A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Research
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Farewell Perfect Cosmological Principle?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old July 9th 15, 11:20 PM posted to sci.astro.research
Martin Hardcastle
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 63
Default Farewell Perfect Cosmological Principle?

In article ,
Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
Bottom line: How empirical evidence, and the lack thereof, is judged
appears to depend on the answer that is expected on the basis of
prevailing theoretical bias. No surprise there.


Nor should there be. 'Theoretical bias' is a pejorative way of saying
that we interpret individual results in the framework that
successfully incorporates other observations. This is certainly likely
to be more productive than ignoring all other observations and
developing a novel ad hoc explanation for every individual phenomenon
(the standard approach of the internet crackpot). Of course, sometimes
the framework (paradigm) is simply wrong, but new paradigms are
successful only when they can incorporate the old observations as well
as the new ones. In the specific case of dark matter, there is no
direct evidence that dark matter is particles, but particle physics is
one of the great intellectual successes of the last century and it
makes a lot of sense to use the resources and techniques that it makes
available, *in parallel with* other observational tests. Most working
astrophysicists are probably pretty agnostic about the expected outcome.

Martin
--
Martin Hardcastle
School of Physics, Astronomy and Mathematics, University of Hertfordshire, UK
Please replace the xxx.xxx.xxx in the header with herts.ac.uk to mail me
  #12  
Old July 9th 15, 11:20 PM posted to sci.astro.research
Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 273
Default Farewell Perfect Cosmological Principle?

In article ,
"Robert L. Oldershaw" writes:

So, my reaction to Balazs et al is basically "wait and see". If the
result is genuine, within a few years we should have a confirmation
without post-hoc statistics. And if we don't get that confirmation,
that will imply that the result was basically a statistical fluke.


It is interesting to compare the general responses to empirical
evidence in the case of particle dark matter and the case of
cosmological inhomogeneity/anisotropy.

Forty years of experimental searches have failed to find evidence
for particle dark matter, and yet the general consensus is still
that the dark matter is some kind of subatomic particle.


Because essentially all other candidates have been ruled out.

Over the same period of time there have been published observational
findings that indicate that the inhomogeneity/anisotropy that is
so common on less than cosmological scales continues up to the
largest scales that we can adequately sample.


I posted an example where the first such of your examples was refuted.
You haven't replied to that, but continue to make claims which have been
disproved.

Yet in this case, the
general attitude is to be skeptical of the empirical results and
to assume that the more idealistic models will be vindicated.

Bottom line: How empirical evidence, and the lack thereof, is judged
appears to depend on the answer that is expected on the basis of
prevailing theoretical bias. No surprise there.


Are you any different in this respect, apart from having things switched
around? One could just as well say that you ignore arguments ruling out
your dark-matter candidate and are too accepting of isolated claims of
large structures.

When you make an argument, and someone points out a flaw (such as citing
a paper which refutes the paper you cite), you at least have to explain
why the refutation is wrong.
  #13  
Old July 10th 15, 07:40 AM posted to sci.astro.research
Robert L. Oldershaw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 617
Default Farewell Perfect Cosmological Principle?

On Thursday, July 9, 2015 at 6:20:09 PM UTC-4, Martin Hardcastle wrote:
=20
Nor should there be. 'Theoretical bias' is a pejorative way of saying
that we interpret individual results in the framework that
successfully incorporates other observations. This is certainly likely
to be more productive than ignoring all other observations and
developing a novel ad hoc explanation for every individual phenomenon
(the standard approach of the internet crackpot).=20


But you imply that there are only two extreme choices: have a high
degree of faith and trust in currently popular models or "ignoring
all other observations and ..." Talk about "pejorative"? That's a
nice example. There is a middle path that does not ignore well-tested
observations, but questions assumptions that are used to explain
them, and keeps an open mind about new conceptual/theoretical
frameworks that might better explain the existing observations and
make predictions about what will eventually be observed.

but particle physics is
one of the great intellectual successes of the last century=20


I have posted a list of 7 serious shortcomings of the standard model
that even its proponents say make the SM clearly a provisional model
of how nature works, and therefore not how it actually works. I
have posted this so many times to different sites that everyone has
probably seen the list, but I would be happy to post it to SAR if
there is an interest in it and it will not be summarily rejected
as outside the SAR purview (even though some members freely talk
about it on SAR with impunity and treat it as virtually infallible.

An open-mind is all I really ask for or could hope for, given that
we are all humans.

RLO
Fractal Cosmology

[[Mod. note --
1. Our newsgroup charter forbids "excessively speculative"
material. I usually interpret this as (roughly) the union of
"not even wrong"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong
and "wronger than wrong"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wronger_than_wrong

2. I think our charter is silent on whether philosophy-of-science
material is acceptable. In the past I think Martin has often rejected
it, but I am more inclined to accept it.

3. \begin{philosophy-of-science}
Saying that the SM is "clearly a provisional model of how nature
works, and therefore not how it actually works" is entirely consistent
with it being "one of the great intellectual successes of the last
century". With a change in the time period, the same can be said of
the theory/model that the Earth is is spherical -- this is briefly but
very clearly discussed in the wronger-than-wrong Wikipedia page.
\end{philosophy-of-science}
-- jt]]
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Largest structure ever seen in universe discovered, violates lawsof the Cosmological Principle! Yousuf Khan[_2_] Astronomy Misc 11 January 26th 13 01:08 AM
Largest structure found, challenges cosmological principle dlzc Astronomy Misc 15 January 18th 13 08:18 PM
Port Authority Interlock Knit Mock - This turtleneck is perfect forthose wanting a heavier shirt. Perfect for cool days or chilly nights. Greatfor offering protection to the arms when needed. [email protected] Amateur Astronomy 0 April 22nd 08 04:49 PM
The Cosmological Principle Sam Wormley Amateur Astronomy 21 September 26th 05 07:24 PM
Farewell 36 Ed Kyle Policy 2 February 5th 05 04:14 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:30 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.