Preternatural vs Dark Matter

[nPeace]

I'm interested in how persons would have a discussion on this topic, but based on the views presented by three scientists. Tara Shears, particle physicist and resident CERN expert; Rupert Sheldrake, biologist behind the theory of morphic resonance; Massimo Pigliucci, CUNY philosophy professor, and evolution biologist.

The article starts here - Could We Be Outgrowing the Scientific Method?
Followed by a link to the debate at the bottom of the article.
If you don't have an account you may have to sign up to view the video. If you don't want to sign up, the video on youtube (Link below).

Spoiler: WATCH

Please watch the video. I find it a very meaningful debate.
Then please share your views / opinions on the question(s) below.
The part I am particularly interested in is the argument in the final theme - What would science without evidence look like?.

42:25 - On Dark Matter
Massimo Pigliucci
We know that something is missing, that should be there.

Tara Shears
There is a phenomenon that exists that has been interpreted as "dark matter".
Nobody knows what dark matter is made of. There are lots of different theories, but...
We don't know what that phenomenon is (The phenomenon is observed. How?}.
We can't test it, because it's invisible to us (They argue that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence), but there are experimentable observations of something there, which have been interpreted as this.

What if I restructure both comments...
We know that something is missing, that should be there.
There is a phenomenon that exists that has been interpreted as "God".
Nobody knows what God is made of. There are lots of different theories, but...
We don't know what that phenomenon is (The phenomenon is observed. How?}.
We can't test it, because it's invisible to us (Argument - Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence), but there are experimentable observations of something there, which have been interpreted as this.

What is the difference between my argument and theirs.?
If their argument is workable, can mine also be workable? Why? / Why not?

 

[shunyadragon]

From the video:

I would like first comment on Rubert Sheldrake talk, the erroneous assumption that physicists and cosmologists believe that the Laws of Nature are 'fixed.' Assuming the Laws of Nature are defined as the ultimate Law or Laws that govern the ultimate nature of our existence. It is a philosophical assumption without basis that the ultimate 'Laws of Nature' are fixed, and in reality the ultimate Laws of Nature are unknown. Yes science believes the Laws, theories, hypothesis are based on the ultimate laws of Nature, but it is possible that the Laws of Nature may vary from universe to universe, and yes there may be an ultimate Law or Laws, but in fact they are unknown.

Second, there is direct evidence that supports hypothesis' concerning the falsifiability of Quantum Mechanics.

I prefer Tara Shears description of the present view science.

I find Massimo Pigilousi (sp??) yes and no a bit confusing.

I may give references on this later.

 

[Willamena]

What is the difference between my argument and theirs.?
If their argument is workable, can mine also be workable? Why? / Why not?

The theory of "dark matter" is natural. Preturnatural is preternatural.

 

[Vaderecta]

God of the gaps - Wikipedia

This is a philosophical argument.

 

[nPeace]

God of the gaps - Wikipedia

This is a philosophical argument.

What? Dark Matter?
God and the concept of God was around before the word science was coined, so God can't fill any Gaps.
The argument for God precedes any argument. So it's not a filler.

Would you like to address the questions?

 

[nPeace]

The theory of "dark matter" is natural. Preturnatural is preternatural.

But they don't know what dark matter is, that's why we put it like this... "dark matter". What if it's not natural, then it's preternatural, but then it could be neither... then it's...

 

[Vaderecta]

What? Dark Matter?
God and the concept of God was around before the word science was coined, so God can't fill any Gaps.
The argument for God precedes any argument. So it's not a filler.

Would you like to address the questions?

I am guessing you find that argument useful. Do you have any idea of how many arguments people put forth that predates current knowledge and therefore whatever they thought first THUS it must be true? (Because you know they thought it first)

 

[nPeace]

I am guessing you find that argument useful. Do you have any idea of how many arguments people put forth that predates current knowledge and therefore whatever they thought first THUS it must be true? (Because you know they thought it first)

Like everything else some things can be right, some things can be wrong. Sometimes what is first is right, and what comes after is wrong.
It can happen the other way too but there is no fixed law that says the former is wrong. True?

 

[columbus]

But they don't know what dark matter is, that's why we put it like this... "dark matter". What if it's not natural, then it's preternatural, but then it could be neither... then it's...

Full disclosure: I am not a physicist.
But here's where the problem appears to be

there are experimentable observations of something there,

This is true of "dark matter". There are multiple, independent, but interlocking, experimentable observations that have been made. "Dark matter"(the term) is less a description than a placeholder for a phenomena that is observed and measurable in various ways. We just don't know what it is.
For God, this is not true. There are no experimentable observations.
Tom

 

[Vaderecta]

Like everything else some things can be right, some things can be wrong. Sometimes what is first is right, and what comes after is wrong.
It can happen the other way too but there is no fixed law that says the former is wrong. True?

