The Big Bang: Why is it still being taught?

[Kyriakos]

That's more a possibility than an existence, though. We say that numbers go on ad infinitum, as long as they remain theoretical - that doesn't extend to saying that anyone has ever assembled an infinite collection of anything real, or that anybody ever could.

I agree, but it is very cool that - nomatter what - we already have an infinity in our thought (for example the concept of numbers and their infinite expansion). If we have one infinity, we don't really need another one anyway

 

[warpus]

Certainly not true (bolded part). Such conclusions may not be scientific, but that does not make them nonsense. Do you think that observation and reason are the only source of knowledge and that all other sources are false/nonsense? Is everything nonsense until proven by science? Doesn't our (human) physical dependence on the electro magnetic spectrum bias our options towards what is real and true? Might there be things we cannot see because of our observational bias?

"If your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail."

I would say it depends on what exactly you are trying to figure out. Are you figure out the internal working mechanism of some phenomenon? You saw something happening and you wanted to figure out how it works and what's behind it happening? Then you use science and only science.

There are other forms of truth out there, but the one I described above can be only arrived at using science. It is the right "tool" for the "nail".

Would you agree?

"aha, its a proof of creation I say" but to point out that the statement certain persons (such as useless) made that "aha, the big bang disproves Christianity" is utterly absurd. The fact the theories originator was a priest in this case is particularly poignant.

The thing is that at the time every single "higher thinking" individual in western society was Christian.. At the time ideas that "disprove Christianity" (or rather disprove very specific aspects of Christianity) could only ever have come from Christians, really.

It doesn't really matter whether someone was trying to prove an aspect of Christianity wrong or not. What matters are the facts, whether they contradict a religion or not.

 

[_random_]

The thing is that at the time every single "higher thinking" individual in western society was Christian..

It was 1927, not 927. In 1916, a survey of American scientists revealed about 41 percent didn't believe in God. Atheism was pretty trendy in academia at the time.

 

[warpus]

It was 1927, not 927. In 1916, a survey of American scientists revealed about 41 percent didn't believe in God. Atheism was pretty trendy in academia at the time.

Good catch, I thought we were talking about another theory.

Either way though, it shouldn't be surprising that some scientists are Christian. At one point they all used to be, at least here in the west.

 

[Kyriakos]

It was 1927, not 927. In 1916, a survey of American scientists revealed about 41 percent didn't believe in God. Atheism was pretty trendy in academia at the time.

+1

Indeed, in the 1920s it was very common for people (moreso of higher education, such as scientists) to not really be christians in most senses of that term. This was not a new thing, either. Already in the late 19th century it was pretty common to see this in many writers of note. Keep in mind that Nietzsche was very known by the turn of the century (start of the 20th century).

Edit: X-post. Warpus already claimed error defeat

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Certainly not true (bolded part). Such conclusions may not be scientific, but that does not make them nonsense. Do you think that observation and reason are the only source of knowledge and that all other sources are false/nonsense? Is everything nonsense until proven by science? Doesn't our (human) physical dependence on the electro magnetic spectrum bias our options towards what is real and true? Might there be things we cannot see because of our observational bias?

"If your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail."

I don't even know what you mean by a physical dependence on the electro magnetic spectrum...

Anyway, whatever you mean by that, yes of course there might be things that we cannot see or know about. But if we don't see or know about them then... how can we know about them? How can we talk about their specific properties if we can't see them or know anything about them? How can doing that be anything other than making stuff up?

 

[BenitoChavez]

I don't even know what you mean by a physical dependence on the electro magnetic spectrum...

My guess is that we rely on our eyes to perceive light, or more generally our 5 senses to gather information about the world around us.

Seems like a rather odd way of saying it though

 

[Birdjaguar]

I would say it depends on what exactly you are trying to figure out. Are you figure out the internal working mechanism of some phenomenon? You saw something happening and you wanted to figure out how it works and what's behind it happening? Then you use science and only science.

There are other forms of truth out there, but the one I described above can be only arrived at using science. It is the right "tool" for the "nail".

