(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.

I think there is a problem with your taxonomy. You include in one big group under the label "science" things I would split as follows:

Linguistics - The vowel shift
History and P/E - The great depression (at least the Europeans always lump politics and economics, good taxonomy there)
Science - The P-T extinction - geology, cosmology, (biology, chemistry, thermodynamics etc.)

I agree that science requires different treatment from linguistics and history. The key differences are that people were around for linguistics and history, and that the science is certain: people did it by making choices. Why would people decide to do something is a different sort of question entirely from scientific questions.

rcglinsk, you're wrong, big time ... and we covered this in an earlier exchange.

The "rotational velocities of visible objects" are only estimated by "applying a lot of other theories"!

It seems that, for you, some theories are quite "the real thing" (rotational velocities, visible objects, centripetal force, mass, ...), but others are not.

Or do you not realise just how inextricably intertwined these are, with theories? If I may recommend something: please re-read Ken G's post, very, very carefully.
Did you read the links provided, re "distance"?

Do you have any questions concerning the disconnect between your (apparent) intuitive understanding of "distance" and what the term means in astrophysics?

Thanks for this ... you have confirmed what I suspected: one aspect of your questions has to do with the difference between what you perceive as science and what scientists actually do.

Clarification: my reference to the Great Depression was intended to refer solely to economics, as a science that is no different in its core methods from cosmology.

But let's continue with the demarcation exercise ...

To what extent is the study of human origins science (in your view)? As in the evolution of the species Homo sapiens?

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.

What I meant was that "Argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument to ignorance)", and/or its applicability in science, is different than in the courtroom/legal example you gave.

For example, we could discuss the criteria that one should (ideally) use to assess the extent to which a particular set of observations actually tests a particular hypothesis.

Or we could build on Ken G's post and take a deeper look at the purpose (or objectives) of astrophysics.

And so on.

Whatever we choose to discuss, I'm pretty sure we'll conclude that this kind of logic fallacy ("Argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument to ignorance)") is quite circumscribed in terms of its applicability and usefulness.

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.

You seem to have something to say but not want to say it. What is it you are talking about? What criteria do you want people to use to decide if the big bang theory is false?

That doesn't help your argument. That is another reason to think the mass estimates are wrong.

I only ask that when talking about "astrophysical distance" one not use the same sort of context as when talking about distance. One is a very complicated story about a whole slew of variables, the other is distance. Don't go around saying "this galaxy is this many light years away." That use of the word "is" refers to another word lingering there anonymously: distance, the real thing. If you are not painfully clear that you mean - as far as I can tell - an un-disprovable theory, no one who is not a professional astrophysicist or a philosopher of science is going to know what you meant.

Just this one, very quickly ...

It's not science, and is quite blunt about it.

There's an interesting thread in the JREF Forum's Science, Mathematics, Medicine and Technology section, called Plasma Cosmology - woo or not. The thread's extremely long, but in the end the conclusion is stark: "electric universe theory"* is anti-science.

Huh?!?!?

I'll quote the key part, because it's so remarkable:
In other words, this so-called theory rejects, by fiat, the theory of General Relativity (GR).

Note well: GR is "not accepted" not because it has been tested and a fatal inconsistency between theory and observations clearly demonstrated; nor is GR rejected because it is incapable of being tested ... GR is rejected because, well, just because.

There's more, of course, such as the assumption that "the universe is nearly all plasma", and the astonishing failure of logic in the conclusion from this assumption; if you want to present, and defend, this anti-science, please start a new thread in the ATM section.

* "Plasma Cosmology" is, to all intents and purposes, the same as "electric universe theory"

There is no such thing as absolute certainty in science. That isn't how science works. However, science magazines (popular or otherwise) don't bother mentioning that in every issue.

What theories? What level of evidence would you classify as "conclusive"?

Again: Lack of evidence for what theory? It seems you've gone from a philosophical point about "certainty" to some argument that some theory lacks evidence.

First: Not a subject for discussion on this board. Second: That sentence doesn't make sense no matter how I read it.

Remember your question about evidence? The EU idea (not "theory" as it doesn't rise to the level of theory) is dismissed for lack of evidence.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

Its simpler than that.

If you think or have some idea, being it your own or other.
That is some way contradicting the current widely held balief...
The Big Bang. Is supported by the evidence we see. Is verified as the most logical assumption for what is the very start point of this universe.

Then lets here it.
You might consider the ATM ( against the mainstream ) as that is what it is.

The scientific community does not agree lightly. If evidence of other forces at work are to be found, We are listening. That is the very nature of science, and why it is so wildly accepted as the way forward.
I would not be alone in expressing some annoyance felt by those who so quickly say. " That is all wrong" but do not seem to mention why.

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 ...).

Mainstream theories do not deny that electrical and magnetic effects exist. The "electric universe" theories go much further, giving absurdly over-complicated explanations that generally aren't necessary in the first place and don't bear much resemblance to reality.

The core dynamo is electromagnetic. It is not self sustaining, it is sustained by the convection currents in the core as it slowly freezes and as radioactive decay adds heat. These fluid currents produce electrical currents which influence the fluid currents in various complicated ways, and the overall result at the surface and above is a reasonably even dipole field. This is why it is called a dynamo, it is an electrical generator which uses the electrical power it generates to produce the magnetic field which it uses to convert mechanical power to electrical power...very much like modern large generators. It just requires a small initial imbalance somewhere...a difference in charge, some small magnetic field, all easily created by the heat and mechanical action of the convection currents. No lightning from the universe required.

I didn't say anything about that. I talked about the Earth's magnetic field arising by Earth being an element in an electric circuit. Does that violate general relativity? Or do you have to extrapolate from scale to scale to scale to produce a contradiction to GR?

Also, The EU folks agree with you fundamentally

http://www.thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/guest.htm

How does GR explain the changes in how a pendulum swings when it's under a lunar eclipse?

The deal about Iraq is that people came to conclude Iraq was behind 9/11 because people they took to be authorities used words, at best, irresponsibly. Remember the Bush people going "how could anything we have said convinced people Iraq was behind 9/11? We never said that."

The theory is un-disprovable. That's a reason to discount it all together.

Again: Politics is not a subject for this board. And you managed to miss the questions, which were about your approach to science.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

So the theory is provable?

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

Why do you think big bang research should be funded in any way?

Yet if we try to replicate the process in a laboratory we fail. Why?

My analogy is clear in my opinion. It is a political example relevant to this scientific discussion.

Nothing is provable right? Isn't that the first rule of the scientific method, all we do is disprove?

I was referring to the double negative in your statement, "The theory is un-disprovable" which simplifies to "The theory is provable."

Anyway, there isn't absolute proof in science, but there are degrees of supporting evidence. Scientific theories are very well supported by evidence.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

How do I disprove the big bang theory?

Sorry, I was unclear ...

"mass", the very concept itself, is just as much soaked in theory as "an estimation of how things were 13 billion years ago"!

This often comes as a big surprise to many people; somehow the absolute reality, theory-free, nature of "mass", "centrifugal force", and so on is fixed, along with similar beliefs concerning "atoms", "electrons", etc ... I recommend a re-reading of Ken G's post.
So?

What difference is there with anything else in science, whether it's "vowel" or "electron" or "species" or "mass"?

Why pick on little ol' cosmology?

As with any theory, you could do that if you could show that one or more of the major lines of evidence supporting it was wrong.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

How about making observations that are inconsistent with the theory (as long as they are independently validated and verified, and are pertinent, in terms of the scope of the observations and the theory)?

Or you could show that the theory contains intolerable internal inconsistencies.

Or that it is