What is Science?

[Sputnick]

In the Legal System, the burden of proof is on the Plaitiff, the person making the claim. In the Scientific Community, the burden of achieving acceptance is on the Proponent, the one advocating a new theory. This, as Chris and Nereid have said, is as it should be. It is not up to the scientific community at large to accept new ideas or theories until their proponents have met the standard of acceptance of that community. I can come up with new ideas and pet theories, (e.g. Are our black holes someone else's big bang?), but if I want them taken seriously, it is I who has to put in the research, effort and time to make my theory acceptable. It is not the place of the scientific community at large to do my work for me, although I may get help from sympathetic parts of that community. As with any job, there are rules to follow.

Consensus is just a measure of acceptability. The more acceptable a theory is, the greater the consensus of opinion is for that theory. "Mainstream" science is nothing more than what the majority of the scientific community believes to be the most acceptable theories. This doesn't mean it's "true", and it doesn't mean fringe science is "untrue". It just means that this is what the majority accepts. How accepted a theory becomes depends on how well it explains and/or predicts.

Agreed, Bystander .. so then, as the Big Bang is still a brand new theory relative to the history of astronomy, it is up to its proponents to convince me .. which they are decreasing their chances of ever doing with their excuses as to why the theory fails with each new discovery, and why the constant fudging has to fudge .. Chris's definition of fudging notwithstanding. I also can't say that Plasma Cosmology is how it all happened either .. but I see more sense in Plasma Cosmology, and more evidence for it, especially now that 'currents' carrying huge masses (700 cluster for instance) are considered an undeniable part of the cosmos by the Big Bang crowd.

Consensus and majority also declare who controls the delete button in forums like this .. and that is where the danger of stifling creative thought and processes and people and ideas comes in .. and that is what causes me to want to have a drink of something sweet and alcoholic right now.

[Nereid]

Did I say that? If so, where? (specific quote from a post I wrote please).

"Plasma Cosmology is not science."

the day is bright - the sun is shining - I'm leaving this computer.

Would you mind trying again please Sputnick?

You wrote:

I ask again (with clearer language) the unanwered question I put to you, "Why let history see you (you personally Nereid) on the wrong side of those (astronomical) debates when you could simply agree, as scientists have said, that all (theoretical scientific) possibilities are possible? Why say 'No, this is not possible, and it is not science' when the debates, the research, the observations, the conclusions, the possibilities, are far from over?

(I have bolded the part which appears to be a quote)

I asked you if you could, please, provide a pointer to the post in which I said this.

Note that your post includes quotation marks, (strongly) implying - by the usual convention - that you were quoting something I wrote, verbatim.

Here is a post, by me, that includes <"Plasma Cosmology is not science.">; the post, in full, is (bold added):

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.

I going to disagree with both you, Chris, and Sputnick on this ... "plasma cosmology" is not science, period.

Why? Because it declares, by fiat, that the theory of General Relativity (GR) is unacceptable with respect to cosmology! Not that has been tested and found inconsistent with experiment and observation; not that GR is internally inconsistent; ... but that it's unacceptable because, well, just because.

If anyone is interested I have a reference to a (very) long discussion on this topic, elsewhere in internet-land.

But perhaps you have another post, of mine, in which I wrote <"Plasma Cosmology is not science.">?

In any case, if you cannot get something as simple as a direct quote right (if indeed you did get it wrong), what confidence can your readers have that your posts do not contain other, serious, errors?

[Nereid]

[...]

it is up to its [the Big Bang's] proponents to convince me ..

Oh?

How did you come to be the arbiter of modern cosmological theories?

which they are decreasing their chances of ever doing with their excuses as to why the theory fails with each new discovery,

It does?

Would you mind listing ten "new discoveries", with appropriate references, that you regard the BBT as failing (to explain)?

In the same time period as these ten, how many other, cosmologically pertinent, new discoveries were published?

and why the constant fudging has to fudge .. Chris's definition of fudging notwithstanding. I also can't say that Plasma Cosmology is how it all happened either .. but I see more sense in Plasma Cosmology, and more evidence for it, especially now that 'currents' carrying huge masses (700 cluster for instance) are considered an undeniable part of the cosmos by the Big Bang crowd.

