Religion
Related: About this forumFaith in the existence of dark matter.
In 1933 Fritz Zwicky was studying a galactic cluster and observed that the rotational speed of galaxies in the cluster was impossible unless there existed a huge amount of unobserved mass in the cluster. He, following in the footsteps of Lord Kelvin 50 years earlier, called this unobserved mass "dark matter".
The Zwicky observations have been confirmed over and over again in other galactic clusters and in the late 70's Vera Rubin and Kent Ford published new observational results using spectrographic analysis to confirm that most galaxies must contain approximately 6 times as much "dark matter" as visible mass.
Over the last 40 years numerous experiments have been conducted to test the two main hypothesis about what sort of particle dark matter might be composed from, WIMPS and axions. All those experiments have failed to detect the existence of either particle.
Dark matter has never been directly observed. Astrophysicists do not know what dark matter is. They believe however, absent any direct evidence, that dark matter exists. They have it seems "a faith based belief in the existence of dark matter".
Physicists generally have enormous faith in the existence of this unobserved entity (some don't, there are alternative theories.) But their faith in the existence of dark matter is entirely different than faith in the existence of gods.
While there have been no direct observations of dark matter, as noted earlier "dark matter" itself is just a placeholder for a problem with repeatedly confirmed observational data. There is plenty of indirect evidence. Something is causing the observed problem, one set of theoretical explanations assume the existence of large quantities of mass from an unknown new type of particle.
Research institutes across the planet invest resources into the search for dark matter based entirely on faith that this research, even if it, as it has so far done, fails to find any evidence for the constituent particle or particles. Their research is probing into one of the great mysteries in human knowledge, it is research into the boundaries of the unknown. It is part of the great project of the enlightenment to understand the universe we inhabit.
While faith in the existence of dark matter is pervasive among astrophysicists, this belief is not "unshakable". In fact, quite the opposite. If one of the alternative theories, for example that galactic clusters contain enormous numbers of very small black holes, proves valid, the search for dark matter particles would likely come to an end. Unlike irrational faith, scientific faith is based on theory, observation experimentation and analysis. New evidence can obsolete current knowledge.
Permanut
(5,602 posts)All of that unobserved matter consists of lost luggage.
shenmue
(38,506 posts)You represent well.
MineralMan
(146,286 posts)Joke's on you...
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)rising in harmony or some such.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Apparently made up of the kids that just copied each other's homework verbatim without even paraphrasing.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)I mean, we are laughing. But not with you.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)that things aren't always literal? THat there are limits we are pushing and finding out more, but still have to have a name or description we know exists, even if we don't know exactly what it is?
Next you're gonna say that the God particle isn't actually divine in nature.
NeoGreen
(4,031 posts)...it is merely a best guess placeholder:
While faith in the existence of dark matter is pervasive among astrophysicists, this belief is not "unshakable". In fact, quite the opposite. If one of the alternative theories, for example that galactic clusters contain enormous numbers of very small black holes, proves valid, the search for dark matter particles would likely come to an end. Unlike irrational faith, scientific faith is based on theory, observation experimentation and analysis. New evidence can obsolete current knowledge.
Faith as is commonly used, is the adherence/acceptance of an idea regardless of the lack of evidence to support that idea or in stubborn opposition to any evidence against that idea.
MineralMan
(146,286 posts)"a best guess placeholder." Perhaps. A bet on Pascal's Wager.
NeoGreen
(4,031 posts)...after the idea has been tossed on the trash heap.
The whole structure of the commonly used "faith" is that it is and will be unshakeable.
Whereas, the scientific "faith" in the OP starts with the a priori acceptance that the explanation/idea could be (will likely be) modified or proven wrong and tossed aside.
MineralMan
(146,286 posts)More people than you realize, perhaps. Or they shift their faith to something else religious.
Faith is not constant. Faith is not forever. Faith is what people have right now.
I stand by my statement.
NeoGreen
(4,031 posts)...terminology...
Practical Faith - where in reality, the beliefs held by faith, are subject to human whim and change for individuals as they change,
and
Idealized Faith - which is what is often espoused and projected but ultimately succumbs to practicality/reality.
MineralMan
(146,286 posts)Words are imprecise. We do our best with them, but they are still imprecise.
When it comes to science, I don't really use the word faith. In a discussion of dark matter, many believe that is a viable explanation for a particular phenomenon, but don't have the required evidence yet. They believe they probably have the answer, but, there's still research to do before they're certain. And even then, additional evidence could toss that theory out the window anyhow.
Science is always changing its conclusions, based on new evidence. That's why it's so compelling. Religion really has no evidence, so it can have fixed ideas that do not change. But even there, people have differing opinions of what things mean. In Christianity, that has led to the splitting of the religion into thousands of sectarian divisions, each with faith in some different way of looking at things.
Humans are inconstant. That is a constant.
Voltaire2
(13,009 posts)Last edited Mon Jan 8, 2018, 06:16 PM - Edit history (1)
and validly false claim made here of the equivalence of this sort of faith to that of the more common meaning of religious faith.
NeoGreen
(4,031 posts)...I wasn't really criticizing, I was likely doing something more akin to pontificating.
In the hopes that I was clarifying and cutting-to-the-point.
I may have missed my mark.