The scientific method is based on a logical fallacy

Good post Chiroptera.What about (4)?(4) Stick with the theory despite the weight of contrary evidence.For example, rather than abandon the law of gravity, claim dark matter exists. So instead of evidence driving the theory, the theory starts driving the evidence.

The law of gravity predicts a different rate of expansion of the universe from what is observed. Not quite. In your example of Uranus, no "new" science is being proposed. The adequacy of the law is truly being tested."Dark matter", on the other hand is very much about banking on "new" science.What would it take to falsify the law of gravity?

Is your definition of "universal law" a theory that is "not in crisis"? Or is there some other relevance to this?Note, I merely added (4) to the list in Chiroptera's very well presented and illustrated post Message 10. I believe it needs to go in irrespective of how premature any choice is deemed to be. Isn't this what creationists are accused of doing? Instead of addressing the flaws in their own argument they point out that other arguments are incompleteness or flawed.Hardly a good basis for falsification.

Do you agree that its current status is "falsified".Should the "universal" law of gravity be taught in the science class? You are using very subjective terms here. "Seems" and "reasonable". What happened to the quantitative rigour? Falsification is falsification.

There is a force between any two particles proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of their distance apart.The constant of proportionality, G, is called the universal gravitational constant.

Thank you, Percy.What balances the centrifugal forces in the rotating galaxy? So it's not a law. Should it be taught as one?

I added (4) because I believe it actually happens in practice. But both Newton's and Einsteins's laws give the wrong distribution of matter within the universe (expansion in this sense rather than expansion of space). What is the new theory?OK, so each "law" has a domain of applicability. Would you accept a spiritualist's argument that your laboratory lies outside the domain of applicability of their powers?

You seem to be in some disagreement with cavediver, here. Message 32That's how creationists think, too. FAITH that their beliefs will hold out against contrary evidence.Regarding centrifugal forces, they don't exist in inertial frames. In this case it's a disguise for gravitational force.In an inertial frame, the description would be that the calculated gravitational forces do not balance the observed centriPETAL accelerations. F <> m x a.Edited by sinequanon, : No reason given.

Dark matter has not been verified. It has no validity beyond plugging the hole in gravitational theory. You are turning invalidity of one theory into evidence of itself + some total unknown called dark matter. Effectively, the theory gets "reinterpreted" as a special case of something else.Creationists use this tactic, too. When all is lost, "the holy book was right all along, but we should have interpreted it like this way, instead!".

United front and all that, eh? You invalidate ALL their evidence based on the gaps you find. But you won't invalidate ALL scientific laws in the same way, when you find gaps. You react differently in each case.

And which theory was do you think Ned was referencing, here Message 35?

Strange second hint, given that cavediver maintains they were talking of different things. Are you trying "proof by closing ranks"? Well, I hope you also accept the proof, "it is impossible to imagine otherwise", from creationists and everyone else.

All you have is a effect no one understands. Until you demonstrate your MACHOs and WIMPs in the laboratory, you do not have a valid theory. You don't accept "God exists" as verified just because it explains some effect.

Premise 1 If dark matter exists, then gravity explains the observed distribution of matter in the universe.

​

Premise 2 Gravity explains the observed distribution of matter in the universe.

​

Conclusion Therefore dark matter exists.This is what is going on. What other reason is there for dark matter. Premise 2 and conclusion, two shaky statements, justify each other. Refer to either one and claim it is "backed up" by the other one.Newtonian mechanics and GR don't predict the correct spread of matter in the universe. Whatever choice there is a red herring. No. Dark matter IS the hypothesis. What you have is a problem with the gravitational effect of matter.Edited by sinequanon, : No reason given.

Diplomatically put, cavediver. Chiroptera clearly doesn't know what mathematical analysis and mathematical proof entails.Now, I don't hide behind jargon. If there is a simple way of describing something I use that. I'm not here to prove I am some sort of clever clogs.I am not a physicist, but I know that existing laws of physics predict an incorrect distribution and behaviour of matter in the universe. I used the appropriate term "expansion" with regards spacial distribution as matter is seen to be moving away from the origin. Someone then decided expansion meant something else despite the obvious context.I'm getting off-topic comments (Chiroptera - personal gripe about what happened in another thread), cronyism (pretending you're all on the same page), nit-picking (complaining about semantics when the problem is well-known), and defensive responses (groundless accusations that I am "defending" creationism).If the politics of this thread is anything to go by, scientific "logic" is prone to all manner of fallacy.A quick google reveals this as a summary -http://space.newscientist.com/...enses-with-dark-matter.htmlLooks like there were problems a little closer to home, too, with the Pioneer spacecraft.