May I infer from this that you are prepared to take up my offer?

Consensus and majority also declare who controls the delete button in forums like this .. and that is where the danger of stifling creative thought and processes and people and ideas comes in .. and that is what causes me to want to have a drink of something sweet and alcoholic right now.

Wow! And this in a thread you started, entitled "What is Science?"?!?

[apodman]

What Is French Cooking?

(an illustration)

I am very excited about cooking. I see that French cooking gets the best reviews, so I want to be known as a French cook. I joined a French cooking bulletin board online forum so I can share my excitement about cooking. I told everyone how cooking should be done without butter, cheese, or wine, but all they did was give me an argument. They told me what I was doing wasn't French cooking at all, and that it went against everything French cooking stood for. They told me there were places where I could discuss cooking without butter, cheese, or wine with others of similar interest, but I know I've already found the right place. If I can't convince those online chefs they're not really French, I'll surely convince readers that I am the true French cook.

[bystander]

I am very excited about cooking. I see that French cooking gets the best reviews, so I want to be known as a French cook. I joined a French cooking bulletin board online forum so I can share my excitement about cooking. I told everyone how cooking should be done without butter, cheese, or wine, but all they did was give me an argument. They told me what I was doing wasn't French cooking at all, and that it went against everything French cooking stood for. They told me there were places where I could discuss cooking without butter, cheese, or wine with others of similar interest, but I know I've already found the right place. If I can't convince those online chefs they're not really French, I'll surely convince readers that I am the true French cook.

So, are you going to prepare us some French cuisine? Something rich in butter, cheese, and wine?

[apodman]

So, are you going to prepare us some French cuisine? Something rich in butter, cheese, and wine?

Sorry, French was only an example. My personal specialty is Klingon.

[Chris Peterson]

... so then, as the Big Bang is still a brand new theory relative to the history of astronomy...

The Big Bang theory is one of the oldest theories in the history of modern astronomy. Its foundation goes back nearly 80 years, and over that period it has steadily accumulated a vast array of observational support, as well as theoretical support in how it meshes with other areas of research. We live in a time where knowledge is expanding exponentially. A scientific theory that has survived intact for 80 years- the 80 most recent years- is dramatic evidence of its strength.

You can't measure the history of astronomy linearly. It took thousands of years to figure out the speed of light, or the distance to the Moon. Now we add an extra decimal point of precision to the former each year, and can routinely measure the distance of planets from other stars.

[apodman]

Let me get this straight, Chris. We can have ideas that endure and progress too?

[Chris Peterson]

Let me get this straight, Chris. We can have ideas that endure and progress too?

Isn't it great?

I'd make an analogy between most great scientific theories and a web image that preloads in low resolution, and then loads successively higher resolution frames. Few theories spring into being fully developed. In the case of the Big Bang cosmology, the startling discovery that an object's distance predicts its recessional velocity produced the obvious interpretation that this movement could be traced back to a single point at a single time. The BBT was born. At this time, it was like a blurry image of a tree; little detail, but even so the approximate value of every pixel was already determined. Over time, additional observations (often spurred by advancing technology- some of that technology developed just to test the BBT) continued to fill in details, like branches showing in the image. Now, our observations and additional lines of evidence are like leaves on the tree. We know so much more, but the general form is unchanged in 80 years. And now we have theories that were in many respects separate, such as those describing nucleosynthesis in the early Universe, converging on the BBT (especially in light of recent observations of dark matter and dark energy), with all these theories being recognized as parts of a whole.

It's really a beautiful example of science at its finest.

[Sputnick]

Nereid - you admit and quote your own post where you said Plasma Cosmology is not science, so what further proof is needed? I don't have my own computer connection so don't have enough computer time or time period to answer to every demand for authentication of every statment I make .. and I do not make those demands of others because I recognize this discussion is not a full time job for any of us, and do not consider any of us to be outright liars .. and yes, it would be good if we could all lighten up a bit and enjoy a bottle or three of wine together.

