Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

[D'rok]

And the basic problem is that your whole argument is based on a logical fallacy. P has never been established and Q was always "observed" in the first place!

As usual, you want P to be established before we even proceed to Q.

I think I have hit the nail on the head with my explanation of your thinking style.

 

[Michael Mozina]

"I" am not doing anything of the sort. I am not in any way a scientist.

The rest of your response merely re-enforces my explanation of your thought process.

If I were pointing at the sky claiming "God did it" without establishing A) the existence of God, and B) without establishing a cause/effect relationship between God and the observation in question, would you accept that as a valid form of "science"? If not, why not?

 

[D'rok]

If I were pointing at the sky claiming "God did it" without establishing A) the existence of God, and B) without establishing a cause/effect relationship between God and the observation in question, would you accept that as a valid form of "science"? If not, why not?

See above.

Your errors in thinking are fundamental.

 

[Michael Mozina]

This is a lie.

You're a one trick character assassination pony. Yawn. The only "lie" is your lack of a qualification between your invisible friends and the observation in question. There isn't one. You made it up.

 

[ben m]

The "actual" problem is you have zero evidence that exotic brands of matter exist in the first place, let alone that it has the "properties" you think it has. None of you have acknowledged this problem.

Something exotic exists; either it's exotic new particles (a good hypothesis) or it's collision-proof magic rocks (your hypothesis---remember?) or non-microlensing magic moons (your other hypothesis?). All of these are hypotheses. HYPOTHESES. Have you ever heard of the word "hypothesis", Michael? Look it up.

 

[Michael Mozina]

See above.

Your errors in thinking are fundamental.

You did not answer my honest question D'rok. It's a sincere and honest question. In a broader sense, what I am asking you to do is define the empirical difference between "religion" and "science". If "God did it" is not "scientific", then is "Dark whatever did it" any scientifically better?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Something exotic exists; either it's exotic new particles (a good hypothesis) or it's collision-proof magic rocks (your hypothesis---remember?) or non-microlensing magic moons (your other hypothesis?). All of these are hypotheses. HYPOTHESES. Have you ever heard of the word "hypothesis", Michael? Look it up.

Same question to you as I asked of D'rok. Is "God did it" a valid scientific "hypothesis"?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

This is yet one more example of blatant intellectual dishonesty^.

Boloney. Your industry is constantly "dumbing down" everything to "magnetism" and constantly puts the magnetic cart before the electrical horse! You create any excuse to minimize the electrical aspects and everything you can to maximize the magnetic aspects of the process!

As I said, you'd be making a very good point if this were true.

However, it's not, and you know it's not.

That's what makes what you write intellectually dishonest.

Show me one empirical experiment of "magnetic reconnection" that doesn't begin and end with "current flow"?

The only person who could possibly do that is you, MM.

You see, when you invent new terms (""current flow"" in this case), and do not explain what they mean, what you write becomes essentially meaningless.

Some of those responses have included links to relevant blog entries by Tom Bridgman, such as these.

Is Tom your personal hero or what? His whole method of comparing EU theory to creationism is purely and completely dishonest behavior.

Nice diversion MM - is this part of your toolbag of intellectually dishonest tactics?

Here's what I used the link to Tom Bridgman's blog to illustrate: MM: "unlike the mainstream that treats *electromagnetic* transactions as though they are all quite sterile "magnetic" events."

Are you saying that the blog entries do NOT show that your characterisation is nonsense?

EU/PC theory doesn't even require nor predict a "creation event".

That may well be so ... but as no one (other than you) knows what "EU/PC theory" is, no one is in a position to comment, one way or the other.

Don't even think about lecturing me about ethics when you engage in these behaviors and you refuse to acknowledge the qualification problems

(bold added)

Again, as only you know what "the qualification problems" are, it's impossible to "acknowledge" them.

Why not take the time to explain "qualification" in a way that others can understand?

After all, even you must acknowledge that an exchange of comments is not a dialogue if the central term is undefined.

of your own theories DRD.

What are these theories of mine?

I checked ADS, and there are no papers with DeiRenDopa as author (just saying).

 

[D'rok]

You did not answer my honest question D'rok. It's a sincere and honest question. In a broader sense, what I am asking you to do is define the empirical difference between "religion" and "science". If "God did it" is not "scientific", then is "Dark whatever did it" any scientifically better?

Both are hypotheses. One is testable. The other isn't. So yes, the dark matter/energy hypothesis is scientifically better.

But you can't see this, because you can't wrap your head around inductive reasoning.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Just as an addendum to my post above, because the scientific method is inductive rather than deductive, it rests on a formal fallacy - namely affirming the consequent.

If P (hypothesis), then Q (predictions).
Q (confirmed over and over through independent testing).
Therefore P.

