Posted: Nov 19, 2019 10:46 am
Scott Mayers wrote:@Spearthrower,
Thank you. That is what I want from others...the honesty.
The particular topics on the physics extremes are 'safe' in that whatever is or is not true or accepted will not affect things as long as the 'local' science is practical. By "local" here, I mean any hard sciences that are within our proximaty to deal with. There is politics involved with both extremes of Cosmology and Quantum Mechanics that I cannot pinpoint yet other than to the fact of institutions, whether educational or political, that get in the way.
The term, faith, when I use it is to be sure that one understands where they are just 'gambling' on what they support. But many actually make it taboo to even speak for the Steady State and against the Big Bang with any skepticism, in a very religious like way. When you experience censorship by merely questioning the logic by some people on this issue, and have tactics used against you to distort your reputation, I have to try to determine why. The first part is at least trying to determine when or where someone is simply having a 'faith' in the general science rather than a personal 'knowledge' of it. If supporting a theory by mere voting suffices, then we are reduced to many of the problems that religious apologists are correct in holding against the skeptic, such as I am myself. I am not religious because I actually KNOW something (gnostically) but many are atheist merely for its popularity in some crowd, or some trend, and are at best, agnostically atheist. The same goes with science. Some support some theories within it on faith, which to me, is counter to the need to be more skeptical as a good aptitude in science. The physics extremes (cosmos and atomic) are often trusted simply for the virtue of all that comes in between. But all cults/religions begin similarly by establishing good rationale up front but then pull the rug out from its adherents once they've got them hooked enough to stop asking questions and then default to faith in its authorities with feverish protectionist against those who dare to raise questions of them thereafter.
Sure, when somebody just practices argument for its own sake, the 'gamble' is on whether that rhetoric is going to fly. There's no other 'gamble' in defending an idea with evidential support when significant contrary data are not present to suggest the idea is a 'gamble' in the first place. It's not censorship to point out to you that you don't put your shoes on before you put on your socks.
It's already been pointed out to you (several times now) that supporting or defending an idea is not really the acid test, except for (y'know) self-styled rhetoricians or debate captains. The way to undermine a theory or idea is to find some data that conflicts with it, which is how science works. If you're talking about something other than science, and are just complaining about the rhetoric that people use as soon as you pop up with boilerplate yammering about "accepting theories or ideas on faith", you've just seen exactly what's going to happen in response to your own (largely-vacuous) rhetoric. It's true that people accept theories and ideas without understanding the background and without offering any remarks on why that acceptance is forthcoming. You can quote individual posts in this very thread which are doing exactly that. Be careful about which one(s) you choose to quote if you want to go down that road.
Pro-tip for you: Don't uppercase areas of study like cosmology or quantum mechanics unless you're citing the title of a course or monograph on the topic. It's not the folks possessing what you might consider an overweening confidence in those theories who show that kind of stealthy, but also somewhat back-handed, respect. Where you're coming from, you'd be better off placing the names in scare-quotes.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Given you just posted this as though it obviously speaks for itself to you, can you defend the progress of the evidence that leads to the unique conclusion that the phenomena is actually representing a hot origin personally?
Yeah, this is one way to approach the problem. Only, it's the rhetorical strategy of trying to put your interlocutor on the back foot absent any attempt to show you can answer your own cross-examination. The courtroom adage is never to ask a question for which you don't know the answer. Another little pro-tip: by so separating the adverb personally from its verb, you've delivered a little unintentional comedy. If it was your intent to poke fun, all the better for you.