4 ms·

The semantics of the title seem off and written by a non-scientist. A scientific theory cannot be proven, so the significant word choice of “confirm” is poor.

by ken47 3y ago

Jensson 3y ago
> written by a non-scientist Yes, journalists aren't scientists.
- ken47 3y ago
  Shame that instead of highlighting one of the many great things that this man did, they use incorrect phraseology to claim he did something he didn’t do.
Gimpei 3y ago
Why not? Are you making some oblique reference to Popperian refutationalism or is your point just that it’s very difficult to 100% prove something, so often it’s more a matter of a significant updating of priors? If it’s the latter, using “proof” doesn’t seem like the worst shorthand to me. Anything more involved would go over the head of the average nytimes reader.
- ken47 3y ago
  I assumed the average New York Times reader is above average in intellect and could appreciate an irrefutable word choice, like “advanced” in place of “confirmed.” I could be wrong.
- somenameforme 3y ago
  Evidence of [x] is not proof of [x], but in this specific case the claim is particularly unreasonable. Because while a cosmic microwave background radiation is something that would be expected from a Big Bang, its actual reality is weird and contradicted previous expectations. It has to do with casual connectivity. "A" can only possibly influence "B" if A could reach B at the speed of light. But the relative homogeneity of our universe is suggestive that parts of the universe which should not be casually connected, are causally connected. So this discovery quickly led to the invention of cosmic inflation [1] whereby the early expansion of the universe is said to have dramatically accelerated well beyond the speed of light, and then slowed down - in order to enable these regions of space to become causally connected. No possible means or mechanism have been suggested, so it remains nothing but a rather inelegant hack to try to make what we observe fit a preexisting hypothesis that it largely contradicted. As experiments to try to provide supporting evidence for inflation have also turned up negative, it's also becoming one of those contemporary model driven hypotheses that requires ever more exotic physics to even make it possible, as each failed prediction gets assimilated into the model to make it keep fitting what we see. Just add more epicycles. [2] [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)#Motivations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)#Motivati... [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hoc_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hoc_hypothesis
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
mr_mitm 3y ago
> A scientific theory cannot be proven, Yes, that's why the title doesn't say "Physicist proves Big Bang theory"

The semantics of the title seem off and written by a non-scientist. A scientific theory cannot be proven, so the significant word choice of “confirm” is poor.

by ken47 3y ago

The semantics of the title seem off and written by a non-scientist. A scientific theory cannot be proven, so the significant word choice of “confirm” is poor.

Jensson 3y ago

> written by a non-scientist Yes, journalists aren't scientists.

ken47 3y ago
Shame that instead of highlighting one of the many great things that this man did, they use incorrect phraseology to claim he did something he didn’t do.

Gimpei 3y ago

Why not? Are you making some oblique reference to Popperian refutationalism or is your point just that it’s very difficult to 100% prove something, so often it’s more a matter of a significant updating of priors? If it’s the latter, using “proof” doesn’t seem like the worst shorthand to me. Anything more involved would go over the head of the average nytimes reader.

ken47 3y ago
I assumed the average New York Times reader is above average in intellect and could appreciate an irrefutable word choice, like “advanced” in place of “confirmed.” I could be wrong.
somenameforme 3y ago
Evidence of [x] is not proof of [x], but in this specific case the claim is particularly unreasonable. Because while a cosmic microwave background radiation is something that would be expected from a Big Bang, its actual reality is weird and contradicted previous expectations. It has to do with casual connectivity. "A" can only possibly influence "B" if A could reach B at the speed of light. But the relative homogeneity of our universe is suggestive that parts of the universe which should not be casually connected, are causally connected. So this discovery quickly led to the invention of cosmic inflation [1] whereby the early expansion of the universe is said to have dramatically accelerated well beyond the speed of light, and then slowed down - in order to enable these regions of space to become causally connected. No possible means or mechanism have been suggested, so it remains nothing but a rather inelegant hack to try to make what we observe fit a preexisting hypothesis that it largely contradicted. As experiments to try to provide supporting evidence for inflation have also turned up negative, it's also becoming one of those contemporary model driven hypotheses that requires ever more exotic physics to even make it possible, as each failed prediction gets assimilated into the model to make it keep fitting what we see. Just add more epicycles. [2] [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)#Motivations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)#Motivati... [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hoc_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hoc_hypothesis

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

mr_mitm 3y ago

> A scientific theory cannot be proven, Yes, that's why the title doesn't say "Physicist proves Big Bang theory"