Programming is pure deductive logic. From that perspective, the scientific method looks wrong-headed, even though we know it is the best method to get at the truth of things.

This is a good insight D'rok.

Put it together with mine - that to MM mathematics is magic - and I think much of MM's behaviour is explainable.

Even the intellectual dishonesty is explainable - it's the ultimate denial mechanism.

 

[Michael Mozina]

As I said, you'd be making a very good point if this were true.

However, it's not, and you know it's not.

That's what makes what you write intellectually dishonest.

Actually DRD, I know for a fact it *IS* dumbed down to the point of absurdity and I've seen how your industry treats "current flow". It specifically treats is as an "effect" of the "magnetic whatever you make up", rather than the "primary cause". Take those "magnetic flux ropes". According to Alfven the primary "cause" of the flux rope was "electrical current". He actively compares it to a "Bennett Pinch". At no time did he ever promote "magnetic reconnection", in fact he called it pseudoscience his whole life and saw lots of papers on the topic.

The term "magnetic reconnection" is a perfect case in point. You can't make it happen in the lab *without* current flow and "circuits", but you refuse to acknowledge it could just as rightfully be called "circuit reconnection". You constantly minimize the role of current flow and constant attribute everything to "magnetism", even when it's inappropriate, irrational, and in directly conflict with other branches of science. In electrical engineering, magnetic fields do not "reconnect". Only circuits and particles are physically capable of "disconnecting" or "reconnecting" to anything. Magnetic fields form as a complete continuum, without beginning and without end.

 

[D'rok]

This is a good insight D'rok.

Put it together with mine - that to MM mathematics is magic - and I think much of MM's behaviour is explainable.

Even the intellectual dishonesty is explainable - it's the ultimate denial mechanism.

I concur.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I concur.

IMO it's intellectually dishonest to fail to acknowledge the qualification problems of mainstream theory. That's all your doing. It has nothing to do with the messenger and everything to do with the lack of empirical cause/effect demonstration of concept. If you were claiming "EM fields did it", you wouldn't have a qualification problem. Since you're claiming "my invisible friend did it", you've made an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary support. You've provided none.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Even the intellectual dishonesty is explainable - it's the ultimate denial mechanism.

The ultimate denial mechanism if your failure to acknowledge the qualification problems in your "religion". You unseen entities of choice are impotent in the lab DRD. They are useless in terms of producing any tangible goods. They have failed to show up in any legitimate experiment that includes a control mechanism. In fact you don't even know how to produce your invisible friends or where they come from. The whole thing is based on pure denial of the epic failure of your invisible friends to have any tangible effect on anything.

Your denial of the qualification problems of your theory is the intellectually dishonest behavior.

 

[D'rok]

IMO it's intellectually dishonest to fail to acknowledge the qualification problems of mainstream theory. That's all your doing. It has nothing to do with the messenger and everything to do with the lack of empirical cause/effect demonstration of concept. If you were claiming "EM fields did it", you wouldn't have a qualification problem. Since you're claiming "my invisible friend did it", you've made an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary support. You've provided none.

Please define "qualification". You are using this word in a bizarre manner. As a term of art, it means the opposite of quantify - i.e., it means to create a narrative explanation for something. Are you asking scientists to tell you a story that explains the universe? Because that's what your words are doing.

Also, please stop saying "you". I am not a scientist and I have made no scientific claims.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Actually DRD, I know for a fact it *IS* dumbed down to the point of absurdity

I think you know that this is not true, but because you do not understand even Maxwell's equations, much less Alfvén's MHD ones, I'll grant you that this is a good example of gross ignorance.

and I've seen how your industry treats "current flow".

According to Google, the only "DeiRenDopa industry" is the one you have created, here in the JREF.

What is it (as it's got my name on it, apparently, I'm curious)?

Also, what is ""current flow""?

It specifically treats is as an "effect" of the "magnetic whatever you make up", rather than the "primary cause". Take those "magnetic flux ropes". According to Alfven the primary "cause" of the flux rope was "electrical current". He actively compares it to a "Bennett Pinch". At no time did he ever promote "magnetic reconnection", in fact he called it pseudoscience his whole life and saw lots of papers on the topic.

Is Alfvén a god to you MM?

Did he write down all there is to know - and all that there ever will be to know - about plasma physics?

And - more pertinent - how do Maxwell's equations "treat as an "effect" of the "magnetic whatever you make up", rather than the "primary cause""?

How does QED do this?

Or are you saying that astrophysicists do not build their models ultimately on Maxwell's equations? QED?

The term "magnetic reconnection" is a perfect case in point. You can't make it happen in the lab *without* "circuits", but you refuse to acknowledge it could just as rightfully be called "circuit reconnection".

