The problems of big bang theory. What are they?

Well, if you want to persuade me that scientists as a group may possess any greater than the rest of humans integrity, whatever that might mean, I may have to remain unconvinced. As an institution science behaves just like any other group of people enjoying authority among the rest. Any individual behaviour is irrelevant, for the individual may buck or may not buck the trends and tendencies of the institutions they belong to, the institutions themselves may only represent those trends.

I do not see any chance given to the scientists for sprouting any wings where other groups are not given such angelic possibilities.

Now given that the general human condition is to be in egregious fundamental error of thinking and to persist in the error indefinitely unless and until the persistence is met with an irresistible force, there is nothing unnatural in the current situation in cosmology under my scrutiny. The modern physical science is simply getting its fair share of the human condition while persisting in such absurdities as the Big Bang, the existence as a whole being both expandable and compressible, space possessing the attribute of peculiar motion, the Universe possessing an attribute of finite age and so on and so forth. Nothing special to write home about. Those ideas, I am afraid, are very much business as usual as far as the preposterous beliefs of humanity are concerned. I discern nothing either specially conspiratorial or exceedingly vicious in any of that.

You were asking me to provide a link to Einstein's attitude towards singularities to see if he ever said anything like what I was attributing to him. I was, of course, using my own words that I am not in the habit of mincing. Einstein was much more polite in his verbal custom. Still, here's a good paper on the subject containing all the references to Einstein's proper expressions on the issue:
http://www.olduniverse.com/1,5%20Singularities.pdf

Edited by Alfred Maddenstein, : repair the link

Well, if you want to persuade me that scientists as a group may possess any greater than the rest of humans integrity, whatever that might mean, I may have to remain unconvinced.

I take your point that all people lack integrity to some degree or another and I agree. Everybody’s got something to hide ( ‘cept for me and my monkey). This is a long way from being patently false at the root of your existence. Whoring your intellect out to anyone who has the cash. I am not saying that scientists are more pure than the rest of us. They don’t need to be. Most of the people that I know and meet are honest. Not perfectly but fundamentally. Your perspective is cynical.

Professionals, like physicists, are absolutely held to a higher standard of integrity and accountability than your average person.

Now given that the general human condition is to be in egregious fundamental error of thinking and to persist in the error indefinitely unless and until the persistence is met with an irresistible force, there is nothing unnatural in the current situation in cosmology under my scrutiny.

This may be true for the religious zealots and luddites of the world but the entire point of research is to find the truth. The real dividends come from knowing what that truth really is and not from the research funding.

I would not dispute that there is a lot invested in the status quo. I would point out that it is invested there for many reasons. Nobody wants to back a losing horse and if the one that we are on should break a leg I am sure that it will be put down with ruthless efficiency.

I understand the weight of vested interests but if the opposing force really is irresistible then the changes will come. It will take more than cynical disbelief.

Alfred Maddenstein writes: Okay, the style of Hemingway is called telegraphic. Simple, bare bones sentences. Unlike Faulkner's who was prone to make a sentence half a page long. I don't find one easier to understand than the other, by the way. Not really. All depends on the actual content and context and so on.

In science, things are written with the aim of getting your peers all over the world to understand exactly what ideas you are trying to convey. This includes using the accepted definitions of words. Word salads don’t make the publication stage.

Alfred Maddenstein writes: Otherwise, you confuse the cosmologists and the rest of specialists. No other specialist is making any general claims as to the ultimate nature of existence as a whole.

I’ve never seen any cosmologist, following the scientific method, making any claims to the ultimate nature of existence as a whole. I’ve only seen them giving verifiable evidence. No claims involved.

Alfred Maddenstein writes: Traditionally such claims are made only by priests and philosophers which is firmly placing cosmologists in either of these groups.

Cosmologists are firmly placed in the natural sciences. Nowhere else.

Alfred Maddenstein writes: Now, the only way to distinguish between the two groups is that the philosophers on the whole tend to offer natural explanations to the ultimate nature of existence.

Natural scientists don’t belong to any of these groups. Different methods, you see.

Alfred Maddenstein writes: They are mostly on the side of the physical and logical necessity whereas the priests on the whole plump for magic.

No, natural scientists are on the side of empirical evidence. That’s it.

Alfred Maddenstein writes: Otherwise both are equally self-assertive and dogmatic.

Luckily natural scientists don’t fall in either of these groups, except for the fewer than 0.1% who call themselves “creationist scientists” and have abandoned the scientific method.

Alfred Maddenstein writes: Now since the modern cosmologists in their explanations invoke a lot of magic such as space in proper motion,…….

Oh, I don’t know. Physical phenomena measured for the first time in 1718, which could even then be explained naturally, wouldn’t really be called “magic”. Do you know what proper motion actually is?

Alfred Maddenstein writes: … the whole of existence popping out of nothing to expand into nowhere,….

A straw man. There’s absolutely no scientific theory claiming anything even close to this.

Alfred Maddenstein writes: … the laws of necessity possibly breaking at a certain point and in certain conditions, etc.

Do you mean the Laws of Nature? We’ve actually measured them breaking down in certain circumstances. I hope you realize that, what you call the “laws of necessity”, called “Laws of Nature” in the natural sciences, have been changed in the past when we measured that we were wrong about these laws? I don’t think you realize that the “Laws of Nature” only describe observed reality?

Alfred Maddenstein writes: … that firmly places them in the category of priests. Simple.

Your straw men would. Luckily your straw men don’t exist in science.

An opinion is like an arsehole: everybody has one.

That's why we've discovered a very good way of weeding out the ignorant opinions from the valid and relevant one's.

