Café posts split from Stormy Lagoon Nebula (19Oct)

[emc]

By the way .. the 'Big Bang' is a theory, an idea, a possibility but not a likelihood and it bothers me the way it is thrown around as if fact.

The cafe is probably a better spot for this topic. I agree whole-heartedly with you that it is wrong to throw around theory as if it is fact. I think the problem stems from human nature because we all want to be right and the act of banking a person's thoughts within a "theory" can change speculation into science if we allow it.

[NOTE: this thread was created by splitting posts from a Discuss the APOD thread: "Stormy" Lagoon Nebula (APOD 20081019)]

[Chris Peterson]

By the way .. the 'Big Bang' is a theory, an idea, a possibility but not a likelihood and it bothers me the way it is thrown around as if fact.

Everything we know about the Universe is theory. The Big Bang happens to be so well supported, by so many independent lines of evidence, that it almost falls into the "fact" category (something like the theory that the Sun will rise in the east tomorrow). It most certainly is the likelihood, not a mere possibility.

Outside a discussion specifically centered on the origin of the Universe, you will, indeed, find the Big Bang accepted largely as fact. Almost no cosmologists doubt the existence of the Big Bang; where the discussions get heated is in the finer details.

[neufer]

By the way .. the 'Big Bang' is a theory, an idea, a possibility but not a likelihood and it bothers me the way it is thrown around as if fact.

Everything we know about the Universe is theory. The Big Bang happens to be so well supported, by so many independent lines of evidence, that it almost falls into the "fact" category (something like the theory that the Sun will rise in the east tomorrow). It most certainly is the likelihood, not a mere possibility.

Outside a discussion specifically centered on the origin of the Universe, you will, indeed, find the Big Bang accepted largely as fact. Almost no cosmologists doubt the existence of the Big Bang; where the discussions get heated is in the finer details.

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)
-----------------------------------------
Theory, n.; pl. Theories (#). [F. théorie, L. theoria, Gr. a beholding, spectacle, contemplation, speculation, fr. a spectator, to see, view. See Theater.]
.
1. A doctrine, or scheme of things, which terminates in speculation or contemplation, without a view to practice; hypothesis; speculation. &hand; This word is employed by English writers in a very loose and improper sense. It is with them usually convertible into hypothesis, and hypothesis is commonly used as another term for conjecture. The terms theory and theoretical are properly used in opposition to the terms practice and practical. In this sense, they were exclusively employed by the ancients; and in this sense, they are almost exclusively employed by the Continental philosophers." Sir W. Hamilton.
.
2. An exposition of the general or abstract principles of any science; as, the theory of music.
.
3. The science, as distinguished from the art; as, the theory and practice of medicine.
.
4. The philosophical explanation of phenomena, either physical or moral; as, Lavoisier's theory of combustion; Adam Smith's theory of moral sentiments. Atomic theory, Binary theory, etc. A theory is a scheme of the relations subsisting between the parts of a systematic whole; an hypothesis is a tentative conjecture respecting a cause of phenomena.
-----------------------------------------
Hypothesis, n.; pl. Hypotheses (#). [NL., fr. Gr. foundation, supposition, fr. to place under, under + to put. See Hypo-, Thesis.]

1. A supposition; a proposition or principle which is supposed or taken for granted, in order to draw a conclusion or inference for proof of the point in question; something not proved, but assumed for the purpose of argument, or to account for a fact or an occurrence; as, the hypothesis that head winds detain an overdue steamer.

An hypothesis being a mere supposition, there are no other limits to hypotheses than those of the human imagination. J. S. Mill.

2. (Natural Science) A tentative theory or supposition provisionally adopted to explain certain facts, and to guide in the investigation of others; hence, frequently called a working hypothesis. Syn. -- Supposition; assumption.
-----------------------------------------
Nebular hypothesis: an hypothesis to explain the process of formation of the stars and planets, presented in various forms by Kant, Herschel, Laplace, and others. As formed by Laplace, it supposed the matter of the solar system to have existed originally in the form of a vast, diffused, revolving nebula, which, gradually cooling and contracting, threw off, in obedience to mechanical and physical laws, succesive rings of matter, from which subsequently, by the same laws, were produced the several planets, satellites, and other bodies of the system. The phrase may indicate any hypothesis according to which the stars or the bodies of the solar system have been evolved from a widely diffused nebulous form of matter.

[Chris Peterson]

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) ...

