"Today we learn most of the universe is made of dark energy

>>8348722
Popsci is and always has been cancer

>>8348722
>>>/worship/

>>8348722
But admitting the limit of your knowledge is a sign of integrity, not the other way around.
Any cultish belief would instead replace "we don't know" with a bunch of bullshit.

No. There's nothing wrong with those statements, OP.

We know that there must be something in our universe that is causing phenomenon that we easily and readily observe. However, we haven't seen this something, so of course we cannot describe it.

There's nothing inherently flawed with either of those.

>>8348742
there is something wrong: focus.

A scientist will look powerful saying wht the universe is made of when in fact his real knowledge is far smaller.

Uncovering what these stuff are might reduce even more the extent of this knowledge.

>>8348735
So questioning Science hubris in necessarily religious antiracionalism? Or do scientists constantly hide the uncertanty in their work for the general public? Was Thomas Kuhn a priest or a bishop?

>>8348722
Just because we call a Photon a photon says nothing about the nature of the photon, and we see that most of the energy in the universe is invisible and not made of stuff we normally deal with. Once we figure out what it "is", we will give it a name, but that doesn't mean we actually understand it beyond how to quantify it.

>>8348722
>>8348759
First off you're full of shit. We don't teach contemporary cosmology in school. It's too complex for kids.

Second what the fuck do you mean by
>A scientist will look powerful saying wht the universe is made of
The sentences in your OP means "most of the universe is made of stuff we haven't observed", which isn't in any way a contradictory or overreaching statement.

The real problem is that you're really too stupid to hold an opinion. If someone tells you they don't know everything you'll dismiss it as "hubris", while if they claim to hold all of the answers you'll listen religiously.
I mean really, kys.

>>8348795
On the contrary. they should be more open about not knowing or knowing without too much certainty.

To make a noun ("dark energy") out of a process creates the ilusion you know what you are dealing with.

And scientists certainly rejoyce in this ilusion, because it enables them to appear on Tv and to influence politics or just be admired.

>>8348813
>To make a noun ("dark energy") out of a process creates the ilusion you know what you are dealing with.
Its a description of an unknown. Have to call it something

>>8348813

You've obviously never met a real scientist.

I'm not talking about bill nye either.

The power of being a real scientist is knowing what you don't know, and trying to design an experiment so that you can learn about it to fill gaps in your knowledge.

Literally the entire career of a 'scientist' is striving to learn more about one does not know.

This is like 2nd grade shit, didn't you learn the scientific method when you were 10?

Every real scientist knows he doesn't know very much.

>>8348855
But are scientists ready to let it show for the world? The average Homer Simpson?

>>8348900

99.999% of scientists will never talk to the media.

The vast majority of the time, the information is being disseminated by a PR or marketing department.

And to answer your question, yes, 'scientists' are ready to tell people they don't know when asked, and have been doing it for centuries.

All those TV shows on the Hitler Channel wouldn't be very interesting if every mystery in the universe could be readily explained. There's a lot of frequently discussed 'unknowns.'

>>8348813
>To make a noun ("dark energy") out of a process creates the ilusion
lol
how would you refer to it without a noun then?

>>8348722
>Should science become more humble in its assertions, or at least in how it popularizes them?

Science is overwhelmingly humble. Sensationalizers with no science experience writing popsci is the problem. they are not scientists nor do they represent science.

>>8348722
"Science" at least admita when it doesn't know.

>>8348929
But they represent science to those who are not scientists. Therein lies the problem. Back when Bill Nye was making videos he took boring science facts and made them cool, and then Dr. Kaku came along and tried to emulate him

>>8348722
And scientists know exactly what they're talking about when they say dark matter. It's the discrepancy between the matter observed and the effects observed.

>>8348913
"Extremely large portions of the universe behave in a way we don't understand and we are far from knowing why"

>>8349013
That's more vague than the actual specific issue denominated by "dark matter".

>>8349013
A bit unwieldy. Lets shorten it down a bit. Given our current understanding we it seems that these things we dont understand appear to a kind of energy and a kind matter, maybe multiple kinds of both. We cant see or detect them directly, so they appear "dark". I wonder what kind of short, convenient name we could give this "dark" matter and energy?

>>8348742
>We know that there must be something in our universe that is causing phenomenon that we easily and readily observe. However, we haven't seen this something, so of course we cannot describe it.

Or maybe our understanding of gravity is fundamentally flawed instead of our universe being composed of only 5% normal matter perhaps gravity just does not attenuate as rapidly over galactic scales as we think it does.

>>8349031
>Or maybe our understanding of gravity is fundamentally flawed
Faaaaaaar less likely than dark matter and dark energy

>>8349031
Nobody is preventing anyone from coming up with a different model of gravity that accounts for our cosmological observations, but goddam it would be tough.

>>8349036
Not really, both are basically ass pulls.

>>8348741
This, it's good to admit the limits of your knowledge instead of making up a bunch of stupid shit like G*d

File: 1366060875783.jpg (37KB, 374x421px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 374x421px

>>8348722

If you were lost in a foreign country and asked for directions, who would be more helpful...someone who said "I don't actually know", or a liar who told you what he thought you wanted to know?

File: 1375519314849.jpg (24KB, 250x332px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 250x332px

>>8348722
Dark energy is vacuum energy.
Dark matter is a type III bordering IV civilisation or singleton fucking around.