Is there empirical evidence for dark matter and dark energy?

Is there empirical evidence for dark matter and dark energy?This thread is intended to determine with precision what if any is the empirical evidence ascertaining the existence of dark matter and dark energy.For the background of this thread see [click line in bold] Thinking outside the box of empirical evidence, where Percy says that there is empirical evidence for the existence of dark matter and dark energy, and I am asking him there to show the empirical evidence establishing the existence of dark matter and dark energy.My own position is that prescinding from the existence of socalled dark matter and dark energy -- and I for one am certain that dark matter and dark energy do exist, the way people propounding their existence is not because they have empirical evidence.And I want to know on what basis if not on empirical evidence these people say that there are dark matter and dark energy.For myself, how do I know that dark matter and dark energy exist?I know that they exist from intelligent thinking.But I am sincerely very interested with an absolutely open mind -- which is open to receive substantial new ideas and also open to let go of false ideas -- to hear from people who have empirical evidence for the existence of dark matter and dark energy.Yrreg

And here is an example of empirical evidence for the existence of the nose in your face:

Touch the nose in the face of your friends and also the nose in your face.

But where exactly is the empirical evidence in that preceding sentence for the existence of nose in your face as also in the face of your friends?Yrreg

Hi Yrreg,I'll give you the same definition of empirical evidence that I gave Dawn Bertot: For this discussion the definition of evidence is anything that is apparent to our senses. If we can see, touch, hear, feel or taste it, it's evidence. Evidence that is indirect is still valid evidence. For instance, the reading on a thermometer is valid evidence of the temperature, even though we're not feeling the temperature directly. Much forensic evidence is indirect evidence, such as blood stains and fingerprints.If you agree with this definition then I can promote this thread.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Hi Percy:Let me just first reproduce your message: You say for your definition of evidence:

Let us break up the affirmations you make in the above text hierarchically:

that is apparent to our senses.
[2] touch, [3] hear, [4] feel or [5] taste it, it's evidence.
[2] Much forensic evidence is indirect evidence,

Now where do you put empirical evidence?Yrreg

I said I'd give you the same definition of empirical evidence that I gave Dawn Bertot, and that's what I did. Did you expect the "empirical" modifier in front of every occurrence of the word evidence? If so, then allow me to rephrase:For this discussion the definition of empirical evidence is anything that is apparent to our senses. If we can see, touch, hear, feel or taste it, it's empirical evidence. Empirical evidence that is indirect is still valid empirical evidence. For instance, the reading on a thermometer is valid empirical evidence of the temperature, even though we're not feeling the temperature directly. Much forensic evidence is indirect empirical evidence, such as blood stains and fingerprints.Yrreg, you have to have at least some points of common understanding with other people, otherwise you'll end up spending all your time in tendentious disagreement about minutia and never get to the topic. If you want to discuss the evidence for dark energy and dark matter then you're going to have to find a definition of evidence that is shared by everyone else, because the definition of evidence is not the topic of this thread.If you want a discussion about empirical evidence then you should propose one or begin participating in one of the threads I listed in Message 4.And if you want to discuss what is beyond empirical evidence then you should request that your Thinking outside the box of empirical evidence. thread be reopened, but you must be specific about what's "outside the box of empirical evidence."Edited by Admin, : Add message link.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Tell me, is empirical evidence direct or indirect evidence for dark matter and dark energy.------------------You say that I can start a thread on empirical evidence supporting or not supporting dark matter and dark energy, that is what I am doing with this thread.*I sincerely assure you that I am not dilly-dallying here, wasting the time and trouble of readers and your forum's bandwidth.Now, will you please assign this thread to the appropriate board as you determine on your discretionary criteria.Yrreg------------------*Annex

Percy writes:
​
[See line below put in bold by me.]
​
We're here to work toward an acceptable thread proposal, not have a discussion, but if you disagree that the concepts of dark matter and dark energy are based upon empirical evidence then you could propose a thread to discuss that topic.
​
As we don't seem to be making any progress I'm going to close this thread proposal now, but if you decide you'd like to it reopened just post a note to Thread 13101: Thread Reopen Requests...
​
-- Percy
EvC Forum Director

People can claim to talk from empirical evidence but they have to give their concept of what is empirical evidence.That is what exactly I want to do here first, to come to a concurring concept with everyone who are into empirical evidence what exactly is empirical evidence.Since I don't think that there is empirical evidence for dark matter and dark energy, and Percy believes that there is, then it is up to Percy to expatiate on what he understands by empirical evidence.So far he has spoken on what he believes is evidence, and I can see that he divides evidence into direct and indirect.I am asking him to tell me about empirical evidence whether it is direct or indirect.Is that a foolish question by which I am trying to evade what I know to be evidence as understood by people who do seek evidence in science and in the courts of law and in criminal investigation?Yrreg

Hi Yrreg,The answer to your question about whether empirical evidence is direct or indirect was contained in the very message you're replying to. I don't think I can word it any more clearly, so here it is again: In other words, empirical evidence can be either direct or indirect.If you can accept that definition of empirical evidence then I can promote this thread.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

I accept your definition of empirical evidence.Yrreg

Thread copied to the Is there empirical evidence for dark matter and dark energy? thread in the Big Bang and Cosmology forum, this copy of the thread has been closed.