Scientists now claim Dark Matter may not be real. What other popular scientific narratives might be false?
In the case of science the religion analogy doesn't really work. The problem is that science is just a technique. What you mean when you say science is becoming a religion is that the science industry has taken on characteristics of religion. The same could be said of any organized effort such as a political party.
I think why the science as a religion analogy is so powerful for many people is that science denies faith as a legitimate state of mind. All that really means is that scientists are not good philosophers. Had religion embraced science then the whole faith issue would never have been so contentious. Unfortunately science poked holes in a lot of religious dogma that religious institutions could not adapt to.
Like money, freewill, home runs, and any other abstraction faith is real it just isn't what you think it is. All language, even the language of mathematics is abstract. Language should be thought of as a tool, the tool that proceeds all other tools. The first stone tool that was not just a rock was first an abstraction in the mind of some ape. As culture advanced so did the language tool that made abstracting more powerful. The question then is not if faith is real or not but what is its function as a tool.
Faith makes life bearable. Not in the sense that the religious may think but in a more practical sense. Without faith we would be paralized by our imagination. Faith is fundamental to life just as intelligence is. All living things make decisions or are intelligent in a very loose sense. The intelligence of all living things is limited including humans. Faith fills in the gap between intelligence and the need to move. Quiescence is death.
If you think of science as an organism instead of an organized industry or activity it becomes clearer. Science has intelligence but not sufficient intelligence to always know which way to move. Faith fills in the gap between not knowing which way to move and not moving at all. Like all organisms science has logic circuits. Those logic circuits that limit the range and direction of motion to maximize efficiency. The logic circuits evolved like that of all other organisms based on trial and error passing the memes that survived environmental testing on. Which brings us to another poorly understood abstraction randomness.
On randomness I'm not on such solid grounds but I think it is the source of everything. It is you may say the formula for everything physicists are searching for. It is clearly what makes biological evolution possible and I believe what makes the big bang and subsequent evolution of the physical universe possible. Things not subject to randomness are quiescent "dead".
Another fundamental element of this "philosophy" is entropy. In classical terms it is a fairly simple concept. "a thermodynamic quantity representing the unavailability of a system's thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work, often interpreted as the degree of disorder or randomness in the system."the second law of thermodynamics says that entropy always increases with time"." Life is essentially the magic of reversing entropy by logic. It doesn't actually reverse it; it just postpones it long enough for replication of other units that carry on the temporary reversal.
I hope that helps lol
My theory on black holes.... Stars burnt to a charcoal, sun can't reflect off them, so they call them holes because you can't see other stars in the universe through them. If these large pieces of charcoal are moving, it would give the illusion that they are swallowing up stars ( blackholes swallowing up whole galaxies) if there were as many thousands of blackholes swallowing up galaxies like they claim, would there not be one close enough to observe, or maybe sticking earth into it now
Any scientist will tell you that the answer is simple. All scientific narrative may be false. Science is a set of theories that attempt to explain what is observable. As soon as we observe something that contradicts the theory then the theory is rejected. It is that simple.
So are atoms and electrons and protons and molecules. None of those things can be physically seen or felt, however we created them based on other observations and deductions.
We don’t even know what light is. Our observations are contradictory. We just created the concept of a foton because that fit some observations and then we use waves because that fit other observations.
We have no idea what gravity is. Yet we can extremely accurately predict how it will affect everything.
We also created the concept of the Higgs boson, that now appears to be correct.
We also created the concept of flogiston, which turned out to be not correct.
Similarly we created the concept of dark matter. We don’t know if that is correct however it is the best thing we could come up with to explain our observations.
Comapred to 30 year average, Jan 2021 lower troposphere only 0.12 degrees higher than the average 288 Kelvin.
But since you asked: Out of Africa, String Theory, Covid being something that we have to do anything particular about, and we could go on and on - we are being overrun by an evil New Religion, and the Old Religions aren't laying a glove on it.
PS Gab going great, isn't it time to start crossposting your tweets?
What other popular scientific narratives might be false?
All of them.
Science always keeps the door open for all it's "narratives" to be false.
As to Dark Matter, the debate of "what" it is has been present since day one and there have been many papers and preprints in the past that have made the claim that it's "not real" but rather an artifact of the data.
Granted, the amount I know about astrophysics could fill a thimble, but I was under the impression that dark matter was just a placeholder to account for mass that we know exists but cannot observe by any scientific means we have at present (hence the name "dark matter" ) versus an actual phenomenon that we have observed and measured?
EDIT: Never mind; watched the video. You're being critical of their use of a placeholder.
It is an interesting take. I have been watching Suspicious Observers for a number of years, and Ben Davidson has been debunking the main stream narrative on Dark Matter, WIMPS and some other 'grant' based politically funded 'science' for all the time I have watched him.