Oh, and one more analogy, Scylla:
If you have one of Philips/Magnavox’s remote-locating TVs and you push the power button on the TV and you hear “wheep wheep wheep …” you’ve found the remote. But that’s not what you want.
When you pick up the middle sofa cushion and see the remote, you’ve observed the remote.
jrf
ARG220:
American Heritage dictionary:
ev·i·dence
n.
Webster’s Revised Unabridged (1913):
Evidence \Ev"i*dence, n. [F. [‘e]vidence, L. Evidentia. See {Evident}.] 1. That which makes evident or manifest; that which furnishes, or tends to furnish, proof; any mode of proof; the ground of belief or judgement; as, the evidence of our senses; evidence of the truth or falsehood of a statement.
Faith is . . . the evidence of things not seen. --Heb. xi. 1.
O glorious trial of exceeding love Illustrious evidence, example high. --Milton.
2. One who bears witness. [R.] ``Infamous and perjured evidences.’’ --Sir W. Scott.
3. (Law) That which is legally submitted to competent tribunal, as a means of ascertaining the truth of any alleged matter of fact under investigation before it; means of making proof; – the latter, strictly speaking, not being synonymous with evidence, but rather the effect of it. --Greenleaf.
A-Z dictionary:
ev•i•dence
Pronunciation: (ev’i-duns), [key]
—n., v., -denced, -denc•ing.
—n.
WordNet:
The noun “evidence” has 3 senses in WordNet.
Wordsmyth:
noun
Syllables:
ev-i-dence
Pronunciation:
eh vE dihns
Definition:
So, yes, there are dictionary definitions that include proof, but it is obvious that evidence is not necessarily proof. There can be evidence without proof.
jrf
Why the missing matter is important:
It does not prove God, it disproves Science’s explanation for the creation of the universe. Since God is the only other explanation we have, then creationism would win by DQ.
The problem is twofold as I see it.
1.Matter and anti-matter can be created in equal amounts from nothingness. Current theory says this happened on a pretty large scale at the Big Bang event.
Most of the matter and anti-matter would have anhiliated each other when they came into contact the first microseconds after the Big Bang. What’s left over is the universe as we know it.
Ok so far?
Since matter and anti-matter need to be created in equal amounts, where is all the anti-matter? Under the couch? It should be here somewhere. Hmmmm.
If it can’t be accounted for under current theory then we need to form an alternative hypothesis. Obviously Heaven is made of anti-matter. Right?
The other problem is that the observed mass of the universe is not large enough for it to have formed as it is observed. (I know I’m cutting corners here.)
If there is not enough mass to hold the galaxies together or even for them to have formed in the first place. Then either the theories are wrong or scientists have proved the Universe out of existence!
If under current theory the Universe can not exist as observed then current theory is wrong. Science has failed us, we return to faith. God again by pinfall. Two out of three is a shut out.
“This missing matter is around here somewhere we just know it is.” Sure you do. Why don’t you press the remote?
The matter has not been observed, it has been inferred. Because the universe exists as it does the matter must be there. Right?
If our current theories and understanding of the universe are true than this is correct.
But this is an argument of faith, not logic. You are using your theory to prove the existence of evidenc in support of your theory even though such evidence doesn’t seem to exist. It should literally be everywhere!
The Invisible Pink Unicorn made it that way, or the Bible tells me so. These are also faith based arguments. THey may actually be more valid since they don’t have any annoying
pesky problems with them like missing matter.
Hell, science get even get its hands around a simple concept like PI without spitting off an infinite stream of numbers that never finally answers the question. Why should it be able to answer a question like the origin of the universe.
If you are married did you choose your mate scientifically? Did you weigh the pros and cons of the varius candidates and choose the best one for rational reasons?
Or did your choice go beyond logic and reason?
Is wanton murder inherently evil for reasons beyond the socio-biological-economical reasoning?
Is charity Good in and of itself?
I think that morality and ethos exist beyond logic and reasoning. Some things are simply true.
Don’t get me wrong, science is good for a lot of things. It can help you fix a car, build a better mousetrap, or even figure out why the picture on the TV isn’t clear.
Science though, like any tool breaks down and fails when misapplied. Some concepts like Pi, love, morality, who to pick in the final four, and the origins of the universe are not solvable by science.
The creationists fail in frustration because they are lured into trying to support their contentions outside of their framework. That is, by scientific standards.
You might as well try and teach a fish to breathe air!’
The poor simple creatures are simply not equipped to do so.
Repent!!!
