Big Bang Bunkum?

Astronomy, Chemistry, Earth Sciences, Mathematics & Physics.

Moderators: Calilasseia, ADParker

Re: Big Bang Bunkum?

#41  Postby Spearthrower » Nov 20, 2019 7:13 am

Scott Mayers wrote:NO, I am being neutral with the word.


As I said, I don't agree - I think you're equivocating, and I think that's clearly the case. If you use 'faith' to mean 'accept scientific facts as true' in the same sense as you would use it for belief in supernatural entities that care where you put your whanger, then it is an equivocation as I already explained.


Scott Mayers wrote:Then a preference FOR the Big Bang is begged upon the inductive preference regardless of its relative weakness over the deduction based upon a singularity as inferred uniquely as true.


Of course not; it's based on the available evidence such as red shift and the CMB, and follows as a prediction from general relativity.


Scott Mayers wrote: That one 'trusts' this kind of thinking without being willing to prove how the deduction to reject the Steady State is a faith and when no one is willing to justify the foundational logic that DOES disprove BBT on mere logical grounds using only our logic and local factors we already all agree to outside of the religious thinkers.


You're mischaracterizing it - again, it's not 'trust' to acknowledge that evidence points towards a particular model and not to another model.

You're stretching really hard Scott, and this isn't the first time.


Scott Mayers wrote:How, for instance, does one not notice the contradiction that a singularity (that IS used as a foundation necessary for a origin in time and space) but then, as you did above, accept that there is no evidence of a 'singularity'?


I did no such thing.


Scott Mayers wrote: In other words, you are having your cake and eating it too if you toss your hands up in the air when asked about an origin of time and space exists, YET still pretend it does for the sake of keeping a theory in that NEEDS to justify that a singularity exists prior to assuming it.


You appear to be having a conversation with someone else.


Scott Mayers wrote:It is more unbelievable to presume a theory based upon a foundation that doesn't exist then one that does. Why the Steady State theory should be weakly dismissed (inductively) but the BBT not dismissed strongly (deductively) from its foundations is at issue here.


Presume a theory? That's not how theories are formed. None of this is remotely coherent from within the context of science.



Scott Mayers wrote:... It is NOT a surprise that the Big Bang theory derived out of a priest's head.


I'm not sure why this genetic fallacy is important when, regardless of whence it came, further observations have validated the idea.


Scott Mayers wrote:As to burden of proofs, the same argument is also demanded of the religious (in any extremes) to beg us to disprove the whole of the bible before we are permitted to construct a non-religious reality. That the politics used against the anti-science religious extremes are used almost universally as poor samples of obvious defect is beating up on the weakest of the concerns while it conveniently deflects attention away from the kind of religious thinking that is more 'democratically' accepted, even thought the faulty thinking occurs there with more success and power.


So what is it when someone wants a proposition to be taken as credible but fails repeatedly to offer any evidence for their idea, instead attacking and attempting to undermine existing science based solely on their misunderstanding?


Scott Mayers wrote: When I've written on specific other sites I will not mention here, I've had successful logical arguments deleted or buried wholesale, including bullying by selectively keeping posts that lack sense without context of what gets deleted.


Well that's completely irrelevant. You can hardly push this blame onto the science when you're talking about some website somewhere doing something.



Scott Mayers wrote:This authoritarianism by those supposedly claiming to promote science is just direct proof (for me) that there is actual political manipulation to save the BBT.


That's logically incoherent.

Anyone can declare themselves as promoting science - Creationists do, for example - but how they act is not 'proof' of political manipulation to save a scientific theory.

Frankly, the longer we're going on here, the less I am believing that you understand how science works. None of this is relevant with respect to what evidence shows, and it's a red herring to talk about all that while ignoring the fundamental point of science.


Scott Mayers wrote: And the fact that I lack ''ownership" of these sites to validate the abuses further acts to make me (or others potentially?) appear as irrational. And even your own addition of this:

This smacks of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

I don't agree to the comparison.


