Starship Asterisk*

Statements on the apod forum include: 'this is not science'; and 'this proposal is ridiculous'. Perhaps we should discuss what Science is.

According to Webster:
Science: "The collection of Data through observation and if possible experiment ... the formulation of hypotheses."
Hypotheses: "to suppose - propose".
Astronomy: "The science that treats of the celestial bodies, of their positions, magnitudes, motions, distance, constitution, physical condition, mutual relations, history, and destiny."

We know that scientists as individuals and as groups are 'poles apart' in beliefs, as this example from 'Discover' magazine, December 2008 shows. P. 57 - The Multiverse on a string.

"Barbara and Raphael Bousso at University of California at Berkley calculated that the basic equations of string theory have an astronomical number of different possible solutions, perhaps as many as 10 to the 1,000th. Each solution represents a unique way to describe the universe. This mean that almost any experimental result would be consistent with string theory; the theory could never be proved right or wrong.
Some critics say this realization dooms string theory as a scientific enterprise. Others insist it is yet another clue that the multiverse is real."

My intention is not to discuss String Theory .. it is to discuss the moral and intellectual freedoms necessary to discuss science in unbiased atmospheres .. those atmospheres including individual mentality .. those atmospheres which will further science instead of returning it to Dark Ages. As an example, who is to be the judge who will delete String Theory from forums because some scientists say it is doomed as a scientific enterprise? Which is the ridiculous viewpoint?

Science is what scientists do.

What do scientists do? They develop and test theories.

What methods do they use to develop and test theories? While there is much in common across the sciences, there is also much that is different; 'the scientific method' is rather a set of overlapping methods, with each branch using its own.

The relevant question here is, surely, what is modern astronomy, as science? The answer is "physics, with a dash of chemistry" ... and a small list of exceptions ('planetary science' may be part of astronomy, and 'astrobiology' is a fascinating new branch).

Theories, then, are the engine of science. Perhaps it's appropriate to repeat what Ken G said in the BAUT Forum about theories in astronomy and physics (and which I quoted on the last page of another thread):

What a scientific theory is capable of [...] is organizing, unifying, and predicting observations. In effect, a scientific theory is nothing but a kind of shorthand that can be used in place of a vast body of experimental data, most of which is entirely hypothetical because we simply haven't bothered to observe everything we possibly can [...]. To the extent that the observations that haven't been done yet also conform to the theory, we say the theory is predictive (an aspect that is only testable in hindsight, when we actually do the observations), and to the extent that the theory unifies and makes sense of existing data, we say it is explanatory.

Highly Recommended reading especially for Chris and Nereid - 'Through a Universe Darkly' by Physicist Marcia Bartusiak - includes:

Celia Payne who was told by 'the establishment' that her calculations showing Hydrogen was the vastly predominant element in the universe was in error - the person who told her that going on to claim the glory of the discovery for himself - her discovery "allowing physicists to pursue at last the mechanisms of stellar power." P. XV Prologue

"Meanwhile, molecules of carbon monoxide, once thought impossible to assemble in space, disclose the existance of immense clouds of gas that serves as our galaxy's most prolific stellar nurseries." PXIV Prologue.

"In 15423 the Polish churchman Mikolai Kopernik (Copernicus) set the planets in motion around the sun." Owen Gingerich of Harvard University wrote, "Copernicus' radical cosmology came froth not from new observations, but from insight." P.22

"Witness Galileo's famous trial and house arrest for his claim that the truth of physical reality can be sought in nature." P.23

"For over a quarter of a century after its discovery and naming by J. Norman Lockyer helium remained a mere hypothetical gas" because of disbelief and jealousy among the establishment. Page 72.

Is Philosophy science? Island Universes was "a concept contemplated by the great German Philosopher Immanuel Kant as early as the 1700s" confirmed of course only in the 1920s. Page 125

Meghnad Saha's paper 'Ionization in the solar chromosphere' was rejected by The Astrophysical Journal, but was published by the Philosophical Magazine - "some historians mark the beginning of modern astrophysics with the publication of Saha's ionization theory.' Page 99

Anaxgora – banished because he came up with the fantastic ideas that the moon reflected light from the sun, and that the Milky Way was composed of myriads stars. Anaxgora ended up teaching, appropriately, at Lampsacus.

there are many other examples so far in the first third of the book I read last night; but I think, Chris and Nereid, these few examples from that wonderful book reveal to me that you both have forgotten the basics of science .. the foundations of scientific thinking .. and have replaced them with dogma, formula, establishment authority, and Chris's appearance of possessing knowledge vaster than he actually does. Humility is a great virtue.

