You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: The End Of Reason: A Glimpse Behind The Curve
No, scientific consensus is built based on the ability of the scientific community to replicate the conclusions of an experiment or observation. Sometimes the consensus is wrong and it has to be discarded in favor of a more accurate representation of reality. That is why I would like to see how are they drawing their conclusions. There are no sacred ideas or authority figures in science.
Can we replicate the Big Bang?
No, but we can observe the movement of galaxy clusters and the microgave background radiation and then draw conclusions based on the available evidence. I find your position that if we don't observe an event happening in "real" time that you can't infer that it happened to be rather odd.
Maybe with the following analogy I can clarify why it is odd to me:
Imagine that you are driving down the road and you see two cars that appear to have crashed. There is an ambulance taking care of the wounded. You did not see the crash yourself but based on the available evidence you can draw the conclusion that both vehicules ran into each other.
The movement of galaxies and the microwave background radiation are the crashed cars and the ambulance in this analogy. The Big Bang is the event itself (the crash).
Currently there are alternative explanations to the Big Bang theory but they are not testable and we can't take them seriously...yet.
I was asking you a question and not making a statement. I didn't say you can or cannot try to determine things from the past. However, in doing so, you may make too many assumptions on patterns, on how things were, on the rate of decay that things may have, on certain events, especially when they contradict what we do observe. Again, there are many cases that you seem to be either ignoring or you may unaware of what I'm talking about because you have NOT brought up these cases of things that have happened the past few thousands of years. There are strong contradictions that we can see in those cases. We should talk about those cases. We should talk about how these scientists say one thing while the other scientists say something different while providing concrete evidence. Why don't we talk about the evidence of Mount St. Helens in 1980 when we also talk about the formation of the Grand Canyon?
Fair enough but I believe that you are also making asumptions above what I believe to be true (and the reasons for me doing so). I am just stating that any claim needs to be backed by evidence and a working body of knowledge. That is why I have said twice in past comments that I would like to know the specifics.
If you can point me to the scientist that you are refering to I will more than glad to review there claims and have a clear picture of where you are coming from.
Why don't you already know what I'm talking about? Are you saying that you only know about the scientists that agree with you and not the thousands and thousands of scientists that disagree with you? When scientists disagree with what you believe, you ignore it you move on?
I am asking for a reference so I can look it up myself. Maybe their arguments will convince me.