Thanks David, glad it helps. If 'the science' left the BB as a 'theory', it would not be so offensive, but they advertise in schools and in the media as 'proven fact', which it is not.
I agree with you. I wrote the same in my master's thesis 33 years ago with respect to a different "science" altogether. There is an endless temptation, on the part of those seeking benefits, to nudge theory in the direction of fact. I suppose at this stage, as we all cast about trying to comprehend what just happened, that it was, ultimately, caused by this as well. Perhaps we are trying to describe a universal paradox of human knowledge. Does truth exist outside our perception of it? Is the truth a function of the number of people who believe it? Well, whatever the answer to that may be, I certainly think the BB theory is not a very good one given observational evidence that contradicts it.
Good for you to do the Master's in this area. That would be a tough masters to get.
Probably need to 'confirm' the bias of the model to get the degree. Interesting comment on truth. Scholastics including St Thomas Aquinas, believed that a product's price was mostly subjective, or the price that people in general, in an area and given time, were willing to price (subjective utility, not objective ie a pearl is worth more than a horse, though it is for decoration only). Maybe in a post-truth world, the same applies to truth and reality as you mention 'what is truth'? If the speed of light is utterly wrong, will 'science' change its equations or just take vote on the speed and the majority wins? Or if redshift in reality is the opposite expression of the theory, will the maths be altered? Is evidence even necessary anymore or just flowery AI inspired monographs and arcane maths? The Stabs, Evolution and other areas for over 200 years have never confirmed observations and reality.
Excellent. Sent to friends.
Thanks David, glad it helps. If 'the science' left the BB as a 'theory', it would not be so offensive, but they advertise in schools and in the media as 'proven fact', which it is not.
I agree with you. I wrote the same in my master's thesis 33 years ago with respect to a different "science" altogether. There is an endless temptation, on the part of those seeking benefits, to nudge theory in the direction of fact. I suppose at this stage, as we all cast about trying to comprehend what just happened, that it was, ultimately, caused by this as well. Perhaps we are trying to describe a universal paradox of human knowledge. Does truth exist outside our perception of it? Is the truth a function of the number of people who believe it? Well, whatever the answer to that may be, I certainly think the BB theory is not a very good one given observational evidence that contradicts it.
Good for you to do the Master's in this area. That would be a tough masters to get.
Probably need to 'confirm' the bias of the model to get the degree. Interesting comment on truth. Scholastics including St Thomas Aquinas, believed that a product's price was mostly subjective, or the price that people in general, in an area and given time, were willing to price (subjective utility, not objective ie a pearl is worth more than a horse, though it is for decoration only). Maybe in a post-truth world, the same applies to truth and reality as you mention 'what is truth'? If the speed of light is utterly wrong, will 'science' change its equations or just take vote on the speed and the majority wins? Or if redshift in reality is the opposite expression of the theory, will the maths be altered? Is evidence even necessary anymore or just flowery AI inspired monographs and arcane maths? The Stabs, Evolution and other areas for over 200 years have never confirmed observations and reality.