I have no idea what you're trying to say.

What are ""circuits"" in the above?

What do you mean by ""circuit reconnection""?

More fundamentally, how can you determine (or define) a "circuit" in a plasma, in an objective, unambiguous way?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Both are hypotheses.

One is testable. The other isn't. So yes, the dark matter/energy hypothesis is scientifically better.

False. I can blatantly pilfer your mythical math and claim "Invisible God energy did it", "Invisible God matter did it", " Godflation did it.". There's nothing "untestable" about these hypothesis using that same math.

But you can't see this, because you can't wrap your head around inductive reasoning.

You don't seem to accept that there is a problem with you reasoning. If not P, then Q is unrelated to P. Q is a given. It's an observation. The only way to establish that P is involved is to demonstrate a cause/effect relationship. A mathematical formula isn't sufficient to distinguish between "Godflation" and "Inflation" if they are based on the same exact math!

 

[GeeMack]

Actually DRD, I know for a fact it *IS* dumbed down to the point of absurdity [...]

It is unlikely to the point of near impossibility that you know that for a fact, for the simple reason that your qualifications to understand science and math at a level above that of a typical fourth grade child have been challenged, and you have yet to demonstrate that you hold those qualifications.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Just as an addendum to my post above, because the scientific method is inductive rather than deductive, it rests on a formal fallacy - namely affirming the consequent.

If P (hypothesis), then Q (predictions).
Q (confirmed over and over through independent testing).
Therefore P.

Programming is pure deductive logic. From that perspective, the scientific method looks wrong-headed, even though we know it is the best method to get at the truth of things.

Sorry, but that's simplistic, even wrong. Three relevant examples:

1. Program design is a creative enterprise that (in some respects) resembles theory building.
2. Debugging, when done intelligently, involves hypothesis formation and empirical testing (falsification).
3. Falsification involves deductive logic in science, just as in programming.

What's remarkable is that this particular programmer doesn't understand the deductive aspect of falsification, as demonstrated by this exchange:

I just re-read an older Mozina dark matter thread. The striking thing about it is not just Mozina's poor science judgment and weird biases. It was that he was quite literally unable to grasp the basic idea of hypothesis testing. (see here.) MM was presented with this sequence:

a) Scientists came up with the hypothesis X about WIMPs being out there.
b) If X is true, the Fermi satellite expects to see Y.
c) Fermi was unable to determine whether or not it was seeing Y.

He couldn't wrap his mind around the conditional "if X is true" at all. As soon as he sees "hypothesis X about WIMPs" he insisted that our lack of knowledge about WIMPs had to be cleared up first. He doesn't get the idea of hypotheses being not-yet-fully-tested unknowns that you can write down in order to devise tests.

This is such a basic item of scientific method---or, heck, logic---it's really hard to step into the shoes of someone who doesn't get it. I suspect that it's behind basically every MM thread we've ever had....

Seriously---has anyone ever seen Mozina make (or agree with) a well-formed conditional statement like "IF the mainstream hypothesis were true, then X would follow..." ? I don't think I have. I think it's a complete cognitive blind spot for him.

In his response, Michael Mozina confirmed ben m's hypothesis:

All of your wild claims begin "If my invisible friend exists and has the various ad hoc properties I give it, then I should expect to see something "out there somewhere" which never happens here on Earth because my invisible friend is always shy around real labs".

Now *if* you could demonstrate that Wimps actually do exist, *and* you could demonstrate that they have a real cross section as you claim, *then* (and only then) is it appropriate to point at the sky and claim "Wimps did it".

As should be evident from that response, Michael Mozina truly does not understand that a hypothesis X cannot be tested unless one is willing to consider deductions of the form "if X, then Y".

In other words, Michael Mozina truly does not understand the process of falsification: By refusing to consider "if X, then Y" he rejects "if not Y, then not X".

What's going on here? We can only speculate. Someone suggested that he's so accustomed to the imperative view of "if X then Y" statements in programming that he cannot understand the declarative semantics of "if X then Y" in logic. That's just speculation, but it's a plausible speculation. We might even think of it as a hypothesis X, go on to consider deductions of the form "if X, then Y", devise experiments to determine whether Y is true, and then conduct those experiments here in this thread.

In a way, that's what ben m did: He stated his hypothesis about Michael Mozina being unwilling to consider the testable consequences of an unproven hypothesis, and Michael Mozina obliged by confirming ben m's hypothesis.

 

[GeeMack]

False. I can blatantly pilfer your mythical math [...]

No, you can't. Your qualifications to do math at a level necessary to balance your own checkbook have been challenged, and you have been wholly incapable of demonstrating that you indeed possess those qualifications.