My reply to an earlier Sputnick post, with essentially identical content, is here.

There are at least two kinds of very pertinent examples, or cases, that are not included in your post, Sputnick: normal astronomy working well, in the sense of discoveries or theories quickly made or confirmed, with little drama; and normal astronomy working well, in the sense of theories or ideas not later validated (or later shown to be inconsistent with good observational data).

An example of the former might be the work that earned Hulse and Taylor their Nobel prize - the indirect detection of gravitational wave radiation from a binary pulsar; the two independent teams' almost simultaneous publication of 'dark energy' papers (based on observations of distant type Ia supernovae) might be another.

Examples of the latter are much harder to recognise, or even recall, even among experts, because they tend to be quickly forgotten; however, I suspect they are far more numerous than the few examples you list in support of your idea. Here are just two: Vulcan (a hypothetical planet closer to the Sun than Mercury, predicted based on anomalies in the orbit of Mercury) and Tifft's quantised redshifts.

There is a systematic bias in all examples of the kind in your post, a bias which gets stronger the older the original idea: revisionism. Or perhaps a desire to see in the writings of some ancient key parts of modern ideas. Kant and "island universes" is a good example of this.

The thing is, Nereid, what I posted, including the string theory, are all examples of excellent scientists making excellent discoveries or assumptions or insights or hunches which proved correct, all considered absurd by other scientists .. all proven correct eventually. Why let history see you on the wrong side of those debates when you could simply agree, as scientists have said, that all possibilities are possible?

Sputnick wrote:The thing is, Nereid, what I posted, including the string theory, are all examples of excellent scientists making excellent discoveries or assumptions or insights or hunches which proved correct, all considered absurd by other scientists .. all proven correct eventually. Why let history see you on the wrong side of those debates when you could simply agree, as scientists have said, that all possibilities are possible?

(emphasis added)

Hmm ... is the Moon made of green cheese?

And here's the other thing: how many (millions of) "assumptions or insights or hunches" have not panned out?

And how does one go about determining which of the millions of "assumptions or insights or hunches" will, at some time in the future, be "proven correct", other than by waiting a year, decade, century, millennium, ... ?

Nereid wrote:
Hmm ... is the Moon made of green cheese?

Surely you've heard of alternate universes where humans are replaced my micemen and micewomen? Is there water ice on the moon? Probably or possibly. Therefore could fungus grow on the moon? Possibly. (A two mile deep Antarctic ice core brought up bacteria) Can fungus create cheese out of moon dust? Why not - moss growing from rock support herds of millions of Cariboo in the Barrenlands. Can fungus survive the hazards of space? For thousands of years according to what I have read. Would red or white wine go with moon cheese? This discussion persuades me that either would be fine.

And here's the other thing: how many (millions of) "assumptions or insights or hunches" have not panned out?

Does that negate the fact that truths and possible truths are declared non-truths simply because the concensus (that terrible big and primitive tribe with the big head-bashing clubs) declare the truths to be non-truths?

And how does one go about determining which of the millions of "assumptions or insights or hunches" will, at some time in the future, be "proven correct", other than by waiting a year, decade, century, millennium, ... ?

By assisting, encouraging, allowing research and discussion into and about any and all of those assumptions instead of declaring them untruths .. and after a lot of research and discussion, when someone decides the assumption is an untruth, by allowing for the fact that advancing technology and discoveries may yet reveal the assumptions to be truths.

Nereid wrote:Science is what scientists do.

What do scientists do? They develop and test theories.

What methods do they use to develop and test theories? While there is much in common across the sciences, there is also much that is different; 'the scientific method' is rather a set of overlapping methods, with each branch using its own.

The relevant question here is, surely, what is modern astronomy, as science? The answer is "physics, with a dash of chemistry" ... and a small list of exceptions ('planetary science' may be part of astronomy, and 'astrobiology' is a fascinating new branch).

