'Big Bang' actually 'Big Chill,' new theory says

[trickblue]

Isn't that how knowledge is built?

Consider making a new recipe from scratch:

The first time you make something it's a bit of an experiment. The second time, you respond to the new information (e.g. it was a little dry, a little bland) and make refinements. You change the cooking temperature, you add some spice. After a series of refinements, you come up with a recipe you like and you keep it. Then maybe a friend introduces you to a new spice and you think, "Gee, that could make my dish better". So you add it in, but it doesn't come out quite right. So you make a few more small refinements in the constant pursuit of a better recipe.

It's just that the "recipes" for the various scientific disciplines have been undergoing refinements for the past 3000 years. To keep with the analogy: we're certainly eating a better meal than we were back then.

You are missing my point... the fact that science corrects itself is a good thing... and we are certainly better for it...

My point is those that argue it as infallible are ALSO missing the point...

Many things regarded as fact 100 years ago are now laughed at... and 100 years from now, many of the things science regards as truths likely will be laughed at as well...

It's why I never get the infallibility argument... to think we have it all correct at this point would make us incredibly arrogant...

This thread alone is challenging a "fact" that was regarded as truth by many for years...

The worst thing about this new theory? My favorite sitcom will have to be renamed to "The Big Chill Theory"...

 

[trickblue]

“Science replaces private prejudice with public, verifiable evidence.”- Dawkins

Is this the same Richard Dawkins that stated he couldn't be 100% sure God didn't exist last February?

My point is, believe what you will, but don't discount other's beliefs as foolish just because they are different from yours. The very person you cite here, although he still believes it is highly likely that God doesn't exist, admitted that he can't be sure...

How can YOU be so sure?

The one thing that IS an absolute and that we can all get behind, is that the Commanders suck...

 

[jwitten82]

It would be the same as having an anti gun activist opinion of the Dark knight shootings and why they happened.

I actually agree with most of the theories of evolution. I also happen to be a religious person.

I do not think one cancels out the other.

I also understand that if I lived a thousand years I would probably laugh about the things I believed in these days.

It's not the same, the quote was a scientist talking about science.

 

[jwitten82]

Is this the same Richard Dawkins that stated he couldn't be 100% God didn't exist last February?

My point is, believe what you will, but don't discount other's beliefs as foolish just because they are different from yours. The very person you cite here, although he still believes it is highly likely that God doesn't exist, admitted that he can't be sure...

How can YOU be so sure?

The one thing that IS an absolute and that we can all get behind, is that the Commanders suck...

He has always said that.

 

[masomenos]

You are missing my point... the fact that science corrects itself is a good thing... and we are certainly better for it...

My point is those that argue it as infallible are ALSO missing the point...

Many things regarded as fact 100 years ago are now laughed at... and 100 years from now, many of the things science regards as truths likely will be laughed at as well...

It's why I never get the infallibility argument... to think we have it all correct at this point would make us incredibly arrogant...

This thread alone is challenging a "fact" that was regarded as truth by many for years...

The worst thing about this new theory? My favorite sitcom will have to be renamed to "The Big Chill Theory"...

Maybe I've missed it but I don't see anyone claiming that science infallible. In fact, to be a scientist is to accept the fallibility of your discipline.

 

[zrinkill]

It's not the same, the quote was a scientist talking about science.

We both know what that quote was a shot at ........ lets not try to be cute.

 

[zrinkill]

Lunchtime over ...... gotta get back to work ....... you boys have fun.

 

[trickblue]

Maybe I've missed it but I don't see anyone claiming that science infallible. In fact, to be a scientist is to accept the fallibility of your discipline.

You need to reread this thread then, Mas...

 

[JD_KaPow]

You are missing my point... the fact that science corrects itself is a good thing... and we are certainly better for it...

My point is those that argue it as infallible are ALSO missing the point...

That's a straw man. Nobody seriously argues that science is infallible.

Your Pluto example is still lousy, because that wasn't a debate about scientific truth at all - everyone was in perfect agreement about the facts.

 

[trickblue]

That's a straw man. Nobody seriously argues that science is infallible.

Your Pluto example is still lousy, because that wasn't a debate about scientific truth at all - everyone was in perfect agreement about the facts.

Straw Man? THis happens on a regular basis around here... "I'm right, your wrong... SCIENCE" is pretty common...

Explain how my Pluto example is lousy since it rewrote science books... it changed perceived facts... as this new theory will if accepted...

 

[JD_KaPow]

Is this the same Richard Dawkins that stated he couldn't be 100% sure God didn't exist last February?