A very reliable way is to go and do an in-depth study on the subject and get qualifications on that particular subject. At accepted, recognised institutions where quality control on the training is monitored.

That's why we only allow trained, qualified medical doctors to be medical doctors. That's why we allow only trained, qualified geologists to work as geologists. MD's and geologists still would know just as much as chemists, engineers and janitors about the BBT. Not much.

quote:

---

That's why we only allow trained, qualified medical doctors to be medical doctors. That's why we allow only trained, qualified geologists to work as geologists. MD's and geologists still would know just as much as chemists, engineers and janitors about the BBT. Not much.

---

Charles Darwin was trained in medicine and theology. Charles Lyell was a lawyer. I dont think that just because you study one subject that you will not know much about another.

Portillo writes: Charles Darwin was trained in medicine and theology.

So he didn't spend 5 years on The Beagle studying geology and the natural world?

But comparing the educational systems of the 1850's to today's educational systems is pretty pointless.
We (rightly) expect more from our professionals than we did ~150 years ago.
How long would a person have to study medicine on the internet before you would let them operate on you?

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

The beauty of the internet is that everyone is an expert at everything.

This criticism displays the error of trying to impose today’s standards on the people who lived in the past. This is done by creationists only to provide excuses for creationists with false or irrelevant degrees .

What you were saying about Darwin and Lyell was inaccurate anyway.

There simply were no scientific degrees in those days. Darwin might have got a mathematics degree from Cambridge, but that would not have trained him as a scientist (or naturalist).

Darwin studied under the best scientists of the day, including Henslow, Owen, Lyell and Grant. While doing the first years of medicine at Edinburgh, and then the theological studies at Cambridge, he gained the very best education in science one could get in those days. As his initial writings and specimens sent from the Beagle caused an immediate stir in the London scientific community (unknown to Darwin himself), he not only had an excellent reputation as a first class researcher upon his return, but was accepted by the naturalist community as an expert.

Not only that, he also presented his research and findings to the scientific community for peer review. In other words he followed the scientific method to the letter. Creationists refuse to do it, but only present their findings in religious tracts.

You are wrong about Lyell, too. He attended lectures from one of the best geologists of the time and was elected joint secretary of the Geological Society. In other words, his peers recognised him as an expert.
http://en.wikipedia.org/.../Charles_Lyell#cite_note-Wilson-2

Wiki writes: Lyell entered Exeter College, Oxford in 1816, and attended William Buckland's lectures. He graduated B.A. second class in classics, December 1819, and M.A. 1821.[2][3] After graduation he took up law as a profession, entering Lincoln's Inn in 1820. He completed a circuit through rural England, where he could observe geological phenomena. In 1821 he attended Robert Jameson's lectures in Edinburgh, and visited Gideon Mantell at Lewes, in Sussex. In 1823 he was elected joint secretary of the Geological Society. As his eyesight began to deteriorate, he turned to geology as a full-time profession.[3] His first paper, "On a recent formation of freshwater limestone in Forfarshire", was presented in 1822.[3] By 1827, he had abandoned law and embarked on a geological career that would result in fame and the general acceptance of uniformitarianism, a working out of the idea proposed by James Hutton a few decades earlier .

Furthermore, he held the post as Professor of Geology at King’s College.

Wiki writes: Lyell had private means, and earned further income as an author. He came from a prosperous family, worked briefly as a lawyer in the 1820s, and held the post of Professor of Geology at King's College London in the 1830s. From 1830 onward his books provided both income and fame. Each of his three major books was a work continually in progress. All three went through multiple editions during his lifetime, although many of his friends (such as Darwin) thought the first edition of the Principles was the best written.[6] Lyell used each edition to incorporate additional material, rearrange existing material, and revisit old conclusions in light of new evidence.

So, next time Portillo, before believing and then spreading the deception you find on creationist websites, check your facts. Both Darwin and Lyell were recognised as experts. They followed the scientific method and also had their work peer-reviewed by the scientific community. Creationists don’t do any of these.
By the way, how is your homework going?

The beauty of the internet is that everyone is an expert at everything.

Including those who are experts at stupidity. One can now find much more insane, unevidenced mythology, much more insane bigotry, and a huge amount of gobbledygook, that would have taken years to absorb, in the old fashioned method, of searching for these things, in books.

No, the less you know, the more you think you do know.

One only becomes an expert at something the moment you realise how much you don't know about that subject.

One only becomes an expert at something the moment you realise how much you don't know about that subject.

If this were true, I would have degrees covering my walls.

quote:

---

So, next time Portillo, before believing and then spreading the deception you find on creationist websites, check your facts. Both Darwin and Lyell were recognised as experts. They followed the scientific method and also had their work peer-reviewed by the scientific community. Creationists don’t do any of these.

---

Theres a reason creationists and intelligent designers arent peer-reviewed. Its called philosophical naturalism.

Oh I see they mislead you about this, too? Goodness, don't you read anything other than creationist tracts?

Read something else. Ever heard of the case Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. It involves one of the “leading lights” of ID, Dr. Michael Behe .

Start reading this link: http://www.talkorigins.org/.../dover/day11pm.html#day11pm329

Remember, this is Dr. Michael Behe testifying under oath.

Trial transcript: Day 11 (October 18), PM Session, Part 1 Q: Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct? A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other -- many other theories as well.

There you have it, Dr. Behe calls astrology a "scientific" theory. So if your star sign is a virgo and your daily horoscope predicts that you are going win a million bucks later today, ID would classify it as “science”.

They don’t follow the scientific method. Therefore not science. Therefore not peer-reviewed.

That's why you're not a creationist. You know how much you don't know. Only they think they know it all!