Ooops, I meant to imply that the scientist weren’t equipped. The way I wrote it it came out the other way.
David:
So, first you develop the idea, then select the appropriate ‘evidence’ you need to support it?
jonf:
This has been a component of my argument all along. Yet, my questions back on pages three and four have yet to be addressed.
On yesterday’s MSNBC website, there was an article about the ‘discovery’ of a small primate who the scientists asserted was one of our ancestors. What they actually found, however, amounted to no more than two small bones the size of grains of rice. From this, they made all sorts of wild claims, including a full color drawing of the creature (showing facial features and fur color!) The article said no skull, or jaw, or any other bones of this creature had ever been found. Yet, having approached the find with a theory to support, they were more than happy to make their pronouncements.
If this is the kind of ‘evidence’ from whence you wish to draw conclusions, your ‘science’ does no more than to support your belief structure.
::
CalifBoomer, I didn’t say anything about thumb-sized primates. I asked whether you believe that DNA fingerprinting and paternity tests are valid.
I also have to ask what your training in paleontology is. Your position seems to be that paleontologists are all self-deluded fools who draw ridiculously overdrawn conclusions from minimal data. Do you really understand paleontology well enough to make that kind of claim? I am reminded of a guy I knew in high school who scoffed at claims regarding the chemical composition of the sun, on the grounds that since no sample had been retrieved, we had no way of knowing what the sun was made of. He was, of course, ignorant of spectroscopy. Are you ignorant of paleontology and comparative anatomy?
-Ben
The reference for: Asian Fossil Fills Evolutionary Gap
Great job Scylla. A couple more posts and you’ll be signing up converts.
DavidB said:
To which CalifBoomer replied:
No, not at all. This sort of reaction is typical among the lay public, which doesn’t understand how science really works because it seldom appears on their radar screens. I don’t recall now if someone has already gone through this earlier in this thread, but just to recap how the scientific method works:
You begin with a series of observations (data). Based on the data you have in hand, you develop an idea (hypothesis) for how these data might relate to one another. An hypothesis, however, isn’t just any old idea; it is a proposition that has to be stated in such a way that it is testable, repeatedly, by experimental results and/or additional observations (“evidence”). If an hypothesis is not testable, it is useless as a scientific explanation.
Not infrequently, hypotheses are tested and fail, because the evidence does not support them. It does not mean that science is flawed; it simply means that that particular hypothesis is flawed, and we have to go back to the drawing board & come up with a new one. There are times when hypotheses make take some considerable time to demonstrated incorrect, usually because the data are scarce/difficult to obtain, or because special technology/methodology must be developed before the hypothesis can be adequately tested. Science isn’t “waffling” when this happens; it is correcting itself in the face of a fuller body of evidence, which is exactly what it should do in order to remain objective.
When a hypothesis is tested repeatedly and consistently passes the tests (i.e., a large body of data supports the hypothesis), it can be elevated to the status of scientific theory. A scientific theory isn’t just an “educated guess”; it has as much evidence to support it as we can possibly hope to gather, subject to the limitations of our current level of technology, and the short lifetime of humans as a species.
Scientists rarely speak of “proof” because proof may simply not be attainable, subject to the limitations I just spoke of. For example, Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity states that time should pass more slowly for an observer traveling close to the speed of light. Now, since we don’t have the technology to travel close to the speed of light, we can’t actually prove relativity by that sort of experiment. However, the General Theory of Relativity also makes numerous other predictions about the effects of relativity on the space which have been supported by observations, so the concept of relativity is accepted as valid among the scientific community.
There is an awful lot of misunderstanding out there about science, what it means, how it’s done, and how it may change with time. We scientists are partly to blame for not expressing ourselves more clearly, but a good chunk of the blame also rests with a general public that doesn’t want to be bothered learning about it (“why do I have to learn about this, it won’t make any difference for my career in accounting/sports/homemaking/etc.”). (just random examples there, not picking on anyone in particular)
CalifBoomer also said:
Ben pointed out, quite rightly, that there are bases for drawing a particular set of conclusions - they are not drawn out of thin air just to support a particular concept. Just because MSNBC, or the NY Times, or any other media outlet does not discuss them in detail, it doesn’t mean that they exist. You need to keep in mind two key influences on science reporting:
[ul][li]The mass media outlet is shooting for a certain level of comprehension, typically a sixth to eighth grade level of understanding. They are not going to consume time/space with extended discussions that most of their market is not trained to understand.[/li][li]The journalist writing the article & the editor reviewing it seldom have any professional background in the topic on which they are writing, so the accuracy/appropriateness of a given description may be a bit off.[/ul][/li]
Lastly, about the illustration that accompanied the story… CalifBoomer, that picture is for you and the rest of the general public, so that it’s easier for you to envision just how small that primitive primate is! People in general have a much easier time understanding concepts if they can see a visualization of it. (I can back this statement up with my personal experiences teaching earth science labs.) The purpose of such a drawing is to educate, not obfuscate.