Initially I asked you about it in terms of seeing how such arguments could be made by others and whether you would find such arguments persuasive, but I have to say that the information you're volunteering is beginning to make me think that it's an apposite analogy.

Let's be clear though - I am not trying to make YOU look irrational, I am saying that your argument looks irrational.


Scott Mayers wrote:I'm atheist and use logic in a different way than most...


That's a problem - logic cannot be used in a 'different way' else it's not logic.


Scott Mayers wrote:... to show the irrationality of the extremes of the religious thinking DIRECTLY. I have less problem being able to help those without a need to insult them. In contrast, I give a lot of MORE charity to those supporting the Big Bang theory BY even the presumably non-religious people who don't seem able to hack the same kind of reflected abuse they dish out. I will insult those who insult where they think they are an exceptionally authoritative.


From my outside perspective, I have seen you post on 2 topics, and in both you've been rather quick to make all manner of statements which are declarative, authoritarian, and demeaning, and in neither of those topics have you furnished a single line of evidence at any point to support any of your claims. You don't seem to acknowledge when other people disagree or why they disagree, you seem to assume that their disagreement is itself justification for your position.

Do you think it's possible that the reactions you've had in the past may have had something to do with this rather than with the content of your posts?


Scott Mayers wrote:I am as skeptical against the theories or behaviors within science that gets abused using the same menality in hypocrisy.


Again, a website on the internet is not 'science'. If you get called names by someone on a website on the internet, it is not science calling you names.


Scott Mayers wrote: I EXPECT this community should be MORE willing to be challenged without feeling insulted by mere doubt.


I'm not insulted by your doubt, but I am beginning to get a little suspicious of your willingness to launch into sweeping dismissals of everyone and their alleged behaviors without offering any material justification for your own position. Personally, I have always found there to be a truth in the idea that simply stacking words together does not make the resulting sentence true. If you want me to believe X, Y, or Z is true, then supply evidence, not more argumentation. Argumentation is easy but doesn't increase the plausibility of the claim.


Scott Mayers wrote:My use of comparing religious thinking in my own 'peer group' is necessary to the appropriate skepticism needed to be more scientifically skilled. Most supporters appear to be 'religiously scientific' rather than rationally adopted thinkers when they expect you to get with the program and first BELIEVE in the present paradigm until you've invested THROUGH the institutes before being privileged to challenge anything.


I would frame this differently. I would say that claims are cheap, material evidence is the only arbiter. You've made a lot of claims, but I haven't seen a single attempt to support any of those claims. For someone who's interested in the depth of scientific skill, surely this is not an unreasonable request?


Scott Mayers wrote:
The original need for the peer review is obsolete when we have the internet that should appeal to ALL people to participate.


I could not disagree more.

Do you think that your opinion on comparative primate anatomy, for example, is meaningful comparative to someone who's trained by experts and has spent years in the field?

I can point you to a discussion thread where a member here, Jayjay4547, has made exactly the same claim as you above, that the internet obsoletes expertise and that all people now equally participate in scientific discourse... and yet the guy doesn't know his arse from his elbow, citing fossils but is unable to tell what species they're from, but who insists that the mere fact he has Google makes his arguments established as valid.


Scott Mayers wrote: The only prior reason for going through particular prescreening was due to limits of space in publications. The referee system needs to be overthrown.


This is completely untrue. Peer review is vital to make sure that quality and credibility levels are maintained. A legitimate scientific journal is putting their stamp of acceptance on papers they publish, they are saying that the contents herein have passed muster among experts in the field, that the claims of the paper checks out. That's why, when something in a paper turns out to have been falsely added, the journal puts out a retraction.

