BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Team finds 'proof' of dark matter
posted by Perambulator at 3:37 PM
per·ambu·lation
Noun S: (n) perambulation (a walk around a territory (a parish or manor or forest etc.) in order to officially assert and record its boundaries) S: (n) amble, promenade, saunter, stroll, perambulation (a leisurely walk (usually in some public place)) http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=perambulation
6 Comments:
So if proof has in fact been found - then why does the headline put "proof" in quotes? I believe that's editorializing, dear BBC...
Well, it's science - they can never be 100% sure of anything. You will also note that they didn't directly observe the presence of dark matter but it was an indirect measurement considering the actual location of gas and visible matter in relation to the galaxies in question. They didn't actually see dark matter, but only proved that there is missing mass that can only be accounted for my dark matter. I think what's important here is that previously it has only just been assumed that there was dark matter and now there is observable evidence of its existence. We still don;t know what it is and how it interacts with visible matter. So yeah, "proof" but not proof.
BUT: if the object under observation cannot in fact *be* seen (or measured directly), then why is the best proof possible not, indeed, Proof? If they had reported a lion chasing a zebra simply because the zebra was observed running away, and grass being trampled at a point behind, then no; no proof. Waving grass could mean tiger, cheetah, elephant, other zebra, high winds.
However: if the scientific community has decided that the (proverbial) waving grass behind a zebra is a condition that could only be caused by the existence of a lion (er, dark matter), and they're positive they saw both the correct kind of zebra and the correct kind of waving grass, then they have their proof. Science can always be contradicted or disproved; it doesn't mean the initial conclusions were wrong as we might think of it. Just based on insufficient info.
I think hedging their bets this way is downright foolish of the BBC. If you don't think it's reputable sience, O Editorial Staff, don't print it. And if you DO think it's reputable, you have no business second-guessing the research.
Also, I realize this isn't a big deal :)
Well in the cases you cited, you have actual knowledge of what could be in the grass. you know what a lin, tiger, cheetah, elephant, whatever, looks like. In this case scientists still have little idea of the nature of dark matter. All they have said is that the location of the gas and the visible matter in relation to the two galaxies they were observing was consistent with the existence of dark matter and they have never been able to say that before. They have no idea if dark matter looks like a lion or a tiger or an elephant or if its even like wind. So its a proof that there is in fact something there where before there wasn't even that but just an assumption that something should be there. I think "proof" in quotations is entirely appropriate in this instance.
oh fine, fine, you win....you rational people!
Oh you give up too easily! :-)
Post a Comment
<< Home