Would you agree?

Yes, as long as one remembers the limitations of ones tools.

I don't even know what you mean by a physical dependence on the electro magnetic spectrum...

Anyway, whatever you mean by that, yes of course there might be things that we cannot see or know about. But if we don't see or know about them then... how can we know about them? How can we talk about their specific properties if we can't see them or know anything about them? How can doing that be anything other than making stuff up?

While our senses are quite powerful and adaptive, they are limited. To limit knowledge to the one source that we happen to be adapted for seems quite arrogant given our rather insignificant place in the universe. The scientific method may be what we are particularly good at, but to dismiss everything that doesn't fit that model out of hand as nonsense seems quite comical and a bit irrational.

My guess is that we rely on our eyes to perceive light, or more generally our 5 senses to gather information about the world around us.

Seems like a rather odd way of saying it though

You are correct. We use our senses and tools more refined than our senses to collect electro magnetic data for processing. We can do a great deal with such tools, but it also limits our paths of inquiry.

 

[Borachio]

While our senses are quite powerful and adaptive, they are limited. To limit knowledge to the one source that we happen to be adapted for seems quite arrogant given our rather insignificant place in the universe. The scientific method may be what we are particularly good at, but to dismiss everything that doesn't fit that model out of hand as nonsense seems quite comical and a bit irrational.

Yes. But I think you're missing the point here. I think what Manfred is getting at is that given that our knowledge, and potential for knowledge, has limits there must be something about which we know nothing, and can know nothing. And at that point what more can there be to say? What can we say about something about which we can have no knowledge?

Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.

And Manfred, it seems to me, is saying more than this. That what constitutes knowledge is science, in its broadest sense, and by definition.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Yes. But I think you're missing the point here. I think what Manfred is getting at is that given our knowledge and potential for knowledge has limits there must be something about which we know nothing and can know nothing. And at that point what more can there be to say? What can we say about something about which we can have no knowledge?

If you limit knowledge to "scientific knowledge" you are right. What can we say about about something that cannot be proven by science? We can dream of the possibilities. We can imagine. We open the doors to the impossible. Now much of that may well be crap (string theory anyone?), but nonetheless we are all enriched because of it.

 

[Formaldehyde]

It was 1927, not 927. In 1916, a survey of American scientists revealed about 41 percent didn't believe in God. Atheism was pretty trendy in academia at the time.

Keep in mind that they were asked about a very narrow and specific definition of god.

What is distressing to me is this:

Then as now, about 40 percent of the responding biologists, physicists and mathematicians said they believed in a God who, by the survey's strict definition, actively communicates with humankind and to whom one may pray ''in expectation of receiving an answer.'' Roughly 15 percent in both surveys claimed to be agnostic or to have ''no definite belief'' regarding the question, while about 42 percent in 1916 and about 45 percent today said they did not believe in a God as specified in the questionnaire, although whether they believed in some other definition of a deity or an almighty being was not addressed.

What is also troubling is that it hasn't changed since then.

Repeating verbatim a famous survey first conducted in 1916, Edward J. Larson of the University of Georgia has found that the depth of religious faith among scientists has not budged regardless of whatever scientific and technical advances this century has wrought.

More revealing than the figures themselves, experts said, are their stability. The fact that scientists' private beliefs remained unchanged across almost a century defined by change suggests that orthodox religion is no more disappearing among those considered the intellectual elite than it is among the public at large. The results also indicate that, while science and religion often are depicted as irreconcilable antagonists, each a claimant to the throne of truth, many scientists see no contradiction between a quest to understand the laws of nature, and a belief in a higher deity.

 

[Hygro]

@Manfred, BirdJaguar, and Borachio etc

Right, you can surmise things and guess things and intuit things regardless of any ability to categorize or test them to any non completely abstracted measure, but that doesn't mean they should be ignored or disregarded. Because they might be very well inform us of tangential things at the very least.

