Re: I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should.
Joel Send a noteboard - 25/05/2011 12:55:36 AM
Maybe not in the grand scheme of things, but since we're discussing the literal grand scheme of things a 10% discrepancy only looks good because the previous discrepancy was 100+ orders of magnitude. It's still a significant variance, and the extent of its improvement only underscores the fact previous estimates covered a range just shy of the set of all numbers, which still inspires little confidence.
You don't have the background or context to decide how significant it is. The fact that it's a preliminary result means it will probably decrease quite a bit as we get more results. If it doesn't, that's when it matters.
Ten percent is ten percent; again, fundamental theories have been proven with less. If you recorded a 10% variance between a stars predicted and actual rotation would you think, margin of error or potential exo-planet?

I've stated my reasons: It was a problem with the particle zoo in the '50s and '60s, and again with GUTs in the '80s and '90s (and to some extent, I believe, remains one). Those are just the recent/contemporary examples a layman can quickly cite. It wasn't something banished with geocentrism and other superstitions during the Age of Reason as you previously suggested. It's ultimately a problem of human psychology that I don't think can be evolved past in a few centuries. Ideas are more readily disseminated now, and to that extent more likely challenged, but man himself has changed little if any. We're still susceptible to the same institutional and disciplinary errors, even where particular institutions and actors have given way to others.
No, those are examples when people did "question the canon." If it didn't happen fast enough for you, well... tough.
The particle canon was ultimately questioned, yes, and that's encouraging; the status of GUTs is more troubling. The original GUT doesn't require (despite allowing) proton decay, but seems to be alone in that respect, despite experiments consistently arguing against proton decay (without ruling it out), and a GUT remains a necessary stop on the road to a ToE. I sincerely hope the picture is less muddled than that for those actively leading the search for explanations, though on one level a little confusion would be somewhat encouraging because it would mean people are questioning the canon. From the outside it often feels like GUTs multiply at the same rate "fundamental" particles once did, without improving our understanding any more.
None I'm aware of, but that doesn't mean no accurate ones of which NO ONE is aware exist. See my reply to your last response on GUTs.
I'm not saying we should ignore the best extant theory that fits the evidence to pursue hypothetical better ones, I'm just saying we should keep our eyes open for them as we evaluate existing theories, and for flaws experiment and observation indicate in those theories that should spur us to look for others. If an existing theory consistently matches the data we're seeing obviously we should stick with it for as long as that remains so, but not automatically EXPECT it to remain so, or confine investigation of the "dreaded anomaly" to ways we can reconcile it with our favorite theory.

There are no real indications that the field as a whole is not keeping its eyes open etc., so obsessing over it is not worthwhile.
Perhaps not the field as a whole, but since Dr. Carroll says exotic dark matter is confirmed beyond reasonable doubt, I "doubt" he's looking very hard for alternatives. I'm sure there are plenty of similar examples, but that's one we can both agree is representative.
My problem is that people did more than that: One group of people came up with a hypothesis and, before it was proven or even tested, another group of people came up with ANOTHER hypothesis based on the first. They took a very new and completely untested theory for granted, and made it the foundation of an even newer one. It worked out in the end, and that's great but, IMHO, science shouldn't encourage building a house of cards.
So now you're the hypothesis thought police?
Not "thought police"; people can think what they wish, but in terms of reason everyone should, though not everyone does, take a critical view, and that's perfectly valid. I'm not questioning their math or their data, I'm simply saying that constructing untested hypotheses on top of others is dubious even if one team got lucky doing so. What would you think of a hypothesis right now that began "assuming dark energy is ultimately proven to exist... "? It might be interesting and even constructive thinking, and might ultimately be verified, but reproducing verifiable proof of something founded on something itself unverified seems a bit sketchy.
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!

LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Exciting video about the universe
28/04/2011 10:14:55 AM
- 1262 Views
I still think dark matter's just non-luminous matter without a convenient light source to reflect.
28/04/2011 10:34:21 PM
- 966 Views
We've just about ruled out the idea that dark matter is just non-luminous "ordinary" matter.
28/04/2011 11:44:34 PM
- 908 Views
I'm aware of the Bullet Cluster, though admittedly not much more than that.
29/04/2011 01:52:49 AM
- 845 Views
Re: I'm aware of the Bullet Cluster, though admittedly not much more than that.
29/04/2011 02:56:32 AM
- 950 Views
Re: I'm aware of the Bullet Cluster, though admittedly not much more than that.
30/04/2011 05:02:49 PM
- 883 Views
Re: I'm aware of the Bullet Cluster, though admittedly not much more than that.
30/04/2011 08:56:35 PM
- 788 Views
Re: I'm aware of the Bullet Cluster, though admittedly not much more than that.
02/05/2011 01:28:30 AM
- 811 Views
Re: I'm aware of the Bullet Cluster, though admittedly not much more than that.
04/05/2011 04:18:18 AM
- 909 Views
There's such a thing as knowing when you're licked, and I believe I am.
07/05/2011 02:04:53 AM
- 984 Views