[Sputnick]

How did you come to be the arbiter of modern cosmological theories?

I am only an arbiter of one unto my own mind .. not speaking for anyone else.

Consensus and majority also declare who controls the delete button in forums like this .. and that is where the danger of stifling creative thought and processes and people and ideas comes in .. and that is what causes me to want to have a drink of something sweet and alcoholic right now.

Wow! And this in a thread you started, entitled "What is Science?"?!?

I hope you're not a teetotaler, Nereid (?)

[Sputnick]

It's really a beautiful example of science at its finest.

On the anti-side, I see it as a perfectly clear example of a theory not being supported by progressive discoveries, the theory being crudely re-sculpted to fit advancing information.[/quote]

[Sputnick]

You can't measure the history of astronomy linearly.

Correct Chris, Linear Measurement is impossible unless the line curves into a closed circle with Dark Matter replacing the Aether of 3000 years ago .. the snake swallowing its tale (and that is not a misspelling).

[Sputnick]

So, are you going to prepare us some French cuisine? Something rich in butter, cheese, and wine?

Sorry, French was only an example. My personal specialty is Klingon.

Greek is my personal favourite .. with any bottle of wine regardless of colour, bouquet, or price.

[Sputnick]

I thought I included on this thread a quote by Einstein saying it was time for physicists to become philosophers, he making the statement because, he said, the foundations of physics had been shaken so thoroughly. (I erred in attributing the statement to the Theory of Relativity, because to my concious memory it was my first reading of anything Einteinian .. I being unaware of the brevity of the theories of relativity, and thinking an adjoining lecture was a chapter in those theories.)

[Nereid]

Nereid - you admit and quote your own post where you said Plasma Cosmology is not science, so what further proof is needed?

Sputnick, this matters a great deal, for at least two very good reasons.

First, as I have already noted, if you cannot get right something as simple and straight-forward as a quotation, the credibility of everything you write suffers too - it becomes entirely reasonable for every reader to doubt the veracity of what you attribute to others.

Second, as is very clear from your use of what you claimed were my words, you have misconstrued what I said (as can be seen, objectively, by reading the full post where my words appear). If you follow a polite, repeated, request with what seems to me to be a pretty blunt admission of misquoting, the misconstruing appears deliberate, perhaps even cynical and calculated.

I don't have my own computer connection so don't have enough computer time or time period to answer to every demand for authentication of every statment I make .. and I do not make those demands of others because I recognize this discussion is not a full time job for any of us, and do not consider any of us to be outright liars .. and yes, it would be good if we could all lighten up a bit and enjoy a bottle or three of wine together.

Lightening up a bit is a great idea!

However, I hope that any lightening up does not, for one nanosecond, get us away from "the basics of science .. the foundations of scientific thinking .. and [replace] them with dogma, establishment authority, [...]"

I don't know about what those basics and foundations are in the Sputnick view of science, but being pedantic about accuracy is one in the Nereid view of science.

[Nereid]

It's really a beautiful example of science at its finest.

On the anti-side, I see it as a perfectly clear example of a theory not being supported by progressive discoveries, the theory being crudely re-sculpted to fit advancing information.

Do you? Would this be, by any chance, the BBT?

If so, then why do you (apparently) avoid answering questions about the (remarkable) claims you make, including this one?

If it's so clear, to you, surely you'd be pleased to take the time to compile material that provides detailed support for those claims, wouldn't you?

What can you say to readers who may wonder why you seem to avoid providing this support, and avoid answering direct questions about the claims you have so unambiguously made?

[makc]

hint: you may start from comparing initial value of expansion rate given by Hubble and its current value.

[Sputnick]

hint: you may start from comparing initial value of expansion rate given by Hubble and its current value.

Exactly - the initial Hubble measurement did not stand up to the theory so it was altered .. an elementary and necessary fudge .. with Redshift itself being explainable in ways other than expansion.

