Re: Big Bang: How widely accepted?
Andrew Cooke (ajc@islay.roe.ac.uk)
29 Aug 1995 17:07:26 GMT
i am sure that you are right, but it is difficult and one tends
to feel that `they' could simply try `not believing' in their
tv and then seeing if it still works. :-)
i think one major problem is that few people realise that much
of the physics behind astronomy is the same as that behind any
other science. there is this idea that it is *all* based on general
relativity and `einstein could be wrong'.
another problem is that mathematics is so compact that to
express even a simple argument in a more natural language is
a formidable task.
if anyone is interested, feynamann's `the character of physical
law' is one excellent attempt to explain how scientists
work.
(that's the same man who, when asked to explain what he got
his nobel prize for, replied along the lines of `well, if i could
explain it to you in a few minutes, it wouldn't have been worth
such a big prize...')
andrew
In article <17408F69DS86.KUNNE@frcpn11.in2p3.fr>,
Ronald Kunne <KUNNE@frcpn11.in2p3.fr> wrote:
>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.
--
A.Cooke@roe.ac.uk work phone 0131 668 8357 home phone/fax 0131 667 0208
institute for astronomy, royal observatory, blackford hill, edinburgh
http://www.roe.ac.uk/ajcwww
|