Salutatio Keith!
07-Mar-98, Keith Knapp wrote to Richard Meic
          Subject: Time and Again        1/2
 KK>> It is indeed an unconscious habit of human beings that when we
 KK>> come up with an explanation, we tend to look for support for it,
 KK>> even though the most parsimonious way to proceed would be to look
 KK>> for something that kills the hypothesis.  That is one of the
 KK>> major occupatinal hazards of science.
 KK> RM>I am referring to the scientific method.  "Refutation" is how
 KK> the RM>scientific method works and that is not what has been
 KK> employed with the RM>BB cosmologies.  IOW, BB cosmologists do not
 KK> use the scientific method, RM>but use an altered method that they
 KK> CALL scientific.
 KK> To the extent that they are testing against observation, they are
 KK> scientific, though.
I do not find this statement very accurate, because what has actually 
been happening is they observe, conclude, then look for support for 
their conclusion.  That is a far stretch form observing, theorizing, and
attempting to refute.  The problem is that of method, and as I said
before a few times the scientific method is involved with refuting the
idea rather than just looking for support for it.  Anyone can find
"support" if they look, it takes real talent to try to refute your pet
idea, and if succeeding in that refutation accepting the conclusion that
you were likely wrong.
 KK> I think Lerner overstates it somewhat.
Sure, but the refutational data that the Bigbagers don't want you to
know is there,... and on the internet if you are a persistent searcher.
;)
 KK> RM>This may also be true, but we are talking about what has been
 KK> always RM>referred to as "science".  True science is very
 KK> unforgiving.
 KK> Yeah, but it's also done by human beings, who sometimes fall in
 KK> love with hypotheses.  One of the great virtues of scientific
 KK> methodology is that science can correct itself.
  
Right, and my view is that they are not FOLLOWING the scientific method.
 KK> RM>The steady state theories have been refuted long ago, creation
 KK> theory (I RM>use the word "theory" very loosely here) is
 KK> unprovable (or if you will RM>non-disprovable), and the BB
 KK> theories are disprovable at the most basic RM>level (ie. the
 KK> presence of infinities in a, so called, finite universe, RM>and
 KK> the inability to actually derive anything meaningful those few
 KK> RM>millionths of a second after the "so called" big bang).
 KK> I dunno if that last would constitute disproof.  If you could get
 KK> it all sorted out all they way up to those last few zillionths of
 KK> a second, that would be strong support.                            
 
Sure, strong support is fine, GREAT STUFF, *depending* on how that 
support is derived.
 RM>> PC just looks much more logically derived.
 KK> In saying this, you may be making the same mistake you are
 KK> accusing the BB modelers of making.  A model can be logically
 KK> self-consistent without having any relation to reality.  Logical
 KK> consistency works in mathematics, but it doesn't work in science,
 KK> where the only real test is whether the model fits what the
 KK> universe is actually doing.
                   
Hey, not being an astrophysicist and not having access to the time, 
money for the education, or the equipment leaves me with very little to 
work with,... I am left with logic.
 KK> I don't read physics journals because I have no idea what they're
 KK> saying, 
     
Ditto here, man.
 KK> but my impression is that BB physicists have gotten hep to
 KK> the idea that any future cosmologies must include plasmas. So
 KK> plasma physics can be valid without necessarily validating the
 KK> plasma cosmology.
                
Yes, that is right,... and I still have the right to conclude based on 
the info available to me that PC is more accurate and logical. ;)
 KK> RM>To be more accurate, they had no idea that the universe has the
 KK> complex RM>structure we know of now.  Hubble aided in removing
 KK> such ignorance.  Do RM>note, though, that Hubble merely mentioned
 KK> the idea of an expanding RM>universe in passing, and he was not
 KK> really that serious about it.  It RM>took the rest of the
 KK> astronomical community to grab his ball and run RM>with it,... now
 KK> look at what we got.
 KK> What seems to be a state of crisis.                         
Yep.
 Dicere...
 email address (vrmeic@nucleus.com) 
Richard Meic
--- Terminate 5.00/Pro 
---------------