Faith in Science

I'm going to take another run at this, post by post. It seems to be a Sisyphean task, but I'll look at it as a chance to review my understanding of cosmology. You have a marked dislike for the Big Bang theory, IQless1, so maybe it will be less tiresome for you to just ignore this post and the next.

Previously, I skipped over the following post, but might as well deal with its several misconceptions now.

To me this is just bizarre. Please consider the history of cosmology. Do you recognize the huge leaps in knowledge based on observationss (as opposed to "leaps of faith") which have occurred in the last 100 years or so? To compare this to the millennia old "God did it" idea, and say that they are equivalent in being based on faith seems to me to be inexplicable, except coming from somebody who really hasn't bothered to understand the development of modern cosmology. I'm beginning to think that your dislike of the topic, IQless1, has led you to simply discount it without trying to really understand it. Some of the things you say in this post tend to confirm that suspicion.

Implicit in the statement that something has been condensed is the assumption that there was something to be condensed. The Big Bang theory doesn't say anything of the sort. I'm not sure where you get your description of the singularity which is thought to have been the beginning of our universe as "a sphere. . . smaller than our planet." In fact, at least one hypothesis describes it as "zero-size."

Please cite a reputable scientist or science writer who describes the universe as being "condensed into something the size of our planet." As far as I know, that is not part of any modern ideas about cosmology. You seem to be approaching this topic backwards. According to my understanding, the universe was never "condensed," but began from a singularity (admittedly not understood, nor even really described directly by modern cosmology) which expanded extremely rapidly. I will answer the other questions in your post to the best of my ability. I'm afraid that most of the answers will be unsatisfactory to you, but the fact is, modern cosmology says very little about anything before what is known as the Planck era.

1. "What force held all the matter in the universe?"
A. Unknown, though the term "quantum gravitation" is used as a placeholder. Also, it is not necessarily the case that all of the matter was ever "held." It may have developed in the Planck era and expanded/instantiated in the first instants of time which followed.

2. "Why was it suddenly released?"
A. Science doesn't really deal in "why" questions. As for how, that is unknown.

3. "Do you believe physics can explain how such a thing is even possible?"
A. I think that as time goes by, we will indeed learn more than we presently know about the development of our universe. It may be that we will begin to understand something about the Planck era singularity. On the other hand, it may remain a puzzle for an indefinite period of time.

4. "Is there supporting evidence?"
A. You'll have to be more precise. If you're asking if there is evidence which supports the Big Bang theory, then yes, of course there is. If you're asking if there's evidence which supports the existence of a singularity in the Planck era, then I would say that there is no direct evidence. It is inferred and extrapolated from the evidence that we do have.

Your caricature of the Big Bang theory as equivalent to the phlogiston theory is amusing, and not without some validity, but the evidence which supports the Big Bang theory is not as equivocal as that which was used in support of the phlogiston theory.

There are many theists, including Christians, who are rather pleased with the Big Bang theory. They say essentially what you do above: God created the universe in the Big Bang. Science does not gainsay them. If you've read this post up to this point, you should have no problem understanding why that is.

Are you referring again to "tired light?" Did you not see the page which I linked earlier in this thread, or are you simply choosing to ignore it? There is really no unequivocal evidence which supports the "tired light" hypothesis, and there definitely is evidence which falsifies it.

Your insinuation that cosmologists are in it for the money is ridiculous.

* * *​

Next, IQless1, you made a post in which you try to make some sort of point equating the modern understanding of the observable universe to ancient thinking which held that the earth was the center of creation. I have trouble believing that you really think that post said anything relevant. Does the fact that you can stand in a tower and see to the horizon mean that you think that the earth is flat? That post seems to me to be flippant and unworthy of any more attention than this brief note.

 

Onward. . .

