rationalskepticism.org

Spearthrower wrote:

Scott Mayers wrote:Note that I place quotes around the word, "science", because I'm referring to the meaning of it as understood by practice, not that I am against the concept and validity of it. That is, "science" comes from meaning "to see", and is only in used in contrast to mere "logic", which used to mean "to look" but has evolved to be separated from the act of observing and relegated to the "analysis" of what we see more specifically.

Your version isn't science: it's hubris.

Science clearly works - you can see it all around you.

What inventions, discoveries, and applications have you arrived at through "logic"?

If you want to set this up as a contest between scientific methodology and whatever your methodology is, then you'd better put up and show that you can compete.

Who is saying science doesn't work? I sure as hell didn't.

I take issue with the FACT that the Big Bang model IS a 'religious' model about the Cosmic ORIGINS, not about science as a subject. If you are actually going to compete with me in words here, lets deal with what is given here. Hawking asserted doubt about a singularity as representing something where nothing is needed beyond it to argue from. This came at a time when all the old guard of phyicists died off and "In God We Trust" got added to the U.S. Dollar. And so it conveniently hides the FACT that the major distinction between the Steady State model and the Big Bang was precisely about this problem. The Steady State theory argues in defiance of the Big Bang precisely because of the logical disconnect of assuming an "origin" at a specific time when matter that is DEFINED as a function or property DEPENDENT upon space is non-existent. THAT is the concept inferred of the convergence of space and time that derived the justified response of how one can infer an instantaneous fixed quantity of matter/energy to appear.

If you want to discuss this, it helps if you have some understanding of logic and paradoxes. If you are assuming me as some anti-science or religious propagandist, you are simply wrong or are intending to be hostile for whatever problems you have about others.

Spearthrower wrote:

Scott Mayers wrote:
I agree to Hawking but feel that his own reparations miss the point that the Big Bang itself is more likely wrong. If it is infinite, it reduces to the "Steady State" model on mere logical grounds.

And your equations, proofs, evidence etc?

More likely? Show your working to arrive at such a probabilistic claim.

You 'agree to Hawking' - I'm sure he rests in peace then.

I agree to this:

“Asking what came before the Big Bang is meaningless, according to the no-boundary proposal, because there is no notion of time available to refer to,” Hawking said...

as it is clear in my context.

"Equations, proofs, evidence etc?" is begging without need here. [or you are attempting to set up a Straw Man/Scarecrow to attack with ease?] I am responding to the nature of the debate regarding a Universe that has no beginning. I agree to this point but disagree to the retrofitting of it to the Big Bang theory when this concept DEFINES the Steady State assumption AGAINST the Big Bang model.

Are you denying this very important factor of the history of science? Or are you wanting a link to someone famous to assert this for your faith in authorities?

Spearthrower wrote:

Scott Mayers wrote:[By the way, note that the meeting was at the Vatican. ?? What is that about if not suspect of religious affiliation to the Big Bang?]

By the way Mr Logic, that's logically fallacious: a genetic fallacy coupled with a well poisoning.

Religious people can do science too - the problem is when certain people elevate their ideology above the methodological suppositions, then regardless of whether they're religious or not, they become incapable of doing science.

The functional meeting was at the "Pontifical Academy of Sciences" in a place specifically designated as an institute of religion. This was also in response to Mardoc's comment implying that I was religious with your added clear insult of me as being anti-science when you said, "Science clearly works" as though I stand against the who subject.

And on 'fallacies', pointing out one requires explanation of your thinking because they are mostly context errors and are not universally applicable. There is no genetic fallacy with respect to this topic because I am not arguing an irrelevant connection to the modern theory that is still dependent upon denying the Steady State's LOGICAL meaning and its presumed demise. Given it was considered 'dead' and 'wrong', which led power to accepting the Big Bang, it needs addressing. I was not poisoning the well because I am also not rejecting a claim merely because it has a religious connection. It is also actually relevant in context to the meet being at the Vatican.


"Steady State": the steady existence of the Cosmos through both time and space. Hawking's position is an attempt to appear 'novel' within the context of the Big Bang theory due to the politics involved. What he was doing was re-entering the main definition of the Steady State model in a climate that is intolerant of it. Big Bang favors a generic Diestic God at minimal. The Steady State lacks this and actually counters MORE significant religious beliefs than the Big Bang. It is relevant because of how science as an institute becomes politicized for the need of public supports.