Before I talk about the missing matter specifically, I want to define the terms of the discussion.
I have no rational idea as to the origin of the universe, and no one else does either. There are an infinite number of hypotheses, including God, the IPU, random vacuum fluctuations, and really exotic hypotheses, such as intelligence exists on a non-physical basis, and brought the universe into existence to justify itself.
Regardless, no one knows the origin of the universe. If you want to have faith that God created it, I have no evidence with which to dispute you; and you must acknowlege that you have no evidence to support your position. Stalemate.
However, regardless of the origins of the universe, I can make some rational deductions from the evidence: It is 10-15 billion years old; the Earth is 4.5 billion years old; there is lots of evidence that the evolution of the universe, the earth, and life on earth have proceeded by consistent, rationally comprehensible means; and there is no evidence whatsoever that God or any other supernatural entity has affected the evolution of the universe, earth or life since origin of the universe.
JonR said
“I hesitate to give you fuel for your fire, but if you want to lambaste science for not knowing everything, then the failure to merge general relativity and quantum electrodynamics is far more significant.”
I think string theory is going to do a pretty good job of clearing up that conundrum. Besides, I think I can just whoop your asses with the missing matter and a general attack on science 
Singledad:
No. no. no. no.
If specific scientific theory can’t account for observable state of the universe, if it can’t even account for a simple concept like Pi, tell me how to choose a wife, of pick the final four, than what good is it except as a tool for fixing cars and such?
Within the framework of the scientific method itself, if the hypothesis is demonstrably wrong, than the theory must be discarded. If you can’t account for the missing matter argument, you don’t have a theory, or a hypothesis. You are left with faith in your belief. Since science does not incorporate faith into its methodology it has proved itself false!!!
A belief in science under these circumstances in unscientific. Your practicing hypocrisy.
If a creationist gets whipped for introducing his faith as evidence in a specific scientific argument than it is only fair that you get beat about the head for trying to uphold science with faith.
Right?
If you want to have faith, why choose the poor vessel of science which was not designed to hold such a righteous fluid?
If your are going to have faith why not do so in a consistent frame work that supports that faith?
Use science, don’t worship at its sterile and soulless altar!
I am the way and the path and the Light! Send me a big check.
Scylla:
Absolutely not. It proves that the scientific explanation for the creation of the universe is incomplete. If you feel otherwise, could you please provide a chain of logical reasoning starting with “Science has not yet identified the missing matter” and ending with “Therefore, the Big Bang is not possible”.
Sorry, that’s a common logical fallacy known as “False Dilemma”. There are more than two options.
The most widely accepted theories have it that matter and antimatter do not need to be created in equal amounts. There was a very slight excess of matter, and the antimatter all disappeared by annihilating with matter, leaving that slight excess of “normal” matter. There are several theories as to how and why this situation arose. See Matter and Anti’matter in the Big Bang, Cosmic Mystery Tour, Big Bang, [Where is the Antimatter?{/url], [url=http://ucsub.colorado.edu/~flournoy/Introduction2.html]Observations and Conclusions] and, of course, [url=http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mantimatter.html]What is antimatter? How was it discovered?](http://lhcb.cern.ch/public/html/antimatter.htm)
If you take “observed” in SingleDad’s meaning, yes. But the detected mass of the universe is as it is. We just haven’t yet located all the matter. You have yet to establish a link from the failure to unambiguously observe the missing matter to your presumed inadequacy of the Big Bang model.
False Dilemma again.
Wrong, or at best close to right. Because the universe acts as it does the matter must be there. The matter has not been inferred; its effects have been measured and therefore it exists (or something exists that we can’t yet distinguish from non-radiating matter). One can have long philosophical discussions as to what exactly is required for “observation”. Ever seen an atom? Not a picture or image of an atom, not something that can only be explained by the existence of atoms, an atom. Heck, have you ever seen Singapore, or do you just infer that it exists?
No.
Er? I don’t understand. The evidence for the missing mass is quite different from the evidence that led to the creation and verification of the Big Bang theory. By the way, at least one theory of the missing mass says that it (or some of it) is everywhere, in the form of neutrinos. Neutrino Findings May Explain Missing Mass.