You seem to be using a definition of "leap of faith" with which I am unfamiliar. If one looks at a standard definition of "leap of faith", they will see such words as "unquestioning acceptance" and "blind confidence." That is not how the age of the universe was arrived at. Rather, it is supported by evidence: years of investigation and corroborated observations. I suppose one might say that there is an element of faith required to believe the repeated and verifiable observations which comprise the evidence supporting the statement, but it's hardly "unquestioning acceptance," or "blind confidence." Maybe you could explain why you would use such a term to describe the statement that "the universe is approximately 13.7 billion years old."

Just because you happen to be unaware of the theoretical basis for the statement does not mean that it is a "faith-based" statement. You have decided that you "hate" Big Bang cosmology, which apparently means that you steadfastly maintain your ignorance about what it says, and to what extent it is supported by evidence. Then there are things like the above, which is based on theoretical physics that has been supported by repeated observations. You dismiss this as well, it seems, out of mere prejudice or lack of willingness to investigate. That's fine, but your criticism of modern cosmology doesn't have much credibility given such an attitude.

I've already requested that you provide examples of cosmological theories which are "more reasonable" than the Big Bang theory, and all you've come up with so far is the idea of "tired light" which was falsified years ago. The simple reality is that the theory was developed to help understand the observational evidence, rather than the evidence being searched out to support the theory. If a more plausible cosmological theory which was supported by the available evidence were to be brought forward, the scientists who produced it would be assured of fame and tenure for the rest of their lives, and a proud place in the history of science. There is definitely incentive to overthrow established theories, otherwise new theories would never be produced. You seem to have some variety of conspiracy theory understanding of how science operates. If that makes you feel "In The Know," it's all very well, but really it doesn't correspond to reality any better than most other conspiracy theories do. Just to note: I've given up trying to get you to comprehend that science does not operate via "proof."

This paragraph is just hot air. Anybody who undertands the operation of science, as you've asserted that you do, also understands that no scientific theory is ever considered to be unassailable. Every scientific theory is subject to falsification through the gathering of new evidence.

There is sound theoretical basis for the faster-than-light expansion of space-time. That is, there are no presently known physical laws which prevent it from happening. There are observations which can at present best be explained by such an expansion, but the evidence isn't unequivocally supportive of such an expansion, either. You could easily learn more about this subject, but I suppose your hatred for the Big Bang theory stands in your way. It's your loss. I don't blame you for being unconvinced by the hypothetical faster-than-light travel via black holes and "folds in space-time," however. I don't take that seriously, either.

Again, I think that your distaste for the Big Bang theory stands in the way of understanding what the theory says about the expansion of the universe. As well, you severely underestimate the capabilities of modern astronomy. The evidence doesn't "indicate that the visible universe is expanding in all directions from a particular point just outside of the universe." Rather it indicates that the universe is expanding in all directions from any point you choose to use as a base of reference, including the earth. The scale of distances understood by astronomy is based on solid observations of what are known as standard candles. This scale has been developed using solid astrophysics concepts and knowledge. It has nothing to do with faith.

*sigh* Hypotheses don't just "eventually become theories." It's like you never bothered to look at even the most basic links which I've supplied in this thread.

Scientists are always looking for "other explanations," otherwise science would be static, like religious dogma. We all know that the scientific understanding of our universe is constantly changing and growing as new information is gathered, though. I think that the assertions you and Andy make regarding faith as the basis for science are based on misunderstanding and lack of knowledge about science. It seems that neither of you are willing to try to learn about the topic, and are bound and determined to uphold your mistaken thesis.

* * *​

The evidence you've supplied via your posts in this thread would seem to contradict this statement.

If you care to spend the time searching out and learning about the evidence which supports any particular theory, you will be rewarded with a greater understanding of its strengths and weaknesses. It may be that you have suffered from reading poorly written popularizations of scientific thinking and ideas, because what you present is an inaccurate caricature of the operation of science in general, and in particular the ideas which make up modern cosmology. No wonder you're irritated.

 

As I have pointed out, Andy, no scientific theory has ever been "proven as fact." Also, I have never disputed that what some have considered "scientific facts" in the past have been proven wrong. That is one of the main means by which science grows, and with it, our knowledge of the universe.

