Re: Evidence for "Big Bang Theory"

Ben Weiner (
24 Apr 1995 18:42:28 -0400

This is another one of those messy crossposted threads. I have
set followups to sci.astro as the least of several evils. (Gil Hardwick) writes:

: The difficulty here appears only when the urge in certain individuals
: to regard observed phenomena as necessarily problematic overwhelms
: them, and the further and probably unrelated urge to theorise grabs at
: their intellectual processes.

: The vast majority of us out here appear happy enough to simply accept
: the common sense observation as reliable and unproblematic (i.e., as
: is), and leave the theorising until sufficient further information
: makes the intellectual leap into theory a valid and substantial one
: which contributes in a generally meaningful way to our understanding
: of our particular universe.

Gil, you're not speaking, you're verbiating.

: Nobody has to present a counter theory to your theory at all. We are
: as free to simply ignore your theory altogether, without losing our
: standing as scientists.

And your standing is ... ?

: The first criterion is common sense, isn't it? Such that none of this
: sort of endless competitive foot-stamping and confrontationist humbug
: arising from such extremely poor levels of data is regarded necessary
: in science in any event. Contradicting the point of our having agreed
: to a systematic and uniformly applicable method of enquiry in the first
: place, isn't it?

: What is the matter with just waiting until more facts come to light?

I tried to apply to the NSF astronomy division for a grant for
waiting until more facts come to light, but the referees were