My point is, believe what you will, but don't discount other's beliefs as foolish just because they are different from yours. The very person you cite here, although he still believes it is highly likely that God doesn't exist, admitted that he can't be sure...

How can YOU be so sure?

What's the problem here? He's just being a good scientist. It's simply impossible to prove a negative, and he knows it.

I can't prove that the sun will rise in the East tomorrow (I conclude it by induction, which is not proof), but I will certainly "discount others' beliefs as foolish" if they believe that it won't in the absence of any compelling supporting evidence.

 

[trickblue]

What's the problem here? He's just being a good scientist. It's simply impossible to prove a negative, and he knows it.

I can't prove that the sun will rise in the East tomorrow (I conclude it by induction, which is not proof), but I will certainly "discount others' beliefs as foolish" if they believe that it won't in the absence of any compelling supporting evidence.

SO many of you are missing the point... Dawkins is largely considered to be the premiere atheist in the world, but is not 100% sure God doesn't exist, yet many on here leave no possibility that they are wrong...

You have no idea what I believe, but I can assure you I keep an open mind to all possibilities...

Any of our core beliefs can change tomorrow given new discoveries/happenings...

 

[jwitten82]

SO many of you are missing the point... Dawkins is largely considered to be the premiere atheist in the world, but is not 100% sure God doesn't exist, yet many on here leave no possibility that they are wrong...

You have no idea what I believe, but I can assure you I keep an open mind to all possibilities...

Any of our core beliefs can change tomorrow given new discoveries/happenings...

That has always been Dawkins stance on god.

 

[trickblue]

That has always been Dawkins stance on god.

My point... he leaves open the opportunity that he is not 100% correct...

Some on here don't...

 

[masomenos]

You need to reread this thread then, Mas...

Sorry, I went back through and I didn't see it. Even CCF said, "Nothing is for certain".

On a day-to-day basis, we make probalistic assumptions about things. As a basic example, when we go to turn on a light switch, we are certain the light will turn on. We don't check the plug, the breaker, the bulb and the wiring first. We simply accept that everything is likely to work. Occasionally it won't work and we figur out what's wrong and fix it. But moving forward, that isolated case doesn't make us reevaluate our assumption. We continue to accept the probability that the light will turn on when we flip the switch as being nearly certain.

Science is kind of the same. Some things are accepted as being absolutely true even though there is the possibility that they aren't. But that's how it has to be. Accepting sound assumptions and moving forward is the only way to progress - either by further reinforcing the assumptional foundation or by not having the foundation hold up to further stress.

 

[Khartun]

SO many of you are missing the point... Dawkins is largely considered to be the premiere atheist in the world, but is not 100% sure God doesn't exist, yet many on here leave no possibility that they are wrong...

You have no idea what I believe, but I can assure you I keep an open mind to all possibilities...

Any of our core beliefs can change tomorrow given new discoveries/happenings...

Wouldn't he then be agnostic and not athiest?

 

[JD_KaPow]

Straw Man? THis happens on a regular basis around here... "I'm right, your wrong... SCIENCE" is pretty common...

"I'm right, you're wrong, and here's the science that supports my argument" is not a statement that science is infallible. Far from it.

Explain how my Pluto example is lousy since it rewrote science books... it changed perceived facts... as this new theory will if accepted...

Changing Pluto's label changed not one "perceived fact". We've understood Pluto's orbit for decades and known that it differed from those of the 8 planets. We've understood for decades that there are similar objects to Pluto out there. The issue came down to: do we label all these things as planets, do we keep labeling Pluto as a planet for purely historical reasons, or do we change Pluto's label? None of this had any impact on scientific knowledge or "perceived facts".

The debates over what to name newly discovered elements (notably Seaborgium) also caused rewriting of textbooks, but it would be silly to argue that they changed "perceived facts".

 

[ScipioCowboy]

Since we've moved on to discussing science from a methodological perspective, I should point out there's an entire field of scholarly writing dedicated to critiquing the methods and mode (including peer review) that the scientific community uses to establish fact.

Some of the big names in the field are Paul Feyerabend, Thomas Kuhn, and Alan Gross.

These people aren't religious. They aren't necessarily scientists. They're just academicians. Some of their conclusions are positive. Some aren't. Their work is a little dry at time, but it's interesting if you're into that kind of thing.

 

[jwitten82]

Wouldn't he then be agnostic and not athiest?

He's agnostic atheist.

 

[dez_for_prez]

Just wondering, why do you call out to someone that you don't believe in?

That was part of the joke.