And I will not provide references to every statement I make because that is not expected of anyone here .. and rightly so. We are not in an 'examination' environment. We are not writing papers. This is a discussion open to everyone, not just those with degrees. As far as I'm concerned, the one statement by Einstein (which I posted last night but can't find) which is so totally ignored by Chris and seems to be ignored by Nereid, that the time had come for physicists to become philosophers, is sufficient for me to know beyond an accumluation of facts and figures and references that astronomers and physicists pretend to know what is going on when they are groping. If Einstein could admit it, why can Chris and Nereid? Pass that bottle over here would you please.

[Chris Peterson]

Exactly - the initial Hubble measurement did not stand up to the theory so it was altered

I have no idea what you are trying to say here. The theory doesn't depend on the value of the measurement, and the measurement doesn't depend on the theory. Neither had to be changed.

The theory has remained substantially unchanged for 80 years, although many important details have been filled in. The value of the Hubble constant has, of course, changed as measurement techniques improved. When Hubble first estimated a value, it was far from accurate. That's because he did not have the means to accurately measure the distance to other galaxies. In some cases he mistook clusters for stars. In other words, the initial error in the value of H0 is obviously attributable to observation error. Since then, we've identified multiple independent ways of determining the distance to galaxies, and our value for H0 has converged on a single value with a fairly small uncertainty. What is impressive is that independent methods of measuring H0 produce values that are all within each other's identified error range.

The history of determining H0 is very similar to the history of determining many other physical constants (c is a good example). Initially, errors were large because of observation or instrumentation errors. Over time, the errors are reduced and the accuracy of the constant becomes higher. Even today we are adjusting many constants all the time- usually in the far decimal places, but not always.

Improving the accuracy of our measurements is not "fudging".

with Redshift itself being explainable in ways other than expansion.

Nobody has had any success explaining redshift in this context as anything other than a relativistic consequence of the expansion of space. The failure to identify any other plausible mechanism is one of the reasons that the BBT is considered fundamentally correct by the vast majority of scientists.

As far as I'm concerned, the one statement by Einstein (which I posted last night but can't find) which is so totally ignored by Chris and seems to be ignored by Nereid, that the time had come for physicists to become philosophers, is sufficient for me to know beyond an accumluation of facts and figures and references that astronomers and physicists pretend to know what is going on when they are groping. If Einstein could admit it, why can Chris and Nereid?

In case you missed my comment on another thread, Einstein is no more qualified to make a statement like this than Nereid or myself. Either of us can choose to agree or disagree. I'd think twice about arguing with Einstein about GR, but not about philosophy.

[apodman]

the brevity of the theories of relativity

Brief, succinct, and right to the point. And they said something. Floored me too. Something to contemplate.

I'd think twice about arguing with Einstein about GR, but not about philosophy.

My sentiments exactly.

for the physicist to let the philosopher do the philosophizing ... cannot be right at a time when the very foundations of physics itself have become problematic as they are now

Today, a physicist who got out once in a while might say, "In light of new discoveries and proposed explanations, it is time to start thinking outside the box." Big deal.

[Nereid]

hint: you may start from comparing initial value of expansion rate given by Hubble and its current value.

Exactly - the initial Hubble measurement did not stand up to the theory so it was altered .. an elementary and necessary fudge .. with Redshift itself being explainable in ways other than expansion.

Is this another example of wit? Or of ignorance^?

Sputnick, please do answer my questions.

And I will not provide references to every statement I make because that is not expected of anyone here .. and rightly so.

And neither is anyone asking that you - or anyone else - should, could, or ought.

Earlier I referenced the logical fallacy of the strawman argument, and when you said you didn't understand the term, you got at least two posts explaining what it is. I also asked you if you now understood why a particular post contained such a logical fallacy.

This - what I'm quoting - is yet another example of that same logical fallacy.

We are not in an 'examination' environment. We are not writing papers. This is a discussion open to everyone, not just those with degrees. As far as I'm concerned, the one statement by Einstein (which I posted last night but can't find) which is so totally ignored by Chris and seems to be ignored by Nereid, that the time had come for physicists to become philosophers, is sufficient for me to know beyond an accumluation of facts and figures and references that astronomers and physicists pretend to know what is going on when they are groping. [...]