What is the questionquestion? Science doesn’t necessarily answer “why”. Could you also please explain why you think pi is a simple concept, including if you would a discussion of Euler’s identity (e to the power (pi times the sqare root of -1) = 1).
No, I chose my wife because of her great rack. Although I suppose that could be quantified to some extent …
{Please, folks, just kidding!}
The others? I believe wanton murder is bad and charity is good. Whether those are moral absolutes is a question for another discussion.
The concept of pi is certainly solved by science. If you want to ask “why is pi 3.14159…”, then that may be outside the realm of science. (I suppose you are aware that it is easy to interpret the Bible as saying that pi is 3 {I Kings 7:23}). I have yet to see any demonstatration or reason to believe that the origin of the universe at and after the Big Bang is not addressable scientifically. Statistics can give you some useful guidance as to who to pick in the final four, but not an absolute answer.
I am not asking anyone to repent their faith in creation, if their reason for believeing in creation is faith. I (and, I believe, many others) are asking self-proclaimed “creation scientists” who claim that there is such a thing as “creation science” (and who have chosen to place their “discipline” in the purview of science) to justify their choice and provide evidence.
jrf
Wow. Go Jon!
No. That tactic is a hallmark of psuedoscience, such as … well, you fill in the blank.
You start with evidence, develop a theory, make predictions as to what additional evidence should be found if your theory is correct, then go look to see if that additional evidence exists or not.
Well, there are dangers in interpreting popular press stories as scientific treatises. It also appears that you have misinterpreted the stories, perhaps willfully.
The reference that Trouts1 kindly provided has links to the AP, BBC, Fox, and MSNBC stories. Two of the stories shoq no pictures. The Fox story shows a picture with an ambiguous caption, and the MSNBC story shows the same picture clearly labeled as an artist’s conception and another pictuer of a different animal which is not so clearly labeled.
None of the articles contain a claim that these primates were our ancestors. The MSNBC article has a sidebar quote that appears to say that they were our ancestors, but that quote may be out of context. Or maybe that’s what the guy meant.
However, to answer your question, no, those news articles are not the kind of evidence from which scientists want to draw their conclusions.
You would do better to pick several to many typical pieces of evidence from scientific literature, including explaining your basis for beleiving that they are typical, to discuss the quality of the evidence for evolution.
jrf
Fillet, a minor correction:
The Special Theory is the one that predicts that effect (although the Special Theory is subsumed in the General Theory). The effect is measurable and has been measured. In another thread I posted links demonstrating that GPS clocks must be (and are) adjusted for both SR (velocity) and GR (gravity/acceleration) effects.
jrf
Thanks for setting me straight, JonF. Damn, I wanted to stay away from earth science-related illustrations (given the topic), and look what happened! :o
Scylla:
I agree. However, I have not yet seen any reasoning that establishes that I am doing that. You have stated that the missing matter precludes the Big Bang, and I honestly can’t see any connection.
jrf
Scylla:
True. But neither you or anyone else of whom I’m aware has demonstrated that the Big Bang theory is untenable. All you have demonstrated is that we can’t see all the matter that appears to be there. You have a long way to go from there to “the Big Bang theory must be discarded”.
jrf
Jonf:
You said rgarding missing mass:
"It proves that the scientific explanation for the creation of the universe is incomplete. If you feel otherwise, could you please provide a chain of logical reasoning starting with “Science has not yet identified the missing matter” and ending with “Therefore, the Big Bang is not possible”.
While I would like to oblige you, I don’t think I need to. I don’t need to show that the big bang is impossible any more than you need to prove that creation is impossible (neither of which can be accomplished or are reasonable requests.)
The missing mass doesn’t point to an incomplete theory. It points to a theory with serious contradictions to the observed universe.
Nobody predicted that more matter should be created than antimatter. The fact that they are now hypothesizing that this should be so is in response to observational data which is at odds with theory.
Attempting to reconcile the theory to the facts is to be commended. Perhaps they will succeed. Your beleif that they will however is faith, not science. Until then, we have unproven theory that does not fit reality as we know it.
You are correct that Einstein made a tremendous leap of logic with his theory of relativity which made predictions that could not be confirmed by scientific observation until much later.
Unfortunately that has no bearing on the missing mass. Nobody has predicted that there would be a big difference between the observed mass of the universe and that predicted by theory.
Again, they are trying to reconcile a flawed or incomplete theory. They may do so. They may not. Again, your belief that they will is faith, not science.
