Re: Evidence for "Big Bang Theory"

William S. Lawson (
1 May 1995 15:40:15 GMT

In article <>, (Robert Roosen) writes:
|> My question is whether this "astronomical cosmology" can really
|> exist without an underlying cultural basis.
|> I studied cosmology an a part of anthropology and it made good
|> sense. These hypotheses that are presently being advanced as "cosmology"
|> by people who are not even astronomers (eg Einstein, Hawking, etc.) are
|> not supported by astronomical observations. They contain speculations
|> that go way beyond what the data can support.
|> Apparently, this approach to cosmology has grown out of a joke by
|> Eddington. He claimed that he and others were so brilliant that they
|> could create a mathematical model of the universe that was more perfect
|> than the observers could test. Lesser minds do not realize that the
|> claim was a joke. There really are people that think some day "we" will
|> explain everything.
|> I am not one of those people.
|> Robert

This is beginning to look like a deliberate provocation, but assuming it isn't:
You might try studying cosmology as part of astronomy or physics. A poor
anthropologist might well try to explain everything in terms of human culture
and psychology, but there is more to reality than this. A good anthropologist
would not make this mistake.

Specifically, "speculations beyond what the data can support", is usually
termed, "formulating a hypothesis". It is followed by testing that hypothesis,
and must always be consistent with the known data.
-- Bill Lawson