Why do people still waste time and money on these post hoc theories of Dark Matter / Dark Energy, which were invented to explain anomalies in the conventional cosmological model like galaxy rotation curves?
We neither have direct evidence nor do we not have alternative explanations - to the contrary. They shouldn't even qualify as scientific theory, since they are neither falsifiable, have no predictive power or are supported by any independent experimental confirmation.
Oh,there are presents under the Christmas tree, it must've been Santa Claus!
They are patchwork "solutions" at best and by far not the only explanation for what's happening.
People have been looking everywhere for a better solution than Dark Matter and especially Dark Energy for decades now without success. They may hate the theories, for good reason, but nothing better has materialized yet. Modified gravity always seems intriguing until you slam in a counterexamples for example.
This is a lingering sense that we have missed something big.
Right around the time when the Trilateral Commission, the Club of Rome and other elitist think tanks / NGOs were founded to push globalization, development and such ideas.
Utilitarianistic approaches are really bad... Scientism falls flat on its face, since it's a self refuting philosophy(!).
It's truth cannot be demonstrated according to its own principles, (i.e. hard sciences are the best / superiour or even only source of genuine knowledge of the world). The truth of scientism is philosophical in nature and not the result of a scientific experiment.
We shouldn't adhere to untruth just because it "serves" our ends in some ways or another.*
By the way, how do you arrive at your value judgements of "good" and "bad", "serving" something vs. the opposite?
How do you determine "the benefits" in a relativistic worldview, most modern people, as well as you seem to adhere to (see "post truth world").
For whom was it "net beneficial"?
Doing science and producing results is not necessarily a result or proof of the philosophy the scientist adheres to. One could believe all sorts of things and get scientific results, so I don't see scientism as beneficial in any sense.
It is wrong as a theory and it undermines science itself in a major way.
Scientism undermines the presuppositions science philosophically rests on*and which cannot be proven by science itself.
Therefore if Scientism believes that you can only believe "truths" that are the result of scientific experiments and you have to rely on presuppositions that cannot categorically be proven by science itself, you cannot do science anymore.
Scientism is the enemy of science, logically speaking.
*
I still believe that "the Good" and "Truth" are directly entangled and necessary.
*
a) belief in an external world, independent of mind, languagy or theory,
b) the nature of the world is orderly, especially its "deep structure" that lies under and beyond the manifest world of ordinary perception
c) objective truth exists
d) our sensory and cognitive faculties are reliable for gaining truth and knowledge of the world, and tehy are able to grasp the world's deep structure that lies beyond the sense-perceptible world,
e) various types of values and "oughts" exist
f) the laws of logic and mathematics exist
I love material reductionism.
It pretends to explain the thing it actually renders meaningless with its "explanation".
This "explanation" is utter rubbish mumbled by the philsophically inept.
It even pretends to be "science" all the while bringing in their "darwinian" "evolutionary" philosophy.
(One thing I wonder often is, don't these people know fallacies, e.g. when trying to prove sth. to be caused by evolution, as a proof for evolution, while assuming evolution to be true in the first place? Classic "begging the question"-fallacy.)
You don't seem to bring forth any real rebuttal of the arguments in the article. I personally think it's a bit oversimplified but very much viable. Why don't you think so?
"Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something."
"When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. 'That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3' can be shortened to '1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
Why don't you peeps check out some of the explanations coming from plasma physicists and electric engineers that have oberserved similarities between their fields of expertise and things going on on earth, it's atmosphere and space (sun, planets, stars)?
There is actually a model, that doesn't need dark matter and such things, which is called plasma cosmology or electric universe.
The rotational aspect of galaxies is pretty easily explained with knowledge about plasma, loaded particle clouds and an understanding of electricity.
The best thing is, they can actually predict stuff.
Contrast that with dark matter theories and gravitational models.
Check out the SAFIRE Project https://safireproject.com/ for an interesting experimental take on the sun.
Electric Universe is crankery: they cherry pick their examples, there is no unifying theory, they reject making mathematical predictions, and they ignore substantial evidence which contradicts them. What's more, astrophysicists are not unaware of electric and magnetic fields (as is often claimed by EU theorists), and model them frequently when they are relevant.
Please lead me to some examples for your claims, if you have them, so I can make up my mind and re-evaluate my stance, if you're correct.
I'd appreciate it.
We neither have direct evidence nor do we not have alternative explanations - to the contrary. They shouldn't even qualify as scientific theory, since they are neither falsifiable, have no predictive power or are supported by any independent experimental confirmation.
Oh,there are presents under the Christmas tree, it must've been Santa Claus!
They are patchwork "solutions" at best and by far not the only explanation for what's happening.
It's the aether rehashed.