Re: There's such a thing as knowing when you're licked, and I believe I am.
09/05/2011 11:28:48 PM
- 827 Views

Re: There's such a thing as knowing when you're licked, and I believe I am.
14/05/2011 05:36:45 AM
- 781 Views

Re: There's such a thing as knowing when you're licked, and I believe I am.
17/05/2011 02:09:40 AM
- 863 Views

Re: There's such a thing as knowing when you're licked, and I believe I am.
19/05/2011 04:55:21 AM
- 786 Views

Re: There's such a thing as knowing when you're licked, and I believe I am.
24/05/2011 09:32:27 PM
- 860 Views

The Pati-Salam model was the one I had in mind.
24/05/2011 10:34:04 PM
- 811 Views
Re: The Pati-Salam model was the one I had in mind.
24/05/2011 11:08:01 PM
- 1017 Views
Re: The Pati-Salam model was the one I had in mind.
25/05/2011 01:27:10 AM
- 830 Views
Re: The Pati-Salam model was the one I had in mind.
31/05/2011 09:16:18 AM
- 897 Views
Apologies for the delay; internet's been spotty and I've been busy lately.
10/06/2011 12:09:04 AM
- 1148 Views
Re: Apologies for the delay; internet's been spotty and I've been busy lately.
14/06/2011 03:38:18 AM
- 1140 Views
Also, re: lensing from ordinary matter:
29/04/2011 05:18:47 AM
- 850 Views
This seems like another example of what confuses the issue.
30/04/2011 05:25:04 PM
- 969 Views
Re: This seems like another example of what confuses the issue.
30/04/2011 08:56:40 PM
- 937 Views
That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible".
02/05/2011 01:29:03 AM
- 925 Views
Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible".
04/05/2011 04:18:24 AM
- 892 Views
Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible".
07/05/2011 02:05:02 AM
- 1062 Views
Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible".
09/05/2011 11:29:36 PM
- 830 Views
Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible".
14/05/2011 05:35:56 AM
- 1119 Views
Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible".
17/05/2011 02:09:55 AM
- 731 Views
Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible".
19/05/2011 02:47:25 AM
- 1078 Views
Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible".
24/05/2011 09:46:30 PM
- 855 Views
Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible".
25/05/2011 12:20:10 AM
- 1153 Views
Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible".
31/05/2011 09:16:22 AM
- 967 Views
Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible".
10/06/2011 12:04:06 AM
- 1198 Views
Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible".
14/06/2011 03:38:12 AM
- 971 Views
Re: I still think... (apparently, there is a 100 character limit on subjects, and yours was 99)
28/04/2011 11:57:15 PM
- 1276 Views
Seems to happen to me a lot; sorry.
29/04/2011 12:56:14 AM
- 831 Views
None of this reflects on the actual facts of dark matter.
29/04/2011 01:32:52 AM
- 823 Views
I concede my grasp (or grope) is a somewhat superficial laymans, yes.
30/04/2011 04:30:28 PM
- 962 Views
Re: I concede my grasp (or grope) is a somewhat superficial laymans, yes.
30/04/2011 08:56:44 PM
- 773 Views
Re: I concede my grasp (or grope) is a somewhat superficial laymans, yes.
02/05/2011 01:28:58 AM
- 1298 Views
Re: I concede my grasp (or grope) is a somewhat superficial laymans, yes.
04/05/2011 04:18:27 AM
- 812 Views
I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should.
07/05/2011 02:05:09 AM
- 1026 Views
Re: I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should.
09/05/2011 11:32:17 PM
- 935 Views
Re: I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should.
14/05/2011 05:36:24 AM
- 1119 Views
Re: I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should.
17/05/2011 02:10:03 AM
- 849 Views
Re: I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should.
19/05/2011 04:33:06 AM
- 1101 Views
Re: I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should.
24/05/2011 09:59:38 PM
- 848 Views
Re: I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should.
24/05/2011 11:19:43 PM
- 801 Views
Re: I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should.
24/05/2011 11:33:58 PM
- 762 Views
Re: I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should.
25/05/2011 12:55:36 AM
- 865 Views
Re: I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should.
31/05/2011 09:16:24 AM
- 815 Views
Re: I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should.
10/06/2011 12:09:13 AM
- 984 Views
Re: I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should.
14/06/2011 03:38:05 AM
- 949 Views
Might help if you clarified where your skepticism is at
29/04/2011 02:32:07 AM
- 790 Views
Potentially either, or a combination of the two.
30/04/2011 02:36:50 PM
- 871 Views
It's hard to discuss without knowing your objections a bit more clearly
30/04/2011 04:58:03 PM
- 773 Views
My primary objection is that alternatives to dark matter seem to have been ruled out prematurely.
02/05/2011 01:29:14 AM
- 947 Views