The internet lets anyone post anything, but offers zero promise of credibility therein. Thus, if you lack any relevant knowledge and read an article on comparative primate biology, you lack the tools necessary to know whether the claims therein are valid. You can, at that point, either a) go and spend the necessary time to furnish yourself with the knowledge to verify those claims, or b) you can ask an expert who is already furnished with the knowledge and tools to judge the merit of those claims.


Scott Mayers wrote:But I'm not talking about merely the 'formal' expressions of thought but to the censoring in 'informal' settings, like this.


Again, this setting is not 'science'. Nothing that occurs here impacts on science.


Scott Mayers wrote:The kind of behavior this fosters is what caused generations of historical monuments and history of noverl poltical states to utterly distroy the prior history. Why would it be necessary to hide content if it is not a concerning threat logically? Do you think the masses are defaulted to be so stupid? I know many do and am disgusted by this arrogance.


I am biting my tongue here, Scott, but I have to say that you should perhaps pop into someone else's shoes and have a read of your own post to see if you can detect arrogance therein. If you can imagine how your own posts can come across as arrogant, then you might want to consider whether the behavior you're seeing is a reaction to your own behavior, and consider yourself part of the tango problem.


Scott Mayers wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:

Can we move away from this abstract and start looking at material evidence. I may be ignorant here, but I am not seeing anything raised except your personal statements. Who has been censored, where are these attacks on reputation occurring, what is the evidence for this alternative model, what papers have failed to be published etc.?


I don't believe that it is wise to point out particular people or other sites, etc. If and where I get censored, I stop going to those places and preferentially like to have any material that I wrote on those sites to be kept wholesale or deleted wholesale. The only way I can overcome this is with power that I don't have access to.

If you want to look at "material evidence", so do I. I need to know the justification that the Big Bang was kept in spite of foundational factors. In this thread I was only responding to the post asserting something presumably obvious that is not. If you want to understand the foundational conern, I'll open up a different thread on that. I do have some extant threads in other sites that I begun this effort. And it begins with discussing the possibilities of spaces and boundaries and certain paradoxes some have over others.


Ok, I am beginning to find you less and less believable, Scott.

I have asked you several times now to provide evidence in support of your contention, but each time you seem coy about providing any.

This is the same thing that happened in the D&D thread where you expressed a slew of prejudiced positions generalizing people, but failed to offer any material reason to accept your claims.

Here I have asked you 4? times to provide evidence for the steady state model, I have explained why evidence holds primacy in scientific endeavours, and I have not treated you badly in any way... but now you've finally responded to my request, you've immediately turned it round and tried to point that request back to me.

Why would you need to open another thread? It's perfectly relevant to this thread, and it is exactly the topic of conversation we're having. You can sit here making accusations all day if you like, but if you ultimately show that you're unable to provide a jot of evidence for your position when asked, then perhaps other peoples' dismissal IS justified?



Scott Mayers wrote:
So you are saying that countering a consensus is possible even if you are deplatformed, censored, or insulted, etc, by the POWERS of those able to censor?


Are you deplatformed, censored, or insulted NOW, Scott?

I think you've been insulting, to be honest, but you clearly have a platform right here, right now, so why are you talking about past events?

Here's your spotlight, offer some substance to your position - not a screed about how everyone else is awful.


Scott Mayers wrote:
The fact that you think 'support' has value when you expect this in the form of a parade or protest in numbers used to get political attention.


Ok, you are talking bullshit now Scott.

Of course support has value. Evidence is how science operates. I no longer believe you are aware of that hard fact.

You want to make a claim, then be prepared to fucking support it.



Scott Mayers wrote:
I only need to point out the predominance of request for outside authority when no matter how much SOCIAL stats you could draw, as your own belief that this is needed to be sure you prefer the weaker 'inductive' (popular appeal) to win a logical argument. If you don't like my statement, that's too bad. I am permitted to express this without a need to prove as this is informal and only an aside. If you dislike it, you stated it and I will try not to raise it again. But note that you cannot propose a counter assumption implied when you DENY what I say on this. Just speak for yourself. You are NOT the whole of some scientific community, even if the potential majority could share your view against me on this.


