Shane, before:
>>> And just how does one "test" for the existence of an inherently
>>> unobservable
>>> entity?
me:
>> I'll leave that question to a real scientist (i.e., a non-economist),
>> though I understand that the Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland is
>> supposed to help. But if the presence of "dark matter" cannot be
>> tested, it will forever be seen as merely speculation.
>>
>> By the way, the word "dark" does not refer to appearance. Rather, it's
>> an explicit acknowledgment of the matter's unknown status. I don't
>> know if it's "inherently unobservable." Even things that can't be
>> directly observed (like gravity) can have an impact on other entities
>> (as things fall to earth, etc.)
Shane, now:
> But gravity is not a "thing"--it is a quantitatively specifiable pattern of
> relationship among observable *things*, and scientific observation proves
> the existence and specifies the mathematical values of that pattern.
Right. I was using the word "thing" in a very general, informal, and
indeed slangy way. "Phenomenon" is a better word.
> Contrariwise, "dark" as in "dark" matter, "dark" energy, "black" collapsed
> stars ("holes") etc., refers to unobservable *things*.
Right, but their nature is currently unknown: dark energy and matter
may not be "things" as you seem to define that term. We don't know.
They might instead be described as "fields" or some aspect of
"strings" -- or something a professional physicist could describe much
better than I can.
Dark energy and matter may not be observable at this point in history,
but we cannot blithely assert that they will _never_ be observable
(which would make them _inherently_ observable). Astronomers may be
asking the wrong question or looking at matters in the wrong way. It's
also possible that these concepts will be replaced by better ones in
the future.
But "black holes" seem to be more observable and better understood
every year. (They also might best be described as phenomena than as
things.) They seem to be observable in the sense that astronomers know
that _something_ is there that has clear effects on neighboring
phenomena.
> Devotees of
> counting angels on pinheads can debate endlessly about whether the
> unobservability is inherent or merely reflects the current limitations (both
> theoretical and actual) of observational technology.
This is not a purely scholastic ("angels on pins") argument: with
improved observational technology, this kind of issue is slowly
resolved (though new hypotheses arise which tax observational capacity
in new ways).
Of course, if some hypothesized phenonomenon turns out to be
unobservable over a long time, that flags it as having an iffy status,
encouraging people to look for better hypotheses. However, we
shouldn't reject all unobservables: after all, I doubt that the mind
will ever be observed. However, assuming its existence seems
eminently reasonable, at least as an intervening variable.
Similarly, if the phenomenon of dark matter fills a theoretical gap in
the dominant theory among professional physicists, it might have an
honored role in the theory. Of course, its (assumed) unobservability
should still be noted.
More importantly, if there are _too many_ unobservable "gap-fillers,"
that's a problem. I understand that professional physicists know that
it's a problem, so they're looking for evidence and understanding of
dark matter, dark energy, and the like, while developing new
hypotheses. Since there is no alternative theory of physics at this
point that does as well as the "standard model" of particle physics
and general relativity (as far as I know), the problem of these "dark"
phenomena being currently unobservable is hardly decisive.
> That way they can beg
> the question of the *existence* of such things and so avoid recognizing that
> every "unexpected" observation--and there are very few others--is in fact
> yet another experimental refutation of the astrophysical model from which
> their disappointed expectations had been deduced.
In science, no general framework of understanding can or should be
rejected -- no matter how numerous the anomalies are -- if there's not
an alternative framework to replace it. Better to have a first
approximation than no approximation at all. It's clear that Ptolemaic
astronomic models, for example, had a lot of anomalies, but they
served the purposes that people used them for well enough. As I
understand it, there was no point in rejecting them until there was a
clearly superior alternative -- and the Copernican system didn't quite
fill the bill until Kepler amended it.
--
Jim Devine / "Nobody told me there'd be days like these / Strange
days indeed -- most peculiar, mama." -- JL.
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