And I, for one, will thank you for sharing your thoughts, your opinions, etc, and also for making it about as clear as I could expect that your own, personal, view of the nature of (modern) science differs so greatly from that of the astronomers whose research this section of the forum is what we discuss.

(BTW, Chris did comment on the Einstein quote)

In light of this stark difference which seems to have emerged, is there any point in continuing this thread?

^ particularly surprising ignorance, if I may say so, in light of what you've written in other posts (about your IQ, the book you read, and so on).

[Sputnick]

with Redshift itself being explainable in ways other than expansion.

Nobody has had any success explaining redshift in this context as anything other than a relativistic consequence of the expansion of space. The failure to identify any other plausible mechanism is one of the reasons that the BBT is considered fundamentally correct by the vast majority of scientists.

Absorbtion.

As far as I'm concerned, the one statement by Einstein (which I posted last night but can't find) which is so totally ignored by Chris and seems to be ignored by Nereid, that the time had come for physicists to become philosophers, is sufficient for me to know beyond an accumluation of facts and figures and references that astronomers and physicists pretend to know what is going on when they are groping. If Einstein could admit it, why can Chris and Nereid?

In case you missed my comment on another thread, Einstein is no more qualified to make a statement like this than Nereid or myself. Either of us can choose to agree or disagree. I'd think twice about arguing with Einstein about GR, but not about philosophy.

If you won't listen to Einstein, you're not going to listen to me .. and your comment certainly validates what I have been saying, that your mind is closed. I have no further hope of affecting you in a positive way.

[Nereid]

with Redshift itself being explainable in ways other than expansion.

Nobody has had any success explaining redshift in this context as anything other than a relativistic consequence of the expansion of space. The failure to identify any other plausible mechanism is one of the reasons that the BBT is considered fundamentally correct by the vast majority of scientists.

Absorbtion.

[...]

Is this another joke?

May I ask where you read that the observed redshifts of galaxies, supernovae (other than in the Local Group), the ICM (intra-cluster medium), quasars, and GRBs are explainable by (or using) absorption (absorbtion)? Or is this a creative idea of your own?

[Sputnick]

Is this another example of wit? Or of ignorance^?

Plain fact .. which I will not bother to substantiate because I am not under formal examination here, and I am finding my time pretty well wasted anyway.

=Nereid

Sputnick, please do answer my questions.[/quote]

Please do tell me why Chris ignores, and you seem to ignore, Einstein's call to a Philosophical approach to physics in light of physics being at a stage where it was, and still is in my opinion, unable to support its own foundation. The more I learn from this discussion about physics, the more philosophical it seems to become.

Earlier I referenced the logical fallacy of the strawman argument, and when you said you didn't understand the term, you got at least two posts explaining what it is. I also asked you if you now understood why a particular post contained such a logical fallacy.

I gained no understanding of the Strawman concept, and started reading Einstein hoping to improve my understanding, knowledge, thought processes, and found that Einstein made a call to forward physics through philosophical means, and that Chris for one ignores that call thinking, I suppose, he thinks himself advanced over Einstein, and also as he normally does, speaks for others, in this case, you, including you in those who think Einstein's call has no value. Is Chris correct in his assumption of you?

And I, for one, will thank you for sharing your thoughts, your opinions, etc, and also for making it about as clear as I could expect that your own, personal, view of the nature of (modern) science differs so greatly from that of the astronomers whose research this section of the forum is what we discuss.

I don't think you should speak for all astronomers, Nereid. I know for a definite fact that vast differences exist in the way reputable scientists look at their specialty of astronomy.

In light of this stark difference which seems to have emerged, is there any point in continuing this thread?

If my bringing Einstein into the topic of What is Science is so threatening to your views of what science is, I suppose it might be a good time for you to withdraw, but I would hope you are not so threatened.

^ particularly surprising ignorance, if I may say so, in light of what you've written in other posts (about your IQ, the book you read, and so on).

You've lost me here Nereid. Ignorance about what?