5 ms·

> even though the "Big Bang Theory" isn't generally believed any longer. Really? Given that science doesn't turn on belief but evidence, still, the Big Bang r

by lutusp 12y ago

> even though the "Big Bang Theory" isn't generally believed any longer. Really? Given that science doesn't turn on belief but evidence, still, the Big Bang remains the best explanation for existing evidence. It's the prevailing cosmological theory of the universe' beginnings. Like all scientific theories, it's subject to replacement as new evidence appears and as new theories are crafted, but it's a good match at the moment.

acjohnson55 12y ago
I think it's a bit naive to say that science doesn't turn on belief. Scientist aren't robots, mechanically and dispassionately ingesting evidence and spitting out theory. They're humans with imaginations, beliefs, agendas, and egos, guided (hopefully) by a methodology that leads to discovery. I think belief is what drives science, and it's not all that bad of a thing.
- lutusp 12y ago
  > I think it's a bit naive to say that science doesn't turn on belief. That depends entirely on what we mean when we say "science". If by "science" we mean as defined and as practiced when it's done right, then no, belief plays no part -- it can't. If it did, it wouldn't be science. > Scientist aren't robots, mechanically and dispassionately ingesting evidence and spitting out theory. Scientists aren't robots, but they are also not hothouse orchids. > They're humans with imaginations, beliefs, agendas, and egos, guided (hopefully) by a methodology that leads to discovery. You have left the topic of science. The reason science exists is precisely because people are the way you describe them. Science is meant to be a counterpoint to natural human instincts, beliefs, passions, and other logical failings. > I think belief is what drives science, and it's not all that bad of a thing. You're now confusing science with religion. In religion, you let sincere feelings guide you to a conclusion. In science, you let logic guide you to a conclusion. In religion, something is true until evidence proves it false. In science, something is false until evidence proves it true -- exactly the opposite. Much of scientific discipline is meant to guard against what we believe is true or want to be true. Experimental and control groups, the classic double-blinding precautions in human studies -- all are meant to minimize the corrosive, undermining influence of our beliefs. The perfect religious follower is guided by belief, hoping only that his work reflects his passion. The perfect scientist doesn't care what conclusion his work comes to, hoping only that it reflects reality to the best of his ability. Belief and science are in absolute opposition.
  - cruisername 12y ago
    > [that it's naive to say that science doesn't turn on belief] depends entirely on what we mean when we say "science". Or it depends on what we mean when we say believe. The weight lying on "science" does form a conceptual framework that completely ignores the notion of something beyond our reach, although it inarguably is the driving force behind science. > In religion, something is true until evidence proves it false. In science, something is false until evidence proves it true -- exactly the opposite. alright, but the word of god himself isn't evidence enough? j/k :) > In religion, something is true until evidence proves it false. In science, something is false until evidence proves it true -- exactly the opposite. Why do those have to opposite, can't they be reconciled into one, using some form of ternary logic? Edit: I mean, some things in life are unknown until proven true or false and then theres all kinds of methods to counter the fact.
    - TeMPOraL 12y ago
      > Why do those have to opposite, can't they be reconciled into one, using some form of ternary logic? Edit: I mean, some things in life are unknown until proven true or false and then theres all kinds of methods to counter the fact. You reconcile them using Bayesian probability. There is no "proven to be true", there is no "proven to be false", there is only probability that flows between different models based on the evidence we discover. "In science, something is false until evidence proves it true" actually means that any random hypothesis you come up with has an equivalent probability to be right to any other random hypothesis - which is infinitesimal, because possible hypothesis space is huge. Then, as evidence comes knocking, you update those probabilities, and some hypotheses become more probable (i.e. more likely a good models of reality), while other become too improbable to care about.
    - lutusp 12y ago
      > The weight lying on "science" does form a conceptual framework that completely ignores the notion of something beyond our reach, although it inarguably is the driving force behind science. Yes, but an idea doesn't become a matter of interest to science until it comes within our reach, in the sense of being observable in a way that forces different, similarly equipped observers to the same conclusion (the scientific meaning of "objective"). > Why do those have to opposite, can't they be reconciled into one, using some form of ternary logic? Yes, an interesting question, but not really about science. Science concerns itself only with things that can be reduced to empirical observation, not belief. > I mean, some things in life are unknown until proven true or false ... That's true, but the basic scientific precept is the null hypothesis, the idea that things without evidence are assumed to be false. This is a great time-saver compared to granting credence to ideas without evidence, or assuming that something might be true until proven false (the unscientific outlook).
- cruisername 12y ago
  Well, if your are willing to make a distinction between faith and believe, you might be right, IMHO, but that is opening a can of wormy questions that I'd better not go on writing about :)
dhimes 12y ago
Big Bang remains the best explanation for existing evidence No. The universe is too smooth for the Big Bang theory. It has been supplanted by the Inflationary theory.
- lutusp 12y ago
  Big Bang and Inflation are't alternatives, they're part of the same theory. Inflation followed the Big Bang. In fact, recent studies of the CMB provide evidence for both the Big Bang and inflation.
  - dhimes 12y ago
    That's incorrect- and your use of it is exactly my point. The Big Bang Theory did not have an inflationary component. The Inflationary Theory (a new set of physical behaviors) came about to explain the smoothness that the Big Bang Theory could not explain. As is typical when this happens, parts of the original theory remained. For example, the "big bang" event- the idea that everything started from an initial 'explosion' of space-time- remained. And the term is still used. My understand is that this is also true with Darwin's Theory of Evolution- I am not a biologist however so I may be off-base here. The concept of evolution- specifically survival of the fittest and speciation- remain in the current theories. And people still speak of 'evolution.' But the accepted/currently debated theories differ in some fundamental aspects, notably the gradualness of the process. So my point was that we will be speaking of 'black holes' for a long time even if the current 'Black Holes' as we think of them today are shown to not actually exist.

