Quote:
Originally Posted by Nereid
(bold added)
I think several of those who have posted in this thread, as well as many of the "science paper writers" will be astonished, amazed, angry, bemused, ... to read this. I know I am.
In fact, I thought Ken G (to take but one example) took great care to draw a bright line between the theories and the "real thing"!
So, once again, the disconnect seems to be between what you are looking for wrt science and "prima facie case[s]" and the way science - including astrophysics - is actually done.
|
First, my present thread started in response to this poll:
CMB in our Dynamic Universe
Second, I submit that science magazine, discovery etc., who have no way to write anything if they don't get it from this community, regularly speak with certainty about theories that you just right there claimed that no one was certain about or represented certainty about. I think also, that casual readers who don't work with astronomy in any regular way have no idea that there is not conclusive evidence behind these theories.
It's important that the lack of evidence for the theory be more accurately conveyed in public. Y'all are out convincing people Iraq was behind 9/11, because no lay person has any idea that there is not laboratory or any other kind of verification for the big bang etc. theories. And even if I'm just a philosopher of science, I'm still a real person alerting you to a real harm that you are, intentionally or not, doing to your neighbors.
Also, if not for a fundamental certainty, what's with all the hatred of the electric universe theory? I mean, "magnetic fields are fundamentally coupled with electric ones, and absent a bar magnet, their only cause is the matter at hand being an element in an electric circuit carrying electric current" is a prima facie case that there is electric current flowing through the sun and the Earth. It may be wrong, if disproved by evidence, but at least it's a logical argument.