Quote:
Originally Posted by rcglinsk
You are a master of semantics Nereid. I fell into one of your traps. That is a mistake I shall endeavor to not make again.
The burden of proof is yours because you take utility from society for your research. Go economics.
The issue is the big bang theory and whether people should walk around with the idea in their head that the universe started as it describes. How does an interested party test to see if the theory is wrong? It can't possibly be by a semantic web starting with biology.
|
rcglinsk, this is the Q&A section of BAUT, where questions about contemporary astronomy, astrophysics, etc can be asked, and BAUT members free to provide answers from the perspective of contemporary astronomy, astrophysics, etc.
If you'd like to discuss the extent to which cosmology is a science in the same way linguistics, chemistry, geology, economics, ecology, ... etc are sciences, please say so.
If you'd like to know something about cosmology, within the framework of that field of research as a science, then please ask.
However, if your questions about cosmology turn out to be (almost entirely) about the
nature of science (and not about the specifics of particular observations, theories, models, etc in cosmology), the sooner we all get clear about this, the shorter this thread will be (and the less confusion generated thereby).
For avoidance of doubt,
Nereid has no "
burden of proof", not least because science doesn't do "proof" (as we discussed earlier in a different BAUT thread ...).