Crash course in science

[LogicalFallacy]

Hi all

 

There have been several posts of late of people asking about science, wondering how it works, how conclusions are reached, how science relates to the bible etc.

 

I came across a series that I saw Potholer54 (Peter Hadfield - Former Science Journalist) has put up and found them very informative. He dispels common misconceptions about cosmology and evolution as well as giving a brief background into where the science stands on the issues currently.

 

This is Potholers "Made Easy" series. There are 14 videos in the series, each about 10 minutes long. I binge watched them  Sadly due to a copyright claim, #10 The Scientific method made easy, has no audio. The fixed version is below the main playlist.

 

If you want to watch the other potions later click on the top left corner to access the play list.

 

Hope you enjoy, and hope you learn.

 

 

 

[LogicalFallacy]

Included #10 The Scientific Method Made Easy below the main set that includes the blocked #10.

[pantheory]

Very good video concerning the scientific method, but IMO there is a problem with the astronomy video. Although very good in general, it ended by describing the Big Bang Theory as fact. A small minority of scientists in the field of cosmology around the world, believe the Big Bang model is wrong. Such alternative theorists do not agree with each other necessarily, but all of these theorists agree that the Big Bang theory is not fact.

[LogicalFallacy]

19 minutes ago, pantheory said:

Very good video concerning the scientific method, but IMO there is a problem with the astronomy video. Although very good in general, it ended by describing the Big Bang Theory as fact. A small minority of scientists in the field of cosmology around the world, believe the Big Bang model is wrong. Such alternative theorists do not agree with each other necessarily, but all of these theorists agree that the Big Bang theory is not fact.

 With all due respect pantheory a small number of scientists also disagree with evolution. We aren't going to stop calling evolution fact because of a number of dissenters and their alternate theories. Thats not to say that if someone did disprove evolution and show another theory more reliable that we wouldnt accept it. Same with the big bang. Until such a time that new data and studies can show an alternative theory is correct and big bang is wrong then the current widely accepted explanation is, to the best of our understanding, fact.

 

Thanks

LF

[pantheory]

1 hour ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 With all due respect pantheory a small number of scientists also disagree with evolution. We aren't going to stop calling evolution fact because of a number of dissenters and their alternate theories. Thats not to say that if someone did disprove evolution and show another theory more reliable that we wouldnt accept it. Same with the big bang. Until such a time that new data and studies can show an alternative theory is correct and big bang is wrong then the current widely accepted explanation is, to the best of our understanding, fact.

 

Thanks

LF

 

Concerning Evolution theory, contrarian scientists do not specialize in evolution theory. Evolution theory is vastly encompassing, covering many aspects of a number of different and divergent sciences. For instance, the theory of natural selection has a mountain of evidence to support it. No respected theorist specializing in this field would ever disagree with the general theory of it. But Evolution theory as a whole has a vast reaching scope, which includes many disputable hypotheses. This fact does not detract at all from the theory itself since hypothesis can change over time without affecting the parent theory itself, concerning its validity.

 

As to the Concordance model of the Big Bang,  not only are its primary hypothesis in question, Inflation, dark matter and dark energy, the theory itself has been questioned by theorists concerning an expanding universe, and a universe beginning about 14 billion years ago. There is a wide difference of opinion involving theorists proposing other possibilities and competing theories.

 

https://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html

http://nautil.us/issue/15/turbulence/do-we-have-the-big-bang-theory-all-wrong

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2016/07/no-big-bang-our-universe-was-formed-from-an-older-collapsing-universe.html

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/419984/big-bang-abandoned-in-new-model-of-the-universe/

https://newspunch.com/universe-had-no-beginning-and-no-big-bang-scientists-say/

http://bigthink.com/philip-perry/prominent-astrophysicist-calls-the-big-bang-a-mirage

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2947967/Did-Big-Bang-happen-Quantum-model-predicts-universe-NO-beginning-explain-dark-energy.html

https://www.scientificexploration.org/forum/against-the-grain-some-alternative-cosmologies

 

And countless other proposals.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-standard_cosmology

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Alternative_cosmology

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Arman_Stepanian/publication/255704628_On_the_Alternative_Theories_of_Cosmology/links/53f895e90cf24ddba7db3eeb/On-the-Alternative-Theories-of-Cosmology.pdf

 

Although all of these theorists do not necessarily agree with each other, they all agree that the Big Bang model is probably wrong.

 

 

[bornagainathiest]

Perhaps a diplomatic resolution to the issue of what is factual and what is not, would be the following?

 

Flat Earthers do not accept that this world is a sphere.

YEC's do not accept that the universe is any more than 6 thousand years old.

Christian Fundamentalists do not accept that evolution explains our origins.

Conspiracy theorists do not accept... (insert whatever) 

And so on.

 

Yet, there are bodies of evidence that should persuade a rational, reasonable and open-minded person that certain things are facts.

It therefore seems to me that acceptance or rejection of the factual nature of something is an entirely personal matter.  Quite where something should be accepted as fact would seem to be down to the individual.  Perhaps there are no hard and fast rules that one is bound by on this?  However, assuming that reality is indifferent to our personal choices, choosing to reject the factual nature of gravity would seem to be a good way of improving the gene pool.  

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

[Joshpantera]