Sorry, am I missing something here? None of the definitions of "theory" given in this very old reference are descriptive of the modern usage by scientists. A theory is a model of something observable (reality), which is both testable and falsifiable. If it doesn't meet those criteria, it is at best a hypothesis.

A theory can approach "facthood" as it accumulates supportive evidence. At some point, it may be treated as fact, despite the fact that any theory remains potentially disprovable.

[Sputnick]

By the way .. the 'Big

Outside a discussion specifically centered on the origin of the Universe, you will, indeed, find the Big Bang accepted largely as fact. Almost no cosmologists doubt the existence of the Big Bang; where the discussions get heated is in the finer details.

Outside of scientists, in the mentality of the undereducated, the Big Bang is generally considered fact because it is taught so by teachers undereducated in the sciences, and also undereducated in almost every aspect of life and education, as probably are most cosmologists, none of whom I know personally .. but If it were not so our planet's societies would be a vastly improved places instead of the Black Holes which they are. By the way, have you ever heard of the Plasma theory of the Creation of the Universe? Check out Ralph Jurgens Plasma theory. (I think that's how his name is spelled. Also, I have to disagree that almost no cosmologists doubt the Big Bang, and take my conclusion from my experiences on this forum.

[Chris Peterson]

Outside of scientists, in the mentality of the undereducated, the Big Bang is generally considered fact because it is taught so by teachers undereducated in the sciences...

It is true that many people receive inadequate science education, and that all too often science is taught as a mere collection of facts, some more certain than others. Nevertheless, it isn't unreasonable to teach the Big Bang as fact, in the sense of being very, very widely accepted.

By the way, have you ever heard of the Plasma theory of the Creation of the Universe?

I'm aware of both the plasma cosmology theory, and Juergens's electric Sun ideas. Frankly, plasma cosmology is a weak theory, and the electric Sun theory is weaker yet. There is a reason these ideas are not taken very seriously in the astronomical community: they don't explain actual observations very well, depend on some weak assumptions, and lack a lot of detail.

Please understand, I'm not discounting these things completely. I'm simply pointing out the reality of the situation: our standard cosmology model for the creation and evolution of the Universe is very well developed. It is solidly supported by rich observation. As our tools become better and we extend our observations, it becomes more and more difficult to rationally support a cosmology that doesn't include the Big Bang.

[Sputnick]

"Nevertheless, it isn't unreasonable to teach the Big Bang as fact, in the sense of being very, very widely accepted."

Chris, If I were just a tiny little bit less patient I would say your comment is total rubbish. However, I will be generous and say that your statement is like saying the earth is flat because most of us can't see the curvature. Some people think 1 + 1 = 3 in some places at some times in some universes .. but we must not teach that 1 + 1 = 3.

Sorry if I appear a bit short tempered, but that's only because at this time I am unable to accept for a moment that which should not be accepted for a moment. Fact is fact. A possibility, unproven idea, are merely those things no matter how many people think they might be fact (and I won't say 'theory' because of the uncertainty of the dictionary meaning of that word.)

[Chris Peterson]

Chris, If I were just a tiny little bit less patient I would say your comment is total rubbish. However, I will be generous and say that your statement is like saying the earth is flat because most of us can't see the curvature.

I would say it is like teaching that the Earth is a sphere. That also is a theory, unproven and unprovable, but treated as a "fact" because of the overwhelming weight of observation.

Sorry if I appear a bit short tempered, but that's only because at this time I am unable to accept for a moment that which should not be accepted for a moment. Fact is fact.

A fact is an observation. It is true that no theory can be a fact. But it is probably an impossible dream to think that most people have the critical thinking skills to reliably assess and weigh scientific theories. Therefore, theories that gain great strength due to overwhelming evidence: evolution by natural selection, the current standard cosmology model, General Relativity, quantum mechanics, etc, are- at least in general science classes- presented very much as if they were fact. That is not true of all scientific theories.

[apodman]

I think (80%) the Big Bang is fact (99%).

I think (80%) we should put factuality ratings on all the elements of our statements (0%) so confused individuals like Sputnick (100%) can feel comfortable (0%) with the claims we are implying for the scientific basis of our comments (100%).

I hope (100%) I am not the recipient of any of Sputnick's generosity (0%).

I think (100%) these factuality ratings make our comments much easier to read (0%).

I think (100%) that some commentary is a matter of Philosophy more than Science (100%), and that it is obvious that any conjecture made here is within the context of a theory (100%) whether the author wastes words stating so or not (100%).