by lutusp 12y ago

acjohnson55 12y ago

I think it's a bit naive to say that science doesn't turn on belief. Scientist aren't robots, mechanically and dispassionately ingesting evidence and spitting out theory. They're humans with imaginations, beliefs, agendas, and egos, guided (hopefully) by a methodology that leads to discovery. I think belief is what drives science, and it's not all that bad of a thing.

lutusp 12y ago
> I think it's a bit naive to say that science doesn't turn on belief. That depends entirely on what we mean when we say "science". If by "science" we mean as defined and as practiced when it's done right, then no, belief plays no part -- it can't. If it did, it wouldn't be science. > Scientist aren't robots, mechanically and dispassionately ingesting evidence and spitting out theory. Scientists aren't robots, but they are also not hothouse orchids. > They're humans with imaginations, beliefs, agendas, and egos, guided (hopefully) by a methodology that leads to discovery. You have left the topic of science. The reason science exists is precisely because people are the way you describe them. Science is meant to be a counterpoint to natural human instincts, beliefs, passions, and other logical failings. > I think belief is what drives science, and it's not all that bad of a thing. You're now confusing science with religion. In religion, you let sincere feelings guide you to a conclusion. In science, you let logic guide you to a conclusion. In religion, something is true until evidence proves it false. In science, something is false until evidence proves it true -- exactly the opposite. Much of scientific discipline is meant to guard against what we believe is true or want to be true. Experimental and control groups, the classic double-blinding precautions in human studies -- all are meant to minimize the corrosive, undermining influence of our beliefs. The perfect religious follower is guided by belief, hoping only that his work reflects his passion. The perfect scientist doesn't care what conclusion his work comes to, hoping only that it reflects reality to the best of his ability. Belief and science are in absolute opposition.
- cruisername 12y ago
  > [that it's naive to say that science doesn't turn on belief] depends entirely on what we mean when we say "science". Or it depends on what we mean when we say believe. The weight lying on "science" does form a conceptual framework that completely ignores the notion of something beyond our reach, although it inarguably is the driving force behind science. > In religion, something is true until evidence proves it false. In science, something is false until evidence proves it true -- exactly the opposite. alright, but the word of god himself isn't evidence enough? j/k :) > In religion, something is true until evidence proves it false. In science, something is false until evidence proves it true -- exactly the opposite. Why do those have to opposite, can't they be reconciled into one, using some form of ternary logic? Edit: I mean, some things in life are unknown until proven true or false and then theres all kinds of methods to counter the fact.
  - TeMPOraL 12y ago
    > Why do those have to opposite, can't they be reconciled into one, using some form of ternary logic? Edit: I mean, some things in life are unknown until proven true or false and then theres all kinds of methods to counter the fact. You reconcile them using Bayesian probability. There is no "proven to be true", there is no "proven to be false", there is only probability that flows between different models based on the evidence we discover. "In science, something is false until evidence proves it true" actually means that any random hypothesis you come up with has an equivalent probability to be right to any other random hypothesis - which is infinitesimal, because possible hypothesis space is huge. Then, as evidence comes knocking, you update those probabilities, and some hypotheses become more probable (i.e. more likely a good models of reality), while other become too improbable to care about.
  - lutusp 12y ago
    > The weight lying on "science" does form a conceptual framework that completely ignores the notion of something beyond our reach, although it inarguably is the driving force behind science. Yes, but an idea doesn't become a matter of interest to science until it comes within our reach, in the sense of being observable in a way that forces different, similarly equipped observers to the same conclusion (the scientific meaning of "objective"). > Why do those have to opposite, can't they be reconciled into one, using some form of ternary logic? Yes, an interesting question, but not really about science. Science concerns itself only with things that can be reduced to empirical observation, not belief. > I mean, some things in life are unknown until proven true or false ... That's true, but the basic scientific precept is the null hypothesis, the idea that things without evidence are assumed to be false. This is a great time-saver compared to granting credence to ideas without evidence, or assuming that something might be true until proven false (the unscientific outlook).
cruisername 12y ago
Well, if your are willing to make a distinction between faith and believe, you might be right, IMHO, but that is opening a can of wormy questions that I'd better not go on writing about :)

dhimes 12y ago

Big Bang remains the best explanation for existing evidence No. The universe is too smooth for the Big Bang theory. It has been supplanted by the Inflationary theory.

lutusp 12y ago
Big Bang and Inflation are't alternatives, they're part of the same theory. Inflation followed the Big Bang. In fact, recent studies of the CMB provide evidence for both the Big Bang and inflation.
- dhimes 12y ago
  That's incorrect- and your use of it is exactly my point. The Big Bang Theory did not have an inflationary component. The Inflationary Theory (a new set of physical behaviors) came about to explain the smoothness that the Big Bang Theory could not explain. As is typical when this happens, parts of the original theory remained. For example, the "big bang" event- the idea that everything started from an initial 'explosion' of space-time- remained. And the term is still used. My understand is that this is also true with Darwin's Theory of Evolution- I am not a biologist however so I may be off-base here. The concept of evolution- specifically survival of the fittest and speciation- remain in the current theories. And people still speak of 'evolution.' But the accepted/currently debated theories differ in some fundamental aspects, notably the gradualness of the process. So my point was that we will be speaking of 'black holes' for a long time even if the current 'Black Holes' as we think of them today are shown to not actually exist.