The Big Bang: Why is it still being taught?

[El_Machinae]

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.

Kinda. A theory that forms a testable hypothesis is actually quite valuable.

 

[peter grimes]

For the lazy:

However, he said, three characteristics of the detected gamma-ray radiation — its rate of emission, the variety of particular wavelengths of the light (its spectrum), and the overall shape of the emission — are all consistent with predictions for dark matter annihilation.

"I think it could be a very big finding," Abazajian said. "When I came across this, I was like, 'Holy cow, this is so consistent with the dark matter interpretation in many ways.' But until you can rule out the astrophysical potential sources for something similar, it's not going to be a smoking gun."

"If you make a comparison to what they found and what we've been talking about — we're looking at the same source," Hooper said. "I still think dark mater annihilation is the easiest way to explain the signal. I think the signal is too spatially concentrated to be coming from pulsars."

For confirmation that dark matter has really been found at the center of the Milky Way, scientists may have to look outside the galaxy to the small dwarf galaxies orbiting it.

Theory predicts that WIMPs, if they exist, should be annihilating each other in the centers of those satellites, too. If the same type of gamma-ray emission can be observed in these galaxies, dark matter would be strongly implicated, Abazajian said. However, studies of such dwarf galaxies have so far turned up essentially no gamma-rays.

"The real smoking gun to show if this is dark matter annihilation or not is to look deeply at these low background sources and see if you see this signal or not," he said. "If you were able to see the same rate, spectrum or morphology in several sources, that would be a real abundance of evidence."

Source:
http://www.space.com/17133-dark-matter-annihilation-gamma-rays.html


If the same gamma ray radiation is detected in the satellite dwarf galaxies, I look forward to seeing the Dark Matter Deniers moving the goal posts yet again.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

The assumption you're making is that they will inform themselves before making claims.

Have you ever talked to those people about, lets say, evolution? The difficulties these people have with evolution are in the order of: If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys around?

All that jibber-jabber you posted is just scientists making up stuff and conspiring together to cover it up.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

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.

A) We have instruments that can "sense" lots of things way beyond the scope of our own bilogical senses.

B) Anything that exists completely outside the scope of our biological and techonoligal senses, is by definition completely unknown to us, and untestable, and therefore if we talk about "it" we are making "it" up.

 

[_random_]

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

What is distressing to me is this:



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

So what's so distressing and troubling about all that in your mind?

 

[Borachio]

Isn't it troubling that a group of people who spend most of their time in scientific pursuits should also harbour what are, from a rationalist scientific point of view, irrational, unsubstantiated, and unsubstantiatable (that's not a word!), beliefs about the nature of the world?

 

[Tahuti]

Ultimately, you can only know for sure what you saw happen with your own eyes, step by step, and even that is unreliable. At least you can ascertain that religion - while making claims out of line with what is considered empirical evidence - has benefits and these benefits weigh more heavily than coming with epistimic conclusions considered favourable.

 

[History_Buff]

Isn't it troubling that a group of people who spend most of their time in scientific pursuits should also harbour what are, from a rationalist scientific point of view, irrational, unsubstantiated, and unsubstantiatable (that's not a word!), beliefs about the nature of the world?

It's not ideal, but it's ultimately not particularly important either. The scientific method is essentially designed to weed out any bias that would be introduced by such beliefs.

 

[illram]

I wouldn't say a personal belief that comforts you and that you feel helps you get through life, which does not bias or affect your job, is irrational.

 

[Hygro]

I wouldn't say a personal belief that comforts you and that you feel helps you get through life, which does not bias or affect your job, is irrational.

That's underselling the benefits of faith quite a bit. It bothers me that from an atheist perspective the only possible benefit could be a crutch to assist a weakness and not realizing it can also be a bicycle facilitating advancement above a baseline.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

People always take "irrational" as criticism or as a derogatory word while it just means not born out of ratio.

 

[El_Machinae]

There are a host of psychological features that religious people outscore atheists on. It's certainly not merely a crutch.

 

[Hygro]

There are a host of psychological features that religious people outscore atheists on. It's certainly not merely a crutch.

Some of those come from atheists feeling like they are on the outside of community by our society's general intolerance of atheists, which will make non atheists look well in comparison. Social exclusion is physically harmful.

 

[Zelig]

I bet people with crutches outscore people without walking aids at climbing slippery slopes.

 

[illram]

That's underselling the benefits of faith quite a bit. It bothers me that from an atheist perspective the only possible benefit could be a crutch to assist a weakness and not realizing it can also be a bicycle facilitating advancement above a baseline.

I definitely did not mean to make it sound like merely a crutch, I agree with you. Facilitative is a better word.

 

[Tahuti]

I wouldn't say a personal belief that comforts you and that you feel helps you get through life, which does not bias or affect your job, is irrational.

At best only irrational in the epistimic sense - and even that's debatable. If religion brings you measurable benefits, I'd say embracing religion definitely is rational in the instrumental sense.

 

[warpus]

A) We have instruments that can "sense" lots of things way beyond the scope of our own bilogical senses.

B) Anything that exists completely outside the scope of our biological and techonoligal senses, is by definition completely unknown to us, and untestable, and therefore if we talk about "it" we are making "it" up.

I think this is worth repeating.

If you can't study it and try to understand it by some means, when you say things about it, you are just making stuff up.

Making stuff is not bad per se, but I'd rather not listen to people who just make stuff up, unless they're artists I guess. Or toddlers.

 

[_random_]

Isn't it troubling that a group of people who spend most of their time in scientific pursuits should also harbour what are, from a rationalist scientific point of view, irrational, unsubstantiated, and unsubstantiatable (that's not a word!), beliefs about the nature of the world?

I like to think that people who dedicate themselves to scientific pursuits are cognizant of the inherent limits of the scientific method. I don't believe the existence of God can be substantiated scientifically, but I also recognize there are other valid ways of substantiating things. And as somebody maybe possibly going into a scientific field (who knows?), I think it's important to keep in mind.

Furthermore, while neither can be verified or falsified by science, I'd say atheistic naturalism is a lot more dissonant with a scientific outlook than classical theism is.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Do you think your god "actively communicates with humankind"? That when you pray that you receive an answer from him?

To me, this is far from current mainstream Christian religious belief. I would characterize it as being extremely fundamentalist or orthodox by today's standards, and possibly even so in 1916.

And how is being skeptical about the existence of a god "more dissonant" with basic scientific objectivity than believing in a god without any actual proof?

 

[_random_]

0

Do you think your god "actively communicates with humankind"? That when you pray that you receive an answer?

To me, this is far from current mainstream Christian religious beliefs.I would characterize it as being extremely fundamentalist or orthodox by today's standards, and possibly even so in 1916.

Eeeeh, there's a lot of room for semantic squabbling (What constitutes active communication? What does it mean for a prayer to be answered?), but I'd answer "yes" to the spirit of the question, if not necessarily to the letter. And I'd say that's true of most Christians,

And how is being skeptical about the existence of a god less objective than believing it without any actual proof? How could that be "more dissonant" with basic scientific objectivity?

I'm not talking about skepticism (whatever that means) so much as atheistic naturalism. Within that particular metaphysical framework, I'm not sure how you get to an epistemology that gives basic scientific objectivity much value.