---

Decades ago in a simple proof in a small homework assignment in Mathematical Analysis, I included the nearly idle phrase, "... with the assertion that all positive integers are greater than zero ...". The professor's assistant who graded papers he didn't understand but needed something to pick on anyway marked the proof "wrong" (later reversed by the good professor) and wrote "don't assert anything you don't prove." The professor and I both understood that you don't build a formal proof of all mathematics from the ground up to support a 10-point homework assignment. The assistant, who may later have had an influence on Sputnick, did not.

[Sputnick]

Okay . so the earth is not a sphere according to the dictionary definition, with some observations according it a pear shape .. and thank you for reminding me that words do have specific meanings. What does that have to do with a possibility being taught as fact? To teach a possibility as fact is not simply being in error of the exact meaning of a word .. it is simply brainwashing .. manipulation .. mind control .. lies .. destruction of advanced thinking .. negation of truth .. absence of light .. shrinkage of the grey matter. However, when self image and relationship with some people you work with and work for and associate with are dependant on that absence of light then yes, you more easily accept possibilities as fact and become intellectually, financially and emotionally brainwashed, enslaved, bankrupt. Pity the poor soul who has sold his freedom for acceptance by those living in an absence of light and also for the power of purchasing a shiny new car. As far as me lacking in compassion, you haven't seen anything yet .. if I were in a position of authority I would dismiss anyone anywhere who would not accept that teaching possibilities as fact is wrong .. there goes your shiny cars .. so be thankful I am not in authority over you. Continue on in your lives void of light except that of your headlights. 100%.

[emc]

After reading the above exchanges it prompted these thoughts that I felt compelled to spill out onto the forum.

I understand Science is chartered to provide “knowledge” and “truth” about the physical universe around us. Interestingly, this is also the charter of the clergy in our religions (but including the spiritual realm). I understand the Big Bang is a widely accepted theory that is presented as ‘the best conclusion regarding the “understood” facts’. It is interesting that the BB theory fits well within the model of the designed universe taught by certain religions.

One problem may be… that, generally, people have trouble differentiating between fact and fiction based on the teachings in the elementary classroom that present certain theories as “this is what we believe to be true” and what is taught in religion as “this is what we believe to be true” and the teachings seem to conflict. (You could substitute alternate theory for religion)

The question may be… do I trust scientists/clergy (you could substitute scientist "A" or "B" for clergy) enough to accept their teaching if it goes against my personal thinking? Clergy/scientists are human and challenged to present the public with information about the world around us… quite an undertaking/responsibility considering the mysterious nature of the universe and the origin of life IMO. Not to mention the broad intellect of the audience.

Knowledge is a constant updating process.

BTW – That Lagoon Nebula… it’s pretty and amazing huh?

[Sputnick]

emc - Considering the Big Bang theory is said to have been thought of by a Vatican 'scientist' your musings are appropriate. However, you miss the mark when you said theories are taught as fact at the elementary level .. Chris proves that theories are taught as fact at advanced levels also.

[Chris Peterson]

What does that have to do with a possibility being taught as fact? To teach a possibility as fact is not simply being in error of the exact meaning of a word .. it simply brainwashing .. manipulation .. mind control .. lies .. destruction of advanced thinking .. negation of truth .. absence of light .. shrinkage of the grey matter.

A little extreme, perhaps?

In case you didn't notice, I agreed that a good teacher will distinguish between theory and fact. But many people just don't get it. So we tend to teach some theories as if they were facts. What matters from a practical sense is just how probable the "possibilities" are. Once a possibility becomes a probability (as in the Big Bang), treating it as a fact isn't all that unreasonable. Just like treating the sphericity of the Earth as a fact isn't all that unreasonable.

[Sputnick]

Sorry Chris .. but facts are facts and possibilities are theories .. a 1 is not a 2 just because it is farther from a 5000 than a 2. I will not compromise .. I regard truth too highly. Probabilities also are not fact, unless it can be proven 100% that they are fact, at which time they are no longer probabilities.

[orin stepanek]

Wouldn't the original stars themselves have developed from condensing [dust]; or the original material from the Big Bang? Just curious; Its kind of the impression I had.

Orin

When I wrote this I didn't realize it would cause such a furor! I used Big Bang because it's the accepted thought of the way the universe started. I used dust in reference to the building blocks of everything. I know we use the phrase 'Big Bang' as accepted fact a bit loosely; but that is what most scientists accept. Maybe I should have said the [original material from the beginning.] Cheez; you really have to be careful how you say things around here.