You said that one hypothesis for the missing mass was that it is actually neutrinos. Big whoop. It could be that the missing mass is angels. It could be brown matter, antimatter, matter contained in singularities (if they exist) or it could be hidden in the horn of the Invisible Pink Unicorn.
The missing mass is not Einstein making a prediction which is later confirmed. It is the opposite. A prediction was made. The evidence doesn’t fit. You seem to be saying “the theory says it’s there, we’ll find it.” that again is faith.
You said:
"If you take “observed” in SingleDad’s meaning, yes. But the detected mass of the universe is as it is. " Sorry. This is wrong. It has not been detected. There is evidence that it existed (in terms of galaxy formation and such) but that does not mean it’s still there. It’s absence is troublesome to current theories of galaxy formation, and indeed the origin of the universe.
“Because the universe acts as it does the matter must be there.”
That itself is a false dilemma. A third choice might be that there has been a miscalculation. A fourth might be that we do not fully understand or our current theory is not comprehensive enough to account for it. A fifth might be that the theory is wrong. Your assertion is again based on faith.
There is no consensus for where the missing matter is. There is not even a consensus as to if it actually exists!
This is not the inference of the existence of atoms, or time dilation by extrapolating oberved phenemenom. In fact, this was done! The mass of the universe was inferred. The big problem is that this inference doesn’t come close to agreeing with what is actually observed!
This is like if Einstein predicted that time would slow down for a high speed traveler, and experiment showed the opposite! That would have been a problem for Einstein’s theory of relativity, don’t you think?
I’ll drop the whole Pi thing since your answer seems reasonable to me.
What I’m trying to point out here is that your confidence in Science reconciling these difficulties is actually faith.
As for a false dilemma, what false dilemma?
Either the universe occured naturally without the interference or help of a creator (who we’ll call God,) or else God participated in creation.
What third alternative do you suggest?
Faulty premise: Science does not claim to describe the origin of the universe, merely its evolution since the origin.
Faulty premise: “God is the only other explanation we have.” For the origin of the universe, we have an infinity of untestable hypotheses. For the evolution of the universe, we have a multitude of scientific theories.
Faulty deduction: There is exactly as much mass in the universe as there is; we haven’t been able to measure it with the kind of accuracy we want. Regardless, different subtle points of different theories predict different amounts of mass in the observable universe. As we measure the mass more accurately, we’ll be able to determine which of these theories make accurate predictions, and which fail.
Actually the matter/antimatter symmetry is not required by QM. Matter and antimatter are indeed not created in precisely equal amounts. You’ll have to ask a real physicist precisely how this works.
A lot of corners. You seem to say that the amount of observed mass in the universe argues against the amount of observed mass in the universe.
I’ll try and interpret this statement anyway.
The observed mass in the universe is insufficient to make omega = 1; e.g. the universe isn’t flat.
Well, omega = 1 is very elegant. Since the rationality of the universe is often elegant, trying hypotheses where omega = 1 suggests promising lines of inquiry.
However there’s no rational requirements for a particular elegance to indeed exist. If omega != 1, that doesn’t signal the end of science, just the invalidity of certain hypotheses.
Second, the amount of observed and interpreted mass may not support current theories regarding the large-scale structure of the universe. Again, this is not a philosophical problem. Just because one theory or another fails to account for the large-scale structure just means that those theories are incomplete and/or incorrect.
If you can prove that no rational theory can conceivably account for the structure of the universe, then you might have a case. To assert otherwise is to invoke the fallacy of argument from ignorance. Just because current theory cannot yet precisely account for some specific feature doesn’t prove that science is wrong.
<chuckles> This is just absurd.
My user name ought to give you a clue on the first question. The answer to the other questions are no and no, and my choice was disastrous.
The remainder of your questions a sufficiently broad topic as to merit its own thread. I will give the short answer, though, that in my considered opinion, even morality, ethics, love, etc. all can be rooted in the science of psychology.
Against stupidity the very gods / Themselves contend in vain.
Singledad:
Never said Omega=1.
As I mentioned. I don’t have to tear down science from stem to stern. I just need to cast enough doubt that Creationism doesn’t look so ugly by comparison
While you may feel comforted by the fact that science provides thousands of theories to possibly account for missing matter and the evolution of the universe, I do not see this as a good thing.
You said:
“For the evolution of the universe, we have a multitude of scientific theories.”
Wow!
I guess that means they really don’t know!
Again, if you believe one of those theories is correct (and so many to choose from) why do you do so if not from faith.
I need to stop now I’m starting to believe myself.