[boomboomsubban]

"Proven theory" isn't a thing, Milgrom is a scientist, he should be well aware of that. Using truth conditional logic here just doesn't make sense.

[kradem]

This subthread deals with the completely different issue, it's about bad logic. No matter how well Milgrom and/or his theory could be discredited, that doesn't change the fact we can dismiss something prior to fully understand it.

It doesn't matter if that - what we dismissed - shapeshifts into something completely different (or similar...) afterward, on the contrary, regarding resources spent it would be sad if not.

[boomboomsubban]

>This subthread deals with the completely different issue, it's about bad logic. No matter how well Milgrom and/or his theory could be discredited, that doesn't change the fact we can dismiss something prior to fully understand it

It's not bad logic, it only seems like it is because you're approaching it from an Aristotlean view of logic. These things can't be proven, so dismissing them is never an option in science.

[kradem]

We're actually dealing with one complex sentence here, the second of these two:

> But, dark matter isn't something to be denied. Because it isn't understood yet, to the point where we can doubt its existence

I'm lousy in English and my knowledge of dark matter is irrelevant. With those two lemmas in mind, please answer the only question in this subthread:

could something be dismissed if we don't fully understand it?

[boomboomsubban]

No, as the entire concept of "fully understand" is ridiculous. We can't fully understand anything, so if you assume the answer is yes then we could dismiss everything.

The actual quote agrees with me here. If we understood it better the best you could do is doubt its existence.

[kradem]

>> could something be dismissed if we don't fully understand it? > No, as the entire concept of "fully understand" is ridiculous. We can't fully understand anything, so if you assume the answer is yes then we could dismiss everything.

It's not a concept, it's just my lousy English and awkward abbreviation of "to the point where" with "fully".

I'm here just to play a game of logic.

Did we dismiss the ether at the point when we managed to understand it better/enough or we managed to dismiss it after we started to play with other cards?

[boomboomsubban]

It's not your English, I understand what you are saying, you're game of logic is using an old copy of the rules.

Science doesn't dismiss things. Theories about ether were put aside when we started getting experimental results that it could not support and developed other models that explained it better. The theory still exists, and there is a possibility that someone will use it to better explain things in the future.

Your logic boils down to "if we understand something, it can not be dismissed. If we do not understand something, it can be dismissed..." This doesn't work in science though, the first assumption can not be true, so the second ends up saying you can dismiss everything. Leibniz and other's noticed and addressed this flaw in logic in the 1700's, and expanded logic to deal with it.

I am not great at this logic either, but a laymen's version goes "if `theory` supports experimental evidence better than anything else, you should act as if it were true until a better theory is available."

[shakna]

The title is bad, because it lacks the eloquence that befits a journalist.

Milgrom has provided an alternative to Dark Matter.

He isn't on a street corner shouting it doesn't exist. He didn't set out to disprove the theory. He took some evidence and reinterpreted it.