Orin

[Sputnick]

Orin - "furor" or "fervor"? Yes .. both, but fervor gives some satisfaction at least.

[Chris Peterson]

When I wrote this I didn't realize it would cause such a furor! I used Big Bang because it's the accepted thought of the way the universe started. I used dust in reference to the building blocks of everything. I know we use the phrase 'Big Bang' as accepted fact a bit loosely; but that is what most scientists accept. Maybe I should have said the [original material from the beginning.] :shock: Cheez; you really have to be careful how you say things around here.

Your question was good, and your wording was fine as well. No need to be careful to sidestep a few crackpots. In the context of your question, using "Big Bang" as fact was perfectly reasonable, given that it's a theory that is widely accepted and little debated. Unless we all decide to adopt Apodman's amusing suggestion of quantifying everything we say with a probability, common sense in common usage needs to prevail!

[Sputnick]

So it's "Crackpots" are we who esteem truth highly, is it Chris? Shame on you. I'm sure your mother taught you better.

[emc]

Wouldn't the original stars themselves have developed from condensing [dust]; or the original material from the Big Bang? Just curious; Its kind of the impression I had.

Orin

When I wrote this I didn't realize it would cause such a furor! I used Big Bang because it's the accepted thought of the way the universe started. I used dust in reference to the building blocks of everything. I know we use the phrase 'Big Bang' as accepted fact a bit loosely; but that is what most scientists accept. Maybe I should have said the [original material from the beginning.] Cheez; you really have to be careful how you say things around here.




Orin

Hi Orin, I think I threw gas on the fire with my comment...

By the way .. the 'Big Bang' is a theory, an idea, a possibility but not a likelihood and it bothers me the way it is thrown around as if fact.

The cafe is probably a better spot for this topic. I agree whole-heartedly with you that it is wrong to throw around theory as if it is fact. I think the problem stems from human nature because we all want to be right and the act of banking a person's thoughts within a "theory" can change speculation into science if we allow it.

I was thinking more in reference to the theory that I evolved from an ape... which doesn't sit well with me.

[Sputnick]

It's obvious man has no relation whatever with apes .. apes are intelligent, thinking creatures who ponder their actions carefully before destroying the entire planet. "The only way we can rid of the humans though. We have to do it!"

[bystander]

I was thinking more in reference to the theory that I evolved from an ape... which doesn't sit well with me.

Actually, the theory is that apes and humans evolved from a common ancestor, not that humans evolved from apes. While chimpanzees may be our closet relatives (98% common dna), no one would suggest that humans evolved from chimps.

Besides, I thought you were a talking horse.

[emc]

It's obvious man has no relation whatever with apes .. apes are intelligent, thinking creatures who ponder their actions carefully before destroying the entire planet. "The only way we can rid of the humans though. We have to do it!"

If apes were all that smart and wanted to get rid of us... they just need to build a fleet of one-way starships and start a rumor about a paradise Earthlike planet with moons made of gold... and no mosquitoes.

[emc]

I was thinking more in reference to the theory that I evolved from an ape... which doesn't sit well with me.

Actually, the theory is that apes and humans evolved from a common ancestor, not that humans evolved from apes. While chimpanzees may be our closet relatives (98% common dna), no one would suggest that humans evolved from chimps.

Besides, I thought you were a talking horse.

Well, I do get the urge to climb trees now and then.

[orin stepanek]

I was thinking more in reference to the theory that I evolved from an ape... which doesn't sit well with me.

Actually, the theory is that apes and humans evolved from a common ancestor, not that humans evolved from apes. While chimpanzees may be our closet relatives (98% common dna), no one would suggest that humans evolved from chimps.

Besides, I thought you were a talking horse.

Well, I do get the urge to climb trees now and then.

Hi Ed! When I was a kid I practically lived in trees. We had some nice sized tree that were close enough together that we could climb from tree to tree. I never tried swinging on vines though. I don't have the urge to climb them anymore.
Chimps are pretty smart though; a million years or two and they may be able to do the things humans do now. That is if we don't destroy the planet first.

Orin

[emc]

I was thinking more in reference to the theory that I evolved from an ape... which doesn't sit well with me.

Actually, the theory is that apes and humans evolved from a common ancestor, not that humans evolved from apes. While chimpanzees may be our closet relatives (98% common dna), no one would suggest that humans evolved from chimps.

Thanks for the correction.

I don't get how a simple life form can evolve into a complex life form where all of the systems that make up the complex life form have to be in place at the same time in order for the life form to function successfully. It is easier to rationalize a designer.