Quote:
Originally Posted by Extropia DaSilva
And until these ideas are turned into something more substantial, it is going to be hard to argue the case that study time and research money be spent on an alternative to the BB (particularly when, according to cosmologystatement.org, 'funding comes from only a few sources, and supporters of BB dominate all the peer-review committees that control the funds').
|
Well, I wouldn't look to "cosmologystatement.org" for an unbiased view of the situation.
I don't think the funding panels are nearly as closed-minded or dogmatic as you seem to imagine. And I think it's wrong to characterize participants in funding panels as "supporters of [the big bang]." They are supporters of science and of ideas that are supported by evidence.
Who are these funding panels? For the largest funding organization, the National Science Foundation, funding panel members are just researchers from around the country invited to review proposals. Yes, the proposals they choose to fund aren't going to be "insubstantial." They have to show
promise. Proposals that are "against the mainstream" do not get tossed out thoughtlessly. They may be given
more of a chance, because panelists are not particularly interested in verifying something we already know. Innovative is good. But a proposal must also show that there is a reasonable chance for success.