NationStates Jolt Archive

If science, tomorrow, came up with a better explanation than the Big Bang, would all you who argued so heatedly for it in this forum feel foolish?

If science, tomorrow, came up with a better explanation than the Big Bang, would all you who argued so heatedly for it in this forum feel foolish?
Well before the big bang there were other credible theories that to some scientists are still more acceptable.

If science, tomorrow, came up with a better explanation than the Big Bang, would all you who argued so heatedly for it in this forum feel foolish?
Ditto for a better explination than God.

I doubt either side would budge at first, but i thik the science lot would budge as the theory becambe more widely accepted, while the religious lot would probably not...

If science, tomorrow, came up with a better explanation than the Big Bang, would all you who argued so heatedly for it in this forum feel foolish?

The nature of science is that it is constantly revising itself based on new data.

If science tells us tomorrow that they have an explanation that explains even more than the Big Bang, then it stands to reason that people wouldn't argue as vociferously about the Big Bang.

Nope, I'd look at the evidence, check the papers, and decide if the new theory is more crediable then the old.

You seem to be confusing science with arguing over the color of something. It is not, science is about proving things wrong in the first place and it is a constantly changing, and growing, process.

If science, tomorrow, came up with a better explanation than the Big Bang, would all you who argued so heatedly for it in this forum feel foolish?

That depends on a lot of things. The Big Bang Theory has been refined as new data become available. I suppose the qualifier would be, what makes it a "better" explaination.

If science, tomorrow, came up with a better explanation than the Big Bang, would all you who argued so heatedly for it in this forum feel foolish?

NO, cause I don't think it's gonna happen. From the science point of view, the equations are all there; only speculation is left concerning what happened. Another thing is that the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle prevents us from know what happened before the universe was the size of the Planck length, rougly 1.6*10^-35 m which relates to Planck Time, roughly 1*10^-43 s. Only at this time did the four forces of the universe hold any real dominance over matter.

Science needs people to question it to come up new theories otherwise theories are mistaken for absolute facts e.g. the world is flat, time is constant etc. Nothing can ever be absolutly and must be constantly questioned to prevent scientific dogma. and thats why we always respond when bigotted creactionists instsist on banging the drum from a book that was written two thousand years ago.

I'm just asking if you, personally, would feel foolish for having argued so adamantly for Big Bang.

no of course not, if it was based on evidence I hadn't previously known. If MADE BY GOD is written on the dark side of the Moon then thats evidence I previously didn't know

I'm just asking if you, personally, would feel foolish for having argued so adamantly for Big Bang.

No. Are you trying to prove a point of some kind with this? The way science works is, that a 'theory' is called a 'theory' because it is unproven. From what we know at present, the Big Bang is a likely scenario that has some evidence to support it (unlike certain other theories). If another scenario came along that had even stronger evidence, people would check the evidence and simply say "oh well, this looks more promising" and have done with it. Anybody who chooses a 'side' based on blind faith and sticks to it as though arguing with them is a personal vendetta isn't someone who uses science.

I'm just asking if you, personally, would feel foolish for having argued so adamantly for Big Bang.

No. Because those arguing the Big Bang today are arguing as much for the validity of science as they are for the theory itself.

If science says tomorrow that they've got empirical evidence that says their new theory fits better, I'll take a look at the evidence and see if it does. And if it does, I'm likely to stand by the new theory.

No. Are you trying to prove a point of some kind with this?
No, just curious. It's just a thought that occurred to me as I was watching a bit on a Big Bang documentary on Space channel.

The way science works is, that a 'theory' is called a 'theory' because it is unproven. From what we know at present, the Big Bang is a likely scenario that has some evidence to support it (unlike certain other theories). If another scenario came along that had even stronger evidence, people would check the evidence and simply say "oh well, this looks more promising" and have done with it. Anybody who chooses a 'side' based on blind faith and sticks to it as though arguing with them is a personal vendetta isn't someone who uses science.
But this response denies that people *do* choose sides; it's human nature to do so. Are scientists feelingless drones? ;) No, they aren't. They're as big and huggable as the next guy, and they can feel a mistake has been made in arguing a side even as they recognize that that side can change out from under them at any moment. I was just wondering how they'd feel in this speculative scenario.

personally i am on the side of the big bang theory. in my sophmore year of college i took an astronomy class, (which was excellent), and the evidence put forth was convincing. if something new came along and shows it is a better explination then so be it. if that happened its just another thumbs up to science for making more scientific breakthroughs...

If science, tomorrow, came up with a better explanation than the Big Bang, would all you who argued so heatedly for it in this forum feel foolish?Only if I still stuck to the Big Bang. :D
(By "better" I take that we have more evidence supporting the new theory than the Big Bang)

No because that's how science works. It's self-correcting. If evidence is found that proves a theory wrong that theory is scrapped in favor of one that better fits the facts.

No because that's how science works. It's self-correcting. If evidence is found that proves a theory wrong that theory is scrapped in favor of one that better fits the facts.

Eh, very seldom are theories 'scrapped' at least in modern science. Most theories nowadays are capable of explaining a particular regime very well, and then they are generalized and expanded.

Eh, very seldom are theories 'scrapped' at least in modern science. Most theories nowadays are capable of explaining a particular regime very well, and then they are generalized and expanded.
Right, but if facts become available that make a theory completely impossible, then it's scrapped.

Eh, very seldom are theories 'scrapped' at least in modern science. Most theories nowadays are capable of explaining a particular regime very well, and then they are generalized and expanded.

still a discovery could be made that changes how we look at the universe and our world, and it may cause a theory like the big bang to be scrapped...

No, just curious. It's just a thought that occurred to me as I was watching a bit on a Big Bang documentary on Space channel.


But this response denies that people *do* choose sides; it's human nature to do so. Are scientists feelingless drones? ;) No, they aren't. They're as big and huggable as the next guy, and they can feel a mistake has been made in arguing a side even as they recognize that that side can change out from under them at any moment. I was just wondering how they'd feel in this speculative scenario.

You do make a good point. While the standard response is that science is all about proving theories wrong and re-examining evidence, it's more complex in real life. Scientists who have built their whole careers around a theory are usually pretty unwilling to see it disproven as they have a lot to lose. They'd go from being an expert to being behind current thinking.

There are a couple of other problems. Things are rarely clear-cut in science, so there are constant debates over which model works better. The older scientists are jusitified in defending their position against new theories, but there is a point where the evidence is really in favour of the new theory. However, there are politics in the world of science, and the 'mainstream' theory may not necessarily be based on logic.

(By "better" I take that we have more evidence supporting the new theory than the Big Bang)
Right.

If science, tomorrow, came up with a better explanation than the Big Bang, would all you who argued so heatedly for it in this forum feel foolish?


hehe glad i didn't argue. :)

and please stop making fun of religious people, while I am not religious myself, i see no reason to make fun of those who are. :rolleyes:

still a discovery could be made that changes how we look at the universe and our world, and it may cause a theory like the big bang to be scrapped...

Right, but if facts become available that make a theory completely impossible, then it's scrapped.

Very true. Though, scrapping a theory takes as much time as creating it.

and please stop making fun of religious people, while I am not religious myself, i see no reason to make fun of those who are. :rolleyes:
:confused: I didn't make fun of religious people. I am religious, myself.

:confused: I didn't make fun of religious people. I am religious, myself.
not you, but someone did on the first page.