Posted: Jan 08, 2018 12:37 pm
Thomas Eshuis wrote:DavidMcC wrote:Burden of proof? There is no such thing as proof in science, Thomas, it's a maths concept.
And that's a silly semantic dodge.
The burden of proof is a concept; that someone making a claim has the job/burden of providing evidence for that claim.DavidMcC wrote: In science, there is only strength of evidence.
Again, the burden of proof isn't about the mathematical concept, it's about the burden of proving (through evidence) that your claim is true.DavidMcC wrote:The problem with cosmology is that it is mostly by mathematicians
Citation?
Are you not aware that cosmologist is a seperate field of study with it's own departments at universities world-wide? And that said field of study is not limited to mathematics.DavidMcC wrote: who are looking for uses for their abstract mathematical proofs. That's not the way to do science, and it's why there is so much rubbish in cosmology.
Again, can you provide evidence for that claim, because that's not what I know of cosmology.
It's the mathematicians who put forward their maths as cosmology who need to show evidence for their unscientific claims, which stem almost entirely from the fact that the universe is expanding. I am the one who refers to actual evidence, as I showed in the LQG thread years ago (I'm sure you've seen it - I referenced it enough times in response to queries from others (who, BTW, mostly have a more rational attitude than you).
My dismissal of the cosmological rubbish coming out of the maths community is not a claim, it's an informed opinion. My claims are in the LQG thread. Have you even read it?
PSD, I will not bother to reply further if your posts continue in this bad tempered, sycophantic-to-the-famous vein.