...the doubt about the consensus about the doubt about...

[Cl1mh4224rd]

What about antimatter? Wasn't that introduced speculatively, and then discovered?

Nope.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter#History

In the case of antimatter, as I understand it, it wasn't something "made up" to explain some odd observations. It was a door that was only revealed after someone set about trying to mathematically describe certain particles; completely unintentional.

You might have a better case using things like "dark matter" and "dark energy", but I'm less familiar with those concepts.

 

[Confuseling]

That it wasn't theorized to explain errant observations is exactly my point, I think - although as I said I am out of my depth here.

Dark matter and dark energy strike me as more like fudge factors, necessary to preserve the logic of the system.

But was antimatter not, contra a certain reading of Ockham's razor, an entity created beyond necessity - essentially because the maths was cleaner that way?

How about complex numbers?

I admit, my point is pretty fuzzy. I'm just trying to illustrate that it's not always clear what simplifies and what doesn't.

 

[LastChild]

Nope. Still no vast consensus of expert quotes to support the official conspiracy theory.

Oh well.

 

[Par]

Nope. Still no vast consensus of expert quotes to support the official conspiracy theory. Oh well.

Stop attention-seeking. It’s silly.