You're full of shit, Scott.

I was trying to be polite on account of you just having joined the site, but fuck it, you're talking self-aggrandizing tosh, and the reason for doing so is to evade your burden of proof. As it stands, you've got nothing but generalized accusations - first vapid prejudice against D&D players, now against this entire community. I think I am justified in seeing you as being here not for the interest of the topic, but rather because you like being shitty and obnoxious with strangers on the internet. Sorry, we've already got members filling that slot of being too special for everyone else, and don't need another.

I can't even be be bothered to read the remainder of your post. You haven't shown you're worth the time.
Last edited by Spearthrower on Nov 20, 2019 7:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 25833
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Big Bang Bunkum?

#42  Postby Spearthrower » Nov 20, 2019 7:16 am

Contrary to responses challenging what you may think I lack knowing, I assure you that I'm far more ahead of this than you could fathom. I'm am very skilled and knowledgeable in logic and scientific methodology.


Then you have absolutely ZERO excuse to a) fail to meet your burden of proof and b) pretend that evidence isn't vital to scientific dialogue.

Your claims do not add up. You've spent thousands of words on self-aggrandizing and demeaning others, but not one single word on providing material evidence to support your position other than to say you don't need to do it.

Zero credibility.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 25833
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Big Bang Bunkum?

#43  Postby Macdoc » Nov 28, 2019 1:14 am

with a side of bullshit. Another one that thinks logic has to do with reality and reality can be determined by it. You and Jamest should start a club. :nono:


Uses and Misuses of Logic

As far as the propositions of mathematics refer to reality they are not certain, and so far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality. —Albert Einstein (1879-1955) U. S. physicist, born in Germany.

Science proceeds from facts to laws to theories by a difficult-to-define process called induction.
Induction includes pattern-recognition, brainstorming, tinkering, creative guessing and that elusive "insight".
It is not a process of deductive logic.

Theories and laws are required to be of such form that one can deductively proceed from theories to laws to data. The results of deduction must meet a stringent standard: they must agree with experiment and with observations of nature.


https://www.lockhaven.edu/~dsimanek/philosop/logic.htm

start with some evidence and observation and a provable theorem for your nonsense...when you have let us know. :coffee:
Travel photos > https://500px.com/macdoc/galleries
EO Wilson in On Human Nature wrote:
We are not compelled to believe in biological uniformity in order to affirm human freedom and dignity.
User avatar
Macdoc
 
Posts: 16128
Age: 72
Male

Country: Canada/Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Big Bang Bunkum?

#44  Postby Hermit » Nov 28, 2019 2:37 am

Macdoc wrote:

As far as the propositions of mathematics refer to reality they are not certain, and so far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality. —Albert Einstein (1879-1955) U. S. physicist, born in Germany.

start with some evidence and observation and a provable testable and replicable theorem for your nonsense...when you have let us know. :coffee:

Fify

No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong. —Albert Einstein (paraphrased)
God is the mysterious veil under which we hide our ignorance of the cause. - Léo Errera


God created the universe
God just exists
User avatar
Hermit
 
Posts: 2847
Age: 66
Male

Country: Here
Print view this post

Re: Big Bang Bunkum?

#45  Postby Macdoc » Nov 28, 2019 3:13 am

FWIW


There are also "theorems" in science, particularly physics, and in engineering, but they often have statements and proofs in which physical assumptions and intuition play an important role; the physical axioms on which such "theorems" are based are themselves falsifiable.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theorem

quibbles to the puppy. :coffee:
Travel photos > https://500px.com/macdoc/galleries
EO Wilson in On Human Nature wrote:
We are not compelled to believe in biological uniformity in order to affirm human freedom and dignity.
User avatar
Macdoc
 
Posts: 16128
Age: 72
Male

Country: Canada/Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Previous

Return to Physical Sciences & Mathematics

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest