JavaScript is required to use Bungie.net

Forums

originally posted in: Science is now a religion.
Edited by The Cellar Door: 7/20/2015 2:25:31 AM
3
Theories do not become laws as a form of validation. You've effectively said nothing but a misunderstanding of the classification system the science community uses. Also, the counters to the Big Bang really only concern little inconsistencies in the theory, other than that it's truth-value exists within empiricism. So it's not really "just an idea." Sure, questioning everything we know is the support beam holding up the scientific mind, and keeps it sustained over time, however it's just silly to completely dismiss something with as much evidence as the Big Bang due to small inconsistencies. It's something you do with the preconception that the Big Bang should be dismissed due to personal ideology. My point is, surely question it, but understand what is being said in the theory is pretty rock solid until we get to the extremes, such as the beginning of the universe, but for something that's only been being discussed for 80 years, our knowledge on the manner and the support for the theory has only grown. I'm just clarifying what seems to me is a misunderstanding.
English

Posting in language:

 

Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • [quote]Theories do not become laws as a form of validation.[/quote] I'm curious as into where I said that [quote]Also, the counters to the Big Bang really only concern little inconsistencies in the theory, other than that it's truth-value exists within empiricism. So it's not really "just an idea."[/quote] I was mainly just using it as an example but there are actually some massive flaws within the big bang theory. Though to be fair a lot of these flaws come from a lack of knowledge and not from it being a faulty theory. [quote]Sure, questioning everything we know is the support beam holding up the scientific mind, and keeps it sustained over time, however it's just silly to completely dismiss something with as much evidence as the Big Bang due to small inconsistencies.[/quote] I'm even more curios as into where I said dismiss things with almost no evidence. [quote]My point is, surely question it, but understand what is being said in the theory is pretty rock solid until we get to the extremes, such as the beginning of the universe, but for something that's only been being discussed for 80 years, our knowledge on the manner and the support for the theory has only grown.[/quote] Again, I only used the big bang theory as an example. I actually said I'm the op that I believe in it that it probably can't be disproved [quote]I'm just clarifying what seems to me is a misunderstanding.[/quote] No u

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • [quote]The big bang isn't law. It's just a widely accepted idea in the scientific community.[/quote] It seemed here that you were implying a law being the supreme leader in the land of scientific classification, when it has the same truth-value as a scientific theory. A law is just very consistent because it describes phenomena instead of explains. I just think the Big Bang was a bad example. You could have done something like abiogenesis or something, just because the evidence supporting it is overwhelmingly more supportive than the evidence against it is refuting. Maybe I just misread you, but overall I do agree that people shouldn't just accept an idea without understanding it's basis. It's just annoying when people don't accept an idea because they don't understand its basis.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • Edited by SSDxCrunchyWolf: 7/20/2015 4:38:01 PM
    [quote][quote]The big bang isn't law. It's just a widely accepted idea in the scientific community.[/quote][/quote] [quote]It seemed here that you were implying a law being the supreme leader in the land of scientific classification, when it has the same truth-value as a scientific theory. A law is just very consistent because it describes phenomena instead of explains.[/quote] Actually when I said law, I didn't scientific law. I meant the saying law. Not even kidding. [quote]I just think the Big Bang was a bad example. You could have done something like abiogenesis or something, just because the evidence supporting it is overwhelmingly more supportive than the evidence against it is refuting.[/quote] It was a bad example.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

You are not allowed to view this content.
;
preload icon
preload icon
preload icon