Comment by 205guy | Hacker News Reader

Comment by 205guy | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I don't know the history of aether theory (that spelling is easier to google), but I bet someone wrote something equivalent to InclinedPlane's comment about it at one time. Even if aether was contested and later disproved, the history of science should continue to enlighten our modern views of how we as humans interpret the universe.

There are several ways to interpret ttrreeww's comment: - Dark matter is a bunch of mumbo jumbo just like we know the aether theory to be. IP reacted to this meaning. - Dark matter is vaguely reminiscent of aether theory in that it was built up from observed effects without knowing what the stuff actually was. I like this one better, but we won't know if that's what ttrreeww really meant unless we ask yo.[1]

If a statement is so short that it is easy to misinterpret, why react so strongly to one of the interpretations?

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5481430

> I bet someone wrote something equivalent to InclinedPlane's comment about it at one time

Doubtful, because an equivalent statement would sport an equivalent truth value for an equivalent statement of support. Substitute "aether theory" for "dark matter" in InclinedPlane's comment, and his assertion of its wide confirmation would be trivially false. Many physicists at the time believed the aether theory to be true, but confirmation remained (rightly) elusive, despite very sophisticated attempts.[1]

I feel the need to point out that the periodic table was also built up from observed effects without knowing what the stuff actually was. It wasn't the first attempt at categorizing the elements. Mendeleev's table was special because, like dark matter and unlike aether theory, it had positive predictive value. It made predictions about the properties of unknown elements that turned out to be correct.

[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experi...

Sure, fine, science is all arbitrary anyway right? Do you have any idea of the fundamental differences between the work that has gone into the current theory of dark matter and the background of the aether theory? Do you have any conception whatsoever of the level and detail of confirmation of the current theory of dark matter?

If you don't then maybe you should avoid making such sweeping comparisons and stick to talking about things you actually know anything about.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com