Theories, then, are the engine of science. Perhaps it's appropriate to repeat what Ken G said in the BAUT Forum about theories in astronomy and physics (and which I quoted on the last page of another thread):

What a scientific theory is capable of [...] is organizing, unifying, and predicting observations. In effect, a scientific theory is nothing but a kind of shorthand that can be used in place of a vast body of experimental data, most of which is entirely hypothetical because we simply haven't bothered to observe everything we possibly can [...]. To the extent that the observations that haven't been done yet also conform to the theory, we say the theory is predictive (an aspect that is only testable in hindsight, when we actually do the observations), and to the extent that the theory unifies and makes sense of existing data, we say it is explanatory.

Thanks Nereid - this is the kind of posts which make this forum an informative and interesting place. I will just repeat that because, as you say, 'most of which is entirely hypothetical' - then why declare any theory to be non-science? Do Barbara and Raphael Bousso prove that String Theory is science, or non science?

Sputnick wrote:

Nereid wrote:
Hmm ... is the Moon made of green cheese?

Surely you've heard of alternate universes where humans are replaced my micemen and micewomen? Is there water ice on the moon? Probably or possibly. Therefore could fungus grow on the moon? Possibly. (A two mile deep Antarctic ice core brought up bacteria) Can fungus create cheese out of moon dust? Why not - moss growing from rock support herds of millions of Cariboo in the Barrenlands. Can fungus survive the hazards of space? For thousands of years according to what I have read. Would red or white wine go with moon cheese? This discussion persuades me that either would be fine.

And here's the other thing: how many (millions of) "assumptions or insights or hunches" have not panned out?

Does that negate the fact that truths and possible truths are declared non-truths simply because the concensus (that terrible big and primitive tribe with the big head-bashing clubs) declare the truths to be non-truths?

And how does one go about determining which of the millions of "assumptions or insights or hunches" will, at some time in the future, be "proven correct", other than by waiting a year, decade, century, millennium, ... ?

By assisting, encouraging, allowing research and discussion into and about any and all of those assumptions instead of declaring them untruths .. and after a lot of research and discussion, when someone decides the assumption is an untruth, by allowing for the fact that advancing technology and discoveries may yet reveal the assumptions to be truths.

It seems, to me, that you've created something new here, "truth", or "truths" (and also "untruths").

You've also, logically, determined that all "truths" are absurd ... after all, you began with this:

all possibilities are possible

which leads to this possibility: "all truths are absurd",

... as well as this: "all untruths are truths",

and this: "all truths are untruths".

I'm not sure you intend to do this, but it seems inescapable, given your premises ...

Oh, and by the way, it also seems, to me, that - once again - you have used the logical fallacy of the strawman (as well as that of the false dichotomy).

Sputnick wrote:

Nereid wrote:Science is what scientists do.

What do scientists do? They develop and test theories.

What methods do they use to develop and test theories? While there is much in common across the sciences, there is also much that is different; 'the scientific method' is rather a set of overlapping methods, with each branch using its own.

The relevant question here is, surely, what is modern astronomy, as science? The answer is "physics, with a dash of chemistry" ... and a small list of exceptions ('planetary science' may be part of astronomy, and 'astrobiology' is a fascinating new branch).

Theories, then, are the engine of science. Perhaps it's appropriate to repeat what Ken G said in the BAUT Forum about theories in astronomy and physics (and which I quoted on the last page of another thread):

What a scientific theory is capable of [...] is organizing, unifying, and predicting observations. In effect, a scientific theory is nothing but a kind of shorthand that can be used in place of a vast body of experimental data, most of which is entirely hypothetical because we simply haven't bothered to observe everything we possibly can [...]. To the extent that the observations that haven't been done yet also conform to the theory, we say the theory is predictive (an aspect that is only testable in hindsight, when we actually do the observations), and to the extent that the theory unifies and makes sense of existing data, we say it is explanatory.

Thanks Nereid - this is the kind of posts which make this forum an informative and interesting place. I will just repeat that because, as you say, 'most of which is entirely hypothetical' - then why declare any theory to be non-science?

