Originally Posted by
sugilite
Hang on a sec there:
You seem a bit defensive.
I sure am, because statements like that normally precede someone trying to push a product/idea with absolutely no verifiable evidence to support it, and using the inherent changeable nature of science (in the face of new evidence) to justify it: 'Oh well Science doesn't know everything so therefore my poison Ivy Powder will cure you of your ills'
Originally Posted by
sugilite
I'm sure you are familiar with what the word absolute means.
You use my flat earth and centre of the universe examples as being born of religious methodology and fair enough.
However, I notice you kind of forgot to mention what I said next.
Mainly because the explanation is too long for a witty short reply - but since you asked:
The big bang theory was accepted after an accidental discover by 2 astrologers when they were doing an experiment. Initially they thought the readings were incorrect because no matter what part of the night sky they pointed their equipment to, the same reading was present - however after many checks and peer review, they discovered that they had found some form of background radiation that was present at every point measurable from earth. Since such radiation couldn't originate from a single entity (like a pulsar or Black hole) then it must have been formed at the same time that space was formed (in order to occupy every part of space) so from that (and a few other things - my memory is a little hazy, guess I will be reading up on the Big Bang Theory as I haven't in a while) formed the evidence for the Big Bang Theory.
Originally Posted by
sugilite
So what happens if the hadron collider disproves the big bang theory? That would be a pretty freaking big change, yes?
Big changes in the scientific knowledge base can and do occur.
It would be awesome - and all the Big Bang deniers/Religious groups/fucktards/conspiracy theorists would all say 'See, we told you so' except for one small and very key fact.
(since the Big Bang is still the current peer reviewed theory - I will write this from the PoV that is still stands as CERN has yet to publish a peer reviewed paper to contrary)
They either denied the current evidence used to support the theory or failed to produce their own verifiable, testable evidence to refute it.
If the new Theory is right - it will be SCIENCE that searches for and provides the new evidence that will force us to change our viewpoints (instead of clinging hopelessly to old Dogma)
Originally Posted by
sugilite
So it makes me wonder why you are being so defensive about my earlier statement? "It's those that treat current science as absolute gospel that make me laugh."
It would appear to me that your argument to my quote is in fact backing up what I are in effect saying. Science from the past through to the present is hardly an "absolute".
If everyone on the planet understood the concept of how and why science never has any absolutes (Except C - hur hur hur) and didn't use its lack of absolutes to push whatever crap they are trying to peddle - then sure, I would have no reason to get defensive, unfortunately, most people seem to have trouble grasping
the concept of a Theory: "If Evolution is true, why is it just a Theory"
the concept of testable, repeatable Evidence based conclusions: "The Bible says its so, so you must be wrong"
As a final aside - we know that the Theory of Gravity isn't 100% correct, it doesn't work at all levels of Physics and we don't know why - we have the Rainbow Gravity theory, Quantum loop gravity theory, String theory etc.
yet our flawed knowledge of Gravity is sufficient for launch satellites into orbit (which not even you moon landing deniers can deny) - so yes Science has no absolutes, but there is no other system that has produced better results for humanity and has an inbuilt error checking and correcting mechanism.
/rant
Physics; Thou art a cruel, heartless Bitch-of-a-Mistress
Reply With Quote
:
I didn't think!!! I experimented!!!
Bookmarks