Re: Big Bang: How widely accepted?
Ronald Kunne (KUNNE@frcpn11.in2p3.fr)
Mon, 28 Aug 95 17:32:09 SET
In article <DDrBKA.J7q@udcf.gla.ac.uk>
Iain Coleman <iain> writes:
>firstname.lastname@example.org (Robert Roosen) wrote
>>study cosmology as the creation myths of each of the various cultures
>>inhaviting planet earth. The Big Bang is in the curious position of
>>being promoted as "the" cosmology by a group of physicists who have
>>wandered into astronomy.
>What a load of bollocks. The Hot Big Bang model is accepted by virtually
>all astronomers. It is special because it passes all observational tests.
>This is called "science".
The real problem here is that Mr. Roosen is implying that a `cosmology'
(or any theory) is only acceptable if enough people are convinced it is true.
Something like: there are only 10000 astronomers `believing' the Big Bang
happened, while -say- 50000 Papuans still in the Stone Age believe in the
cosmic egg or some other myth.
However, this tendency of saying that `Astrology, Creation, Homeopathics
must be true because so many people believe in it' is very wide spread.
Dangerously wide spread, if you ask me. But also the proof that scientists
do not come often enough out of there Ivory Tower to convince the general
population of the merits and basics of the scientific method.