Big Bang Theory?

[Phi for All]

There seems to be more violent talk here. What is about the RAGE??? I just want to know your belief not aggressiveness. I am LEARNING and I am definitely not an adult, so therefore I can't take all the aggressiveness like adults do. Man you people are angry, when I posted the topic.

 

No violence. No rage. Aggressiveness is subjective.

 

Definitions are important so we know everyone is talking about the same thing, and so we argue about these definitions. Argue about the ideas, without making it personal.

 

No violence. No rage.

[michel123456]

I'd dare to say that the methodology is to blame.

When observations are away from the predictions to 95%, you should go back to the black board, as Newton did.

Of course, that's the hard way.

The easy way is to rely on the existing theory.

 

I believe the real profound issue is that scientists feel the duty to provide an explanation because there are afraid to leave the door open to all sorts of bogus "explanations".

On the other hand this tactic has created a kind of dogma that holds back any tentative to provide a better explanation even from inside the scientific community.

[SamBridge]

I'd dare to say that the methodology is to blame.

When observations are away from the predictions to 95%, you should go back to the black board, as Newton did.

Of course, that's the hard way.

The easy way is to rely on the existing theory.

 

I believe the real profound issue is that scientists feel the duty to provide an explanation because there are afraid to leave the door open to all sorts of bogus "explanations".

On the other hand this tactic has created a kind of dogma that holds back any tentative to provide a better explanation even from inside the scientific community.

So Michel, beacon of hope, saving the day with...scientists are intellectually domineering cowards...

Alternatively, there's many models beyond the older big bang model, but they all point to the same thing: an origin.

And they all have the same problem: good model, but not enough evidence.

There's plenty of diverse theories that are considered, but only a select few so precisely match up with our observations in different scenarios and those theories get worked on and modified even more and become even more accurate than they were.

The only "bogus" theories are the ones that contradict a majority of known physics. Non-bogus theories build off of known physics in a more recycling based way.

Edited April 24, 2014 by SamBridge

[michel123456]

I am sorry if anyone felt insulted by my last post.

 

Derailing a bit I think that yes, the most intelligent and educated you get the more chance you have to become a "coward" as commonly understood. I.E. you will take decisions on the basis of knowledge and wisdom, not on the basis of your nerves and instincts, and certainly not on the basis of what some people less educated tell you to do.

[Phi for All]

I am sorry if anyone felt insulted by my last post.

 

Derailing a bit I think that yes, the most intelligent and educated you get the more chance you have to become a "coward" as commonly understood. I.E. you will take decisions on the basis of knowledge and wisdom, not on the basis of your nerves and instincts, and certainly not on the basis of what some people less educated tell you to do.

 

I certainly understand the dangers, but isn't this why the scientific method is used in the first place, to provide a platform so people can question the methodology used? It's not so much a question of intelligence and education as it is accessibility and process. Given enough time, a person could reasonably learn the necessary science and math to either increase their trust in a theory, or to refute it.

 

If one relies on mainstream theory to provide the best possible explanation, it might be lazy to do so if one's scientific education isn't as robust as those who work professionally on those theories, but I certainly don't consider it "cowardly". It could also be an Appeal to Authority if you assume someone who's work you respect is correct just because they have a reputation for rigor, but again, I don't think that's cowardly, just fallacious.

[Ophiolite]

There seems to be more violent talk here. What is about the RAGE??? I just want to know your belief not aggressiveness. I am LEARNING and I am definitely not an adult, so therefore I can't take all the aggressiveness like adults do. Man you people are angry, when I posted the topic.

It probably isn't anger - well maybe a little bit - but more likely passion. Most of the forum members have joined the forum and participate in it because they are passionate about science.

 

While the methods of science are cool and objective, how we feel about science and its findings is often very subjective and emotional. This is - generally - a good thing. The sense of wonder we feel when exploring the nature of the universe is a good thing. The excitement we experience when reading of some new discovery is a good thing. The urge to push back the frontiers of knowledge is a good thing. All of these are subjective and emotional and important.

 

The price we pay for these good things is that sometimes the passion can become overheated; the excitement can turn to anger; the commitment can turn to aggressive disagreement. Clearly these are bad things, but if we discard them entirely we likely lose the good things too.