Re: Big Bang: How widely accepted?
Iain Coleman ((no email))
Mon, 4 Sep 1995 15:08:55 GMT
roosen@crash.cts.com (Robert Roosen) wrote:
> Yes, that is my point exactly. Cosmology as an astronomical
>subject has pretty well disappeared under the onslaught of the
>physicists.
Christ, it's like banging your head on a brick wall, isn't it?
How many astronomers have to correct you before you'll change your
mind? It may have escaped your notice, but every astronomer who's
contributed to this thread has disagreed with you.
What is your definition of astronomy anyway?
> Cosmology as an anthropological topic is not even considered.
>
It probably is - by anthropologists.
> Calling the Big Bang cosmology was a great PR move on the part of the
>physicists. However, it has also narrowed the definition of the word to
>where it has lost many of its original meanings.
So what? I mean, the word "plasma" is used totally differently by physicists
and anatomists, but only the very ignorant would get confused.
This idea you have of a bunch of hard-assed physicists muscling in on the
astronomers' turf is entirely at odds with reality. You seem to know
nothing about astronomy. That's fair enough - I know bugger all about
anthropology. But I don't go shooting my mouth off with crazy theories
about how anthropology is being taken over by a sinister conspiracy of
sociologists, or accusing anthropolgist of having been bought off by the
United Nations.
Iain
"the terminal-velocity-of-a-mouse thread is far more interesting"
|