Not at all. We used to think lead was harmless and had it in our paints and gasoline but now we know it is actually quite harmful. It has nothing to do with what someone believed first or later. Those are not useful things to pivot on.

 

[nPeace]

Not at all. We used to think lead was harmless and had it in our paints and gasoline but now we know it is actually quite harmful. It has nothing to do with what someone believed first or later. Those are not useful things to pivot on.

Not at all what? That It has nothing to do with what someone believed first or later? That is the point I am making.
If it doesn't matter, why say this:

We used to think lead was harmless and had it in our paints and gasoline but now we know it is actually quite harmful.

If I pulled up one that shows where they thought something was wrong until they later realized it was right, would you pull up another argument like the one above?
It would seem you are saying it does matter what someone believed first or later. Does it, or doesn't it?

 

[nPeace]

Full disclosure: I am not a physicist.
But here's where the problem appears to be


This is true of "dark matter". There are multiple, independent, but interlocking, experimentable observations that have been made. "Dark matter"(the term) is less a description than a placeholder for a phenomena that is observed and measurable in various ways. We just don't know what it is.
For God, this is not true. There are no experimentable observations.
Tom

This is a good one.
Show me please, what "interlocking, experimentable observations" for dark matter has been made, and if there are any, I will show you the experimentable observations for God.

 

[Vaderecta]

Not at all what? That It has nothing to do with what someone believed first or later? That is the point I am making.
If it doesn't matter, why say this:
I I pulled up one that shows where they thought something was wrong until they later realized it was right, would you pull up another argument like the one above?
It would seem you are saying it does matter what someone believed first or later. Does it, or doesn't it?

Just because someone believed something first doesnt mean it will be true for all time and supercede future beliefs or tech and discoveries.

We don't drown women anymore to prove they are not witches right?

People used to think the best and fastest way to get from point a to b was a horse and buggy and now we use Uber.

 

[nPeace]

Just because someone believed something first doesnt mean it will be true for all time and supercede future beliefs or tech and discoveries.

We don't drown women anymore to prove they are not witches right?

People used to think the best and fastest way to get from point a to b was a horse and buggy and now we use Uber.

So to you it does matter what is first or later. So what is later is always right... never what is first?

 

[columbus]

This is a good one.
Show me please, what "interlocking, experimentable observations" for dark matter has been made, and if there are any, I will show you the experimentable observations for God.

I will let the physicists explain that.

But, why is your ability to show me "experimentable observations" of God dependent on that? Just show me.
Tom

 

[Vaderecta]

So to you it does matter what is first or later. So what is later is always right... never what is first?

First or last doesn't make something true. That is not an argument.

 

[nPeace]

I will let the physicists explain that.

But, why is your ability to show me "experimentable observations" of God dependent on that? Just show me.
Tom

I am restructuring remember.
In the video, two scientists put forth an argument against telepathy, saying that dark matter is different. I can understand the argument where test may have been done for telepathy, although I think it can be argued that those tests are not complete, but then the argument put forth by Tara, I found was no different for any phenomenon.
In my opinion the same argument can apply to anything. So I want you to show why their argument works and others can't.
You say that there have been experiments observed, I think it would be fair to show them, if they are.
If you can't show me that there are, the I want to know why that works, and not other phenomenon including telepathy, and not just God.

For example, paranormal events have been observed, not explained. What is the explanation?
One can argue, we don't know. We have not directly observed it, but something is there. Let's call it God.

 

[nPeace]

First or last doesn't make something true. That is not an argument.

Cool.

 

[columbus]

You say that there have been experiments observed, I think it would be fair to show them, if they are.

I didn't say that.
There are observations. Things about how things actually work that consistently demonstrate more matter in the universe than is detectable. Hence the term "dark matter".
These observations come from many independent sources, but they all point to the same thing.

If you can't show me that there are, the I want to know why that works, and not other phenomenon including telepathy, and not just God.

Because there are not multiple independent measurements of telepathy or God. Quite the contrary, such claims are notoriously limited. Once somebody tries to investigate the phenomenon vanish, as if they were never there.
Except between some people's ears.

Science is the technique of distinguishing what is true for everybody, not just Believers.
Tom

 

[Willamena]

But they don't know what dark matter is, that's why we put it like this... "dark matter". What if it's not natural, then it's preternatural, but then it could be neither... then it's...

But, even if they don't know what it is, they are proposing something natural.