 

[Borachio]

If you limit knowledge to "scientific knowledge" you are right. What can we say about about something that cannot be proven by science? We can dream of the possibilities. We can imagine. We open the doors to the impossible. Now much of that may well be crap (string theory anyone?), but nonetheless we are all enriched because of it.

Oh, I agree fiction can be, and is, enriching. I don't agree it's just another form of knowledge. Because that would turn Narnia and Middle Earth into real places.

It would be very interesting if it were true, though. And a kind of constructivist solipism is very seductive. Which is kind of what Christianity, and others, have on offer.

 

[Flying Pig]

Oh, I agree fiction can be, and is, enriching. I don't agree it's just another form of knowledge. Because that would turn Narnia and Middle Earth into real places.

From a cognitive point of view, there's no difference between knowing your way around Narnia and knowing your way around London, or between knowing the kings of Gondor and those of France. It's certainly correct to say 'I know that Achilles was the son of Peleus'. On one level this is linguistic, and when you say 'I know that Edward VI was the son of Henry VIII', you mean 'I know that a real man called Henry VIII fathered a real man called Edward VI', and when you talk about Achilles you mean 'I know that the Greek stories said that Achilles was the son of Peleus'. I don't think, though, it's quite correct to say that one is knowledge and one is not. After all, believing the English line of succession still requires faith in the sources and those relating them.

 

[HannibalBarka]

19. Millions of spiral galaxies rotate too fast and hence they need a universe of 85% dark matter, but it is not observed in the lab. If it is so ubiquitous why has it not been discovered after 40 years of searching?

I love this one most. I see two reasons:

1. because we are losing a lot of our time explaining to creationist that earth is more than 6000 years old
2. Because scientist are idiots. they are not the worst though, creationist have been searching for a God for millenias, and still it has not been discovered. they are still searching

 

[warpus]

What can we say about about something that cannot be proven by science?

We can say "Maybe it's true, maybe it isn't? Who knows? Nobody ever will." and refuse to make assumptions about things nobody will ever know anything about.

 

[peter grimes]

19.Millions of spiral galaxies rotate too fast and hence they need a universe of 85% dark matter, but it is not observed in the lab. If it is so ubiquitous why has it not been discovered after 40 years of searching?

I love this one most. I see two reasons:

1. because we are losing a lot of our time explaining to creationist that earth is more than 6000 years old
2. Because scientist are idiots. they are not the worst though, creationist have been searching for a God for millenias, and still it has not been discovered. they are still searching

You neglect more reasonable and probable explanations:
1. We've been limited by money, time, and technology to only looking beneath the dark matter streetlamp;
2. Our theoretical models are telling us to look in the wrong places;
3. We've just now started to detect it (WIMPS), having ruled out other possibilities.

I posted on this further up the thread.

 

[Kyriakos]

There is an old proverb known to writers, according to which it is a very bad idea to create something just because you can and it does not appear to already be there.

In other words: just because a theory can be formed, it does not mean it will help, and often it will create infinitely more obstacles to an actual progress than those around if it had not existed in the first place.

Of course in science you do not have the (same) freedom of an author, cause you already have to use loads of ideas that people before you did, and even their exact wording. Still i think our human science will have a great era in the future, after we have moved a bit out of the gutter the world at large is in now.

 

[Flying Pig]

19. Millions of spiral galaxies rotate too fast and hence they need a universe of 85% dark matter, but it is not observed in the lab. If it is so ubiquitous why has it not been discovered after 40 years of searching?

I love this one most. I see two reasons:

1. because we are losing a lot of our time explaining to creationist that earth is more than 6000 years old
2. Because scientist are idiots. they are not the worst though, creationist have been searching for a God for millenias, and still it has not been discovered. they are still searching

It's more that dark matter refuses to interact with electromagnetic forces, which totally rules out all of our existing means of searching for it. Yet it can be mathematically shown to exist.

 

[Borachio]

Or it could be that there's something else which isn't Dark Matter, but yet has exactly the same effect.

What shall we call it? Dark Matter 2? Dark Matter, the Sequel?