Um, er, ... a fuller context, as Ken G wrote, is (bold added):

that can be used in place of a vast body of experimental data, most of which is entirely hypothetical because we simply haven't bothered to observe everything we possibly can

So "any theory" can be non-science if it's scope excludes any and all experimental data, for example, whether implicitly or explicitly.

There are also several criteria that underlie Ken G's summary, one of which you have neatly illustrated in some earlier posts - internal consistency, or perhaps logical consistency. So a "theory" may be non-science by virtue of it being internally inconsistent, illogical, or illucid.

Do Barbara and Raphael Bousso prove that String Theory is science, or non science?

I doubt that they "prove" anything ("proof" is not possible in science, except, perhaps, as defined by Sputnick).

I hope this is post is found in the right forum .. I encountered some computer trouble while composing it .. lost internet connection .. etc.

Nereid wrote:
However, I think it's a bit of a stretch from some examples plucked from a book on the history of astronomy to "you [Chris and Nereid] have forgotten the basics of science .. the foundations of scientific thinking .. and have replaced them with dogma, establishment authority, and in Chris's appearance of possessing knowledge". In fact, that looks awfully like a personal attack, don't you think?

I'm sorry if my wording falls short of my own goals for communication, and apologize if my words caused anyone pain .. but no, I did not mean it as a personal attack, just my perceptions formed by some of what you and Chris are writing .. 'PC is not science' being the strongest formulator of my opinion, and Chris's continual use of 'consensus' as the basis of support for his opinions, instead of standing as an individual who is convinced because of his own research and beliefs and intuitions.

In any case, how many books could be written, in the style of Bartusiak, filled with nothing but examples of the other kind?

Through a Universe Darkly is a brief history of science (hardcover - about 300 pages) the writer having an "advanced degree in physics". The examples I quoted were intended only to reveal the huge error of relegating new ideas to garbage bins. The book contains much positive information and history .. and presents a surprisingly balanced view of supportive and opposing viewpoints of many topics, even though it is more weighted to the support of the Big Bang and the existence of Dark Matter. However, because the book reveals so clearly
the error of relegating new ideas to the garbage bin I consider it far more valuable than a book showing science's success stories only.

And in (deliberately?) neglecting to mention the many thousands of examples not in Bartusiak's book, aren't you yourself forgetting the basics of science, the foundations of scientific thinking?

I am trying to understand what others perceive as science, and trying to clarify my own understanding of what science is.

How about formulating an hypothesis or three, about the development of ideas in modern astronomy, and testing them?

I though I was putting forward 'hypotheses' (Corkscrew light for instance.) Can you give me your meaning of 'formulating a hypothesis'. Because of my lack of university education and financial resources for me to test a hypothesis is virtually as impossible as it was for Kant to test or prove his idea of island universes (being galaxies of course). That does not negate the value of my opinions to myself however, and should not automatically cause others here to relegate an idea like Corkscrew Light to the garbage bin. If light corkscrews, probably electricity does to .. and manufacturing corkscrew electrical cable could possibly lead to reductions in loss during energy transmission, for instance. And while the discussion on corkscrew light may be at an agreeable end on this forum, I will not be surprised if in the next decade electrical cables are manufactured to accommodate the corkscrewing of energy. I'm content that I've suggested the idea here, and was rewarded by further education in the nature of waves, that education including a statement that waves do in a way corkscrew.

=Nereid
I doubt that they "prove" anything ("proof" is not possible in science, except, perhaps, as defined by Sputnick).

Proof is certainly possible, Nereid. We know the moon is not made of green cheese because scientists have been there.

Nereid wrote: It seems, to me, that you've created something new here, "truth", or "truths" (and also "untruths").

You've also, logically, determined that all "truths" are absurd ... after all, you began with this:

all possibilities are possible

which leads to this possibility: "all truths are absurd",

... as well as this: "all untruths are truths",

and this: "all truths are untruths".

I'm not sure you intend to do this, but it seems inescapable, given your premises ...

Ah you are tricky in a nice sort of way .. but yes, all truths can be considered by some or all people to be absurd. That doesn not make them untruths. However I must decline the honour of having invented truth, if that was what you intended to say

once again - you have used the logical fallacy of the strawman (as well as that of the false dichotomy).

