

If you want to call that "random," fine. Just understand that you are using a different definition of "random" than everyone else, and don't get mad or accuse people of "dodging the argument" if they ask you to define how you are using a word.

 

Now, it seems that by "random" you just mean something that nobody wanted to happen ahead of time. Right? Moving on.

 

"Aided eye." You seem to think it's beneath you to define what you mean by that. However, nobody seems to know what you're talking about, just like with "random." You say certain things are not "observed," where "observation" includes the "aided eye." However, all of those things are observed with the "aided eye," inasmuch as that is vague enough to possibly include pretty much any information gathering whatsoever.

 

So:

 

A - Address the questions asked of you:

1) Explain what you mean by "aided eye."

2) Explain why that is the limit of "observation."

3) Explain why things that fall outside that limit are not science, in your opinion.

 

OR

 

B - Demonstrate maturity: Concede that your initial proposition was incorrect.