Arguments from ignorance are not the same as informed investigation and reasoned dissent based on evidence, Andy. One more time: Science is a search for evidence, not a search for proof.

I stand by my statement regarding the irrelevance of the Hubble telescope to the change in nomenclature regarding Pluto, and the other points I made regarding the inaccuracies in your post. If you dispute them, I suggest you follow your own advice and make use of the search facilities available on the internet.

All biologists recognize that the theory of evolution is just a theory, as you might surmise from its name. That doesn't mean the same thing to them as it apparently does to you, however. I didn't bring up "Adam and Eve," and I'm not sure why you think that they are relevant to this discussion.

"Controversy" in regard to the theory of evolution such as that promoted by Answers in Genesis and those of their ilk, which is driven by a religious agenda, has no place in science.

 

Peeved a little? Now you know how I feel! lol

You ask me to ignore your posts then berate me endlessly in them? Puh-leeze! Both of us have an opinion, and they are counter to each other. You are correct that I would never believe in the theory of the Big Bang... EVER. IMO, it's retarded. It may not be scientific "enough" for you, but I've given my reasons, and you disagree with them. I consider it insane to believe in it, you call me uninformed. You've discounted my main point, that each of us has a belief that we are correct, because you don't believe in belief! LOL ...whatever lol

I stand by my conclusion that scientists don't know enough about the universe to say what it is. They have a guess, and work to verify their guesses, but they don't have sufficient information or knowledge to know for certain, and it's highly unlikely that they ever will. But that's a key point of mine, what's more likely than not. IMO, it's highly unlikely that the Big Bang theory is correct in any substantial way. Not scientific enough for you? It's my opinion. How scientific can a member on a coin/history/political forum be? How scientific does he/she have to be? It's opinion.

IMO, they feel compelled to investigate though, and I applaud that.

Where I draw the line is at the public perception of the theories. You say it's a given that the theories are not proven fact, I agree, but add that publicly the theories are misrepresented as fact, for simplification purposes, and that irritates me. Why? Because that leads people to believe the theories are fact when they are not. They are works in progress, and impressive in their scope, but they are not fact.

Yes, misrepresentations happen, like when I read about how scientists probed the center of our galaxy. They didn't of course. What they meant was that they were able to see what the center of the galaxy looked like some 25,000 years ago. They can't actually actively probe anything at distances like that, only passive scans are possible.

But that's what I mean by misrepresentations of fact. It happens.

The problem I have with the scientific community is that it is rife with those kinds of mistakes, as well as a self-serving attitude (something we both have ) that the evidence they've found supports the theory, whatever the theory is.

I have a problem with that because I know how easy it is to find "evidence" for any theory. Yes, I know about reviewing information by peers, and that helps mitigate misunderstandings of information, but errors happen... especially when the focus is on minutia and not the larger picture.

I don't expect you to agree with me. I'm dissing the entire scientific community, and that irritates you.

You will never convince me on the Big Bang. You call it uninformed... I call it common sense... but it is just a theory afterall, and it's only our opinions.

Oh, if you don't want to read all that, don't. Maybe I should have mentioned that earlier but, eh.

 

Peeved not at all, but thanks for your concern.

I suggested that you may find my posts tiresome, and might spare yourself by simply ignoring them. There was no request intended, nor given.

OK then. You haven't shown that your "main point" has any basis other than your bare assertion as to its validity.

I didn't expect anything more than that you would stand by your conclusion. You already made clear that you're not really interested in the science behind the Big Bang, because you find the topic irritating. However, in this post you did ask me to point out "misconceptions." So, while I recognized there would be nothing much to be gained by responding, I went forward because I had said that I would, and mainly as an exercise.

It would seem then that it would make more sense to direct your irritation at the glib propagandists and gullible public, and not at science and scientists.

Agreed. It happens in pretty much any field.

You seem to equate the chattering classes with scientists. It's a rare scientist who makes public appearances, and for the most part they try to speak clearly about their topic. On the other hand, the average journalist knows little and conveys less when they attempt to inform the public about science. I think that your irritation is misplaced.

