What are the Philosophical Implications of " Dark Material"?

Fascinated book mark...

Couple all this with the "fact" that we don't even know if what we call "the universe" -- complete with all the stuff in it that we cannot observe -- is really THE UNIVERSE...

...and we have lots of reasons to be as agnostic about scientific guesses about the nature of REALITY as we have about religious guesses.

But at least the scientific community makes its guesses with the intention of testing and poking those guesses -- rather than simply blindly accepting them.

Or at least, we should all be hoping that is the case.

The answer to the question "what is the nature of reality and existence" might not be found by examining the so called material world if the source/origin of that "reality and existence" is not [in] the material but else where(?).

I don't know that disaffected materialists suggested toe-stubbing to the metaphysicians--i have always read that it was Samuel Johnson who offered that advice. I still consider it cogent advice--pain is a marvelous agent for focusing one's attention.

Reading the article I enjoyed Haldane's classic remark: "The universe is not only queerer than we suppose. It is queerer than we can suppose." (Italics mine)

Now, do we take this to mean that "the universe is ultimately inconceivable" or do we take it to mean that it "will reveal itself to be very surprising"?

Most respondents here know that I am inclined towards the first view and that we need to focus on the "act of examination" itself. The fallacy is that there is anything out there that is independent of our "purposes" and this fallacy is reified by implying that we can even quantify the "unobservable" as a "percentage".

I am also slightly captivated by the creativity of writers like Philip Pullman
who has elaborated on the general concept of "Dark Material" as "the stuff of consciousness" in a recent trilogy of children's stories,

I don't believe this is true. Neutrinos have been shown to have some mass only recently (90's), and thereby make up some of dark matter. Not all of it, but some.

This all doesn't diminish my confidence at all. Discoveries continue apace, adjustments are made to our thinking. I don't see scientists as saying, "we haven't a clue" but "we have discovered something new, and are continuing to try to figure it out." This is not a concern for me.

This particular report doesn't state the case very well, from the perspective of someone who personally knows people who are working or have worked on virtually all of the experiments mentioned. (AMANDA in the Antarctic, etc.) Neutrinos for example really should have been mentioned.

Setanta is correct: the rock-kicking episode is from Boswell's "Life of Dr. Johnson:"

After we came out of the church, we stood talking for some time together of Bishop Berkeley's ingenious sophistry to prove the nonexistence of matter, and that every thing in the universe is merely ideal. I observed, that though we are satisfied his doctrine is not true, it is impossible to refute it. I never shall forget the alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone, till he rebounded from it -- "I refute it thus."


Why is this a "fallacy?" And what kind of "fallacy" is it?

The "fallacy" is that "the observed" exists independently of "the observer". i.e. When speaking of "existence" we must ask "for whom".
Thus "dark matter" exists for (a) astronomers wishing to account for discrepancies in their calculations and (b) ourselves in as much as we might all have a vested interest in what we call "scientific methodology" because the "same methodology" appears to be "successful" in predicting future outcomes of own actions.

And...?

There seems to be a value judgement in there, maybe I'm reading it incorrectly. While on some level we can't KNOW anything, I see nothing wrong with the process -- seeing what we can find out, adjusting our thinking as new evidence comes to light.

Humility is a good thing.

Instead of blaming the universe for being unobservable,
I would encourage scientists to practice saying "We don't know".

It's not the universe that's unobservable. It's us who need to learn to see better, as time goes on.

I like this guy George!

Welcome to A2K, GeorgeT.

Yes, welcome, George!

Isn't that what scientists are saying, though? We don't know, so we will call it "dark matter" until we figure it out? That's what the "dark" means, here -- unseen, unknown. It means, "there should be some more matter out there, and until the theory which calls for more matter is debunked, we will call the matter that should be there but we can't see "dark matter" while we investigate whether it is actually there or if the theory which calls for it should be debunked."

And they -- we -- are learning to observe better, and are making new instruments to observe better, and are making new observations, and are integrating what they observe into new theories which they then test.

I don't see why this is a bad thing.

Re: What are the Philosophical Implications of " Dark M
I just re-read the original post, and realized I forgot to address a central aspect:



I don't think that is the case. They are in agreement that they have thus far observed only a fraction of it, and are trying to figure out how to observe the rest. In doing so, they have made some headway, such as observing the fact that neutrinos have a tiny bit of mass. (Because neutrinos are so numerous, this tiny bit adds up.)

So, having made some headway, they continue to attempt to observe the rest of it, with no expectation that it is completely unobservable. Just not yet observed. Big difference.

The "true nature" of facts is the matter of belief, even.

Huh???

Can you go over that one again, Satt.

Slowly!

Who can deny that someone is pulling the universe (where we live) from outside? .. a caricature, of course, here.

truth
I like the notion that there are no completely BRUTE facts; they are all imbued with meaning FROM US, and as such are little theories--which we call facts, not just meaningless pheonomena.
Also, I like the notion that knowledge or knowing is a function of the knower (Fresco). We can only know what humans can know, we cannot know what ants can know. Moreover, our search for knowledge is always "intended," always with some purpose, some frame of reference--or it is not a search. We never investigate phenomena immaculately, we always do so with some interest. Even when a phenomenon jumps out at us, we immediately give it meaning--we inject it with theory--in order to deal with it. If we JUST saw it, naked as it were, without "our" imposing meaning onto "it" we would be practicing nondualism--which is not the way humans normally act.

While I'm here let me ask: This "dark matter", is it non-observable in principle or is it simply not observed for practical reasons? If it is non-observable "in principle," meaning because of some inherent or ABSOLUTE restriction, that would be philosophically significant, an issue for epistemology. Otherwise, the problem is no more than a practical one, a problem for engineering.

Got any more of that batch?

Can I pick any up at a reasonable price?

I agree with all of that stuff about we can't KNOW anything, etc., but it has its limits as a practical framework in which to live one's life. I really think that if I step out of the house, I won't be sucked into a swirling vortex and slowly suffocate, but I don't KNOW that. The last 36,178 times I stepped out of the house I was OK, but that doesn't mean that the NEXT time, the laws of gravity couldn't be repealed.