If you mean the strawman of Oz, I'm not familiar enough with the story to know what meaning you are intending. While my peers were watching Oz I was reading encyclopedias, that reading not including the meaning of the word dichotomy. I guess it's time for a trip to Wikipedia.

Fritz Zwicky - Morphological Approach

"If a possibility exists nature will carry it out and scientists should discover it." Are we on APOD to be allowed to discuss Zwicky's possibilities (like the dreaded Plasma Cosmology)?

Prdjudice comes in even with Zwicky, who refused to believe in clusters of Galaxies. (P.294 -Through a Universe Darkly.)

Sputnick wrote:

Nereid wrote: It seems, to me, that you've created something new here, "truth", or "truths" (and also "untruths").

You've also, logically, determined that all "truths" are absurd ... after all, you began with this:

all possibilities are possible

which leads to this possibility: "all truths are absurd",

... as well as this: "all untruths are truths",

and this: "all truths are untruths".

I'm not sure you intend to do this, but it seems inescapable, given your premises ...

Ah you are tricky in a nice sort of way .. but yes, all truths can be considered by some or all people to be absurd. That doesn not make them untruths. However I must decline the honour of having invented truth, if that was what you intended to say

Take some time to think about what you have written Sputnick ... your logic is undeniable.

IF all possibilities are possible THEN the possibility that all untruths are truths is inevitable, as is the possibility that all truths are untruths.

Also, IF all possibilities are possible THEN the possibility that all truths are absurd is also inevitable ... the considerations of some, or all, people is irrelevant.

You have introduced some considerations of elementary logic Sputnick, which I doubt you intended. So rather than abandoning this waaaaay beyond scope discussion, I'd like to invite you to confirm that, in the Sputnick view of science, either logic is irrelevant, or that you have not spelled out what you mean, or that your premise ("all possibilities are possible") is wrong.

In any case, what - in the Sputnick view of science - is a "truth"?

once again - you have used the logical fallacy of the strawman (as well as that of the false dichotomy).

If you mean the strawman of Oz, I'm not familiar enough with the story to know what meaning you are intending. While my peers were watching Oz I was reading encyclopedias, that reading not including the meaning of the word dichotomy. I guess it's time for a trip to Wikipedia.

The "strawman argument" is all too common in internet discussion fora ... one misconstrues another's point (the strawman) and proceeds to show it is flawed. In this case you are misrepresenting (or misunderstanding) what I wrote (perhaps I was not clear enough?) and starting your chain of logic from the misrepresentation. In logic, a faulty premise is, in and of itself, sufficient to render any conclusion drawn from it - no matter how impeccable the logic from premise to conclusion - unreliable (if not downright faulty).

The logical fallacy of false dichotomy is also common, in my experience. Here's an example:

"the BBT is inconsistent with {specific observational results}, THEREFORE {my crackpot idea} MUST be RIGHT!"

The dichotomy is EITHER the BBT OR my crackpot idea; the dichotomy is false because two other logical possibilities are ignored (i.e. BOTH the BBT AND my crackpot idea are right; BOTH the BBT AND my crackpot idea are wrong). Can you see where, and how, you have used both these logical fallacies?

Cecilia Payne Gaposchkin -

"If science as I know it can be described in a few words, it might be called a search for the unseen."

Ira Bowen, head of the Mount Wilson and Mount Palomar observatories -

"I"m sorry to disappoint you, but there's nothing that wone can do with long wavelengths that would be useful." When asked by Charles Townes about radio astronomy's future.

Nereid wrote:
And here's the other thing: how many (millions of) "assumptions or insights or hunches" have not panned out?

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?

Sputnick wrote:Fritz Zwicky - Morphological Approach

"If a possibility exists nature will carry it out and scientists should discover it."

Sounds like a mangled version of the ergodic principle; I rather doubt Zwicky intended this to mean what you clearly take it to mean (an example of a strawman argument?)

Are we on APOD to be allowed to discuss Zwicky's possibilities (like the dreaded Plasma Cosmology)?

We can discuss the ergodic principle any time, especially as it applies in astronomy.

We can also discuss PC any time, within the constraints I have previously stated (would you like me to repeat them?).

Prdjudice comes in even with Zwicky, who refused to believe in clusters of Galaxies. (P.294 -Through a Universe Darkly.)

That's a pretty astonishing claim!

Does this book provide any references, to Zwicky's published papers, to support this claim?

In case you don't already know, it was Zwicky himself who kicked off the Dark Matter idea, in the early 1930s IIRC, from analyses of spectra of some Coma cluster galaxies, plus application of the virial theorem.

As a meta-comment, I must say, Sputnick, you are doing a wonderful job of demonstrating the need to keep discussion in this forum within its declared scope.

Sputnick wrote:If you mean the strawman of Oz, I'm not familiar enough with the story to know what meaning you are intending. While my peers were watching Oz I was reading encyclopedias, that reading not including the meaning of the word dichotomy. I guess it's time for a trip to Wikipedia.

I suggest you start here: Wikipedia: List of Fallacies.

In the Legal System, the burden of proof is on the Plaitiff, the person making the claim. In the Scientific Community, the burden of acheiving 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.

Sputnick wrote:

Nereid wrote:
And here's the other thing: how many (millions of) "assumptions or insights or hunches" have not panned out?

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

What "(astronomical) debates" are they Sputnick?

Specifically, are you speaking generally, or indirectly about a (small number of) specific debate(s)?

when you could simply agree, as scientists have said, that all (theoretical scientific) possibilities are possible?

What is a "(theoretical scientific) possibilit[y]"?

How - specifically - does one go about determining whether something (that is presented or proposed, by Sputnick say) is one of these possibilities?

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?

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

Nereid wrote:

Sputnick wrote:Fritz Zwicky - Morphological Approach

"If a possibility exists nature will carry it out and scientists should discover it."

Sounds like a mangled version of the ergodic principle; I rather doubt Zwicky intended this to mean what you clearly take it to mean (an example of a strawman argument?)

Are we on APOD to be allowed to discuss Zwicky's possibilities (like the dreaded Plasma Cosmology)?

We can discuss the ergodic principle any time, especially as it applies in astronomy.

We can also discuss PC any time, within the constraints I have previously stated (would you like me to repeat them?).

Prdjudice comes in even with Zwicky, who refused to believe in clusters of Galaxies. (P.294 -Through a Universe Darkly.)

That's a pretty astonishing claim!

Does this book provide any references, to Zwicky's published papers, to support this claim?

Page 294 in the book - which I have returned to the public library.

In case you don't already know, it was Zwicky himself who kicked off the Dark Matter idea, in the early 1930s IIRC, from analyses of spectra of some Coma cluster galaxies, plus application of the virial theorem.

Perhaps this was after he accepted the existance of galaxy clusters.

As a meta-comment, I must say, Sputnick, you are doing a wonderful job of demonstrating the need to keep discussion in this forum within its declared scope.

Alpha and Beta I know [/quote]

- Meta I'm not familiar with .. if your use of uncommon words is inteded to deplete my energy reserves so that I have to throw in the towel in duscussion your (theoretical) intent us working.

Zwicky - Dunkle Materie - Through a Universe Darkly supports itself wonderfully but I returned it to the library; and as I said elsewhere it is not an argument against the Big Bang or against the existance of Dark Matter .. but if I can define the book apart from its historical and exploratory nature it is is an argument for open mindedness in science.

Nereid wrote: 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.

Is Philosophy science and can it apply to astronomy?

Here is Einstein's answer, First paragraph of Chapter Three of the Theory of Relativity.

"It' has often been said, and certainly not without justification, that the man of science is a poor philosopher. Why then should it not be the right thing for the physicist to let the philosopher do the philosophizing? Such might indeed be the right thing at t time when the physicist believes he has at his disposal a rigid system of fundamental concepts and fundamental laws which are so well established that waves of doubt can not reach them; but it cannot be right at a time when the very foundations of physics itself have become problematic as they are now."

Sputnick wrote:
I ask again (with clearer language) the unanswered question I put to you, "Why let history see you (you personally Nereid) on the wrong side of those (astronomical) debates

What "(astronomical) debates" are they Sputnick?

Any of them, Nereid.

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?

Did I say that? If so, where?

Plasma Cosmology - "PC is not science."