Heh. I enjoyed reading it, and you mistake me sir. I'm not irritated by this post, nor by previous posts, but I do consider science a topic worthy of discussion, and sometimes even serious discussion. I like to oppose the eternal "it's just a theory" canard when I encounter it, but I don't expect to make any headway with people enamored of it. Carry on.

 

After reading your retort it seems to me that we agree more then we disagree. Personally, I view the universe as a living entity with suns being born, its suppose expansion, etc...and humans just might be nerve receptors. But that is a theory I came up with over a few drinks many years ago.

 

I think people attempting to discover the nature of universe severely overestimate their abilities to do so. They convince themselves they have a clue when in reality they are only guessing at something they will never have knowledge of.

From my pov the known universe is like a single-celled organism in the middle of the ocean, every piece of information we have ever gotten throughout history is contained in that cell. We want to speculate as to what else there is to be known, but we can't receive any info beyond the cell walls so it's a guess. We have no idea where we are in that ocean. We have no idea of it's size or physical characteristics. Hell, we don't even know if we are in an ocean or not.

We have no idea what the universe actually is, how large it is, or what it's made of, outside our ability to gather information. Theories are guesses, educated as they are they are not proven fact.

I could never accept a theory like the Big Bang for a more simple reason: It's ludicrous (IMO). I'm not one who is easily susceptible to hypnosis, hysteria, or peer pressure. I view the theory as a case of mass stupidity though, everyone wants to jump on the chance at proving one aspect of it or another, and those aspects can be proven, without considering whether or not the theory itself is stupid, or that the aspects proven are just that... an aspect, nothing more. I'm watching a bunch of people pat themselves on the back, and telling them they have no reason to, but I don't expect them to believe me. They suffer from mass delusion.

 

I tell you what, if we are ever able to accelerate ...and also decrease... the time factor, and use it to disprove the idea that light particles (whatever) have a limited life-span, I will admit I was wrong about it.

Then you people will have to work on a new theory, 'cause there is no way the Big Bang is gonna be proven.

 

That's quite possible.

I like that idea very much. It's not science, but more like poetry. Still, poetry may bring us to a type of truth that science can never touch.

 

The problem with your view here is that science works. It's not just pie-in-the-sky speculation. The modern world is the product of the scientific method, which has given us such things as the computers and the communication system we're using right now. It's all very well to say that "they [scientists] are only guessing at something they will never have knowledge of," but when the knowledge that science has gained is used for practical purposes, it gives that the lie. If it were all smoke and mirrors it wouldn't produce things that repeatedly work. That is why it's absurd to say that science is based on faith, and that observations of the universe are nothing better than "guessing." This know-nothing position you're defending crumbles in the face of the real world applications of the scientific method.

The observations of astronomers have given us a huge amount of information about the universe, and our place in it. For some reason you want to deny that those observations have any validity. I accept that, and consider it in context of our discussion up to now, giving it the weight I think it deserves.

As noted above, I give your opinion the credibility I think it deserves.

Commendable

When have I or any scientist said that the Big Bang theory is "proven"? I think that your repeated use of the term "stupidity" in reference to a scientific theory says all I need to know about your approach to the topic.

 

I'm not a scientist, only a person who follows the developments of certain fields of science with great interest, so as much as I would like to be included in the "you people," unfortunately I don't qualify.

As for the first paragraph, I find myself unable to parse a coherent meaning from it. If you could re-state what you're trying to say in more detail, perhaps with a link to support your contention, I would be happy to discuss it with you.

 

I'm not suggesting it is. I'm saying it's absurb to believe no faith exists in science.

I don't recall suggesting that we have learned nothing at all while exploring the World, the galaxy, or the universe ...or that those observations and discoveries haven't had any impact on our lives.

I'm saying there are facts and there are guesses. The guesses may eventually be proven, or they may eventually be disproven, until then they are not fact.

It's rare, but there are examples of guesses being good enough to be used reliably... like electricity... but that is not the norm. There are aspects of electricity that we don't understand. We know enough to reliably use it but we can't say we totally understand why it behaves the way it does.

Until a guess is proven, or proven sufficiently to be reliable, it can't be considered fact. Yes, these are theories we are talking about here, and as such not considered fact, but in the larger picture... especially for the aspect of the uncertainty of what lies beyond what information we can discern from the known universe... my point is valid. To say it isn't is just stubborn determination to defend science... an almost religious willfullness to be right without any possible way to provide supporting evidence.

I haven't denied anything you claim I have, but I do believe I understand why you believe it to be true: You appear to be defending science from my attack on it's willingness to believe itself incapable of misunderstanding the information it gathers.

Again though, to be clear: I don't deny that, most of the time, scientists correctly understand the information they gather, or at least realize a misunderstanding eventually.

Mistakes in judgement and understanding are inevitibly part of being human though, and as such, it can never be fully discounted as an impossibility that failures to comprehend such things as the nature of the universe happen, especially the nature of the universe beyond our capability to analyze from Earth.

Ditto.

I've addressed that previously, and I'm not suggesting you (or any scientists) believe it's been "proved", I'm saying that the scientific community worships the theory like it is gospel... and that I believe the gospel is bs.

I believe the scientific community thinks too highly of itself to realize the mistake yet, but I also believe they will eventually reason it out... given enough time.

 

What I am saying is that scientists can't determine how light behaves over large periods time (as in 13.who-cares billion years), since they are unable to observe light for such large periods of time.

If they were capable of accelerating and decelerating time (without being affected by such accelerations and decelerations themselves), while also being able to conduct experiments on how light behaves over billions of years, then they'd have evidence I'd be willing to review. Until then they can only speculate, using passive scans of whatever light is available to them. They can't actively conduct experiments to determine the nature of light (or energy, or whatever...I'm using non-scientific-speak ) over immense amounts of time at the moment, therefore no one can say with any certainty that (light) is infinite, and therefore can't say with any certainty they know jack about it when it comes to such large periods of time.

You do enjoy your links. I'm not providing any at this time to support anything I write, or denounce what you've written, but may at a future point. From my pov this is an exercise in theoretical solutions. I prefer not to rely on other people's opinions... since that wouldn't be enough exercise. Later on, when I'm winded, I may (or may not) substantiate my views with information from various sources.

 

Recusant said this in his OP:

I stated that there is an element of faith in science. I didn't think he would take me to task for that itself, and he confirmed that.

The argument was based on the last sentence of a comment of mine:

To a scientist, or science-geek (for a lack of a better word) the comment is infuriating. Hell, "science-geek" is going to ruffle a feather or two, but obviously I'm one too.

I misspoke when I used the words "meaningful supporting evidence". What I meant is: Scientist's faith in the Big Bang theory rests solely on inaccurate conclusions of the "meaningful supporting evidence". I claim that scientists are biased, in favor of the Big Bang. So much so that any contradictory claim is denounced and ridiculed as "not understanding the concepts of the Big Bang". I do, and I am ridiculing those concepts, and that is a scientific flame-war in the making lol

 

My main point (in our argument, not specific to the Big Bang) is about belief. As in: You believe you are reading this. We accept certain truths as undeniable, or absolute truths. We believe.

Recusant, in dispute of this point, said:

It's valid because it's considered to be an absolute truth. Andy and I were just making that point. In other words, no rational argument can be made to assert the absolute truth is invalid. Sorry Recusant, but the quote above is absolutely irrational...hense this entire thread lol

This is a symptom of my bigger problem though. If I can't get an intelligent, informed, reasonable person to admit to an absolute truth, how the hell can I expect anyone to properly vet my hypothesis of the universe?

 

The problem I have is with being perfectly concise in my arguments. One misspoken word pushes people like Recusant into arguing that the entire comment is pointless. It's a failure to accept the gist of something, in favor of disputing minutia.

I anticipate an argument over something in the above, maybe "pushes". The gist of it gets ignored. "ignored" is going to be an issue.