Quote:
Originally Posted by Spaceman Spiff
I'll add to that.
|
Thank you. Excellent addition.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by rcglinsk
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ozzy
I'm not very knowledgeable on astrophysics (thats why I read Q & A), but as for why BB is the dominant theory, this is because it is the 'best fit' for the observable phenomena. That doesnt mean its ideal, or that sometime in the future a new theory wont replace it. No-one is saying you have believe it, but it is the "best fit" at this point in time.
|
That line of reasoning has always struck me as a form of: Argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument to ignorance). This is the fallacy of assuming something is true simply because it hasn't been proven false... |
It's not anything like that!
Did you miss the part about observations? When you're working with observations, you can't just be making any old assumptions. "Best fit" means the theory lines up well with the observations, i.e., the observations
support the theory.
So, if you want to speak of how cosmologists attempt to model our cosmos in accordance with the totality of the physical observations thereof, you should remove from your sentence the words assuming, true, proven, and false, and instead say:
The so-called Big Bang Theory is a complex, hierarchical model, or set of models, all based on corresponding to what we see, observe, and measure. The sophistication of today's observations places sometimes severe constraints on how a number of these models must be described.