I've downvoted your comment because your tone isn't constructive and you're making a rather illogical jump to the philosophical arguments of Spinoza in comparison to questions around modern measurable/observable phenomena in science.
If you'd like to make a less hostile post with a clearer justification of your reasoning I'd be more than happy to debate the subject with you.
I do not have anything to add. As a student of philosophy I have seen way to many socially constructed chimeras and memes to not notice modern ones.
The only criteria for establishing a scientific truth is still a replicable experiment which proves an implementation according to some established law. Any simulation does not account for such kind of experiment, being mere a "cartoon" made according to some abstract model. The difference between experiment and simulation is of the same kind as between a cartoon and actual reality.
> " As a student of philosophy I have seen way to many socially constructed chimeras and memes to not notice modern ones."
There's a willful ignorance in this sentence that belies your youth and intelligence. I suspect you don't have an adequate background to understand the observational evidence for our expectation of dark matter (I barely do to be quite honest). I don't think you can fairly dismiss offhand the conclusions drawn by hundreds of expert physicists based on your experience.
I've known more than one physicist that were also well-studied students of philosophy. If you have reached a brilliant and well-justified conclusion that they failed to see you should clearly write it to justify your case.
>"The only criteria for establishing a scientific truth is still a replicable experiment which proves an implementation according to some established law. Any simulation does not account for such kind of experiment, being mere a "cartoon" made according to some abstract model. The difference between experiment and simulation is of the same kind as between a cartoon and actual reality."
Science (and philosophy for that matter) are defined from consistency of observation. I fail to see your point about an experiment measuring a "cartoon" when that is the reality in which we intrinsically exist and for which prediction will provide the most value.
I'm not asking you to send me a resource that has led you to your current conclusions.
I'm asking that you formulate an argument that I can read that will make me believe that your arguments are well-formulated here. You made a very strong statement and I think that if you could logically justify it in written form it would be a valuable contribution to the thread.
I could only try to clarify the same principles a bit more. Non-falsifiable and non empirically verified hypothesis does not amount for a science and constitutes a set of beliefs similar to religion among a community of its followers. As long as there is absolutely no way to reliably test or even measure, leave alone empirically validate anything, this set of beliefs is technically is a non-science and should be explicitly named as mere speculation.
My first comment was the claim that what we deal with is a socially constructed phenomena, similar to a religious belief or a mass-hysteria because it is a) cannot be tested and b) constructed by a certain social group. Technically, I do not see any contradiction in my claim.
If you'd like to make a less hostile post with a clearer justification of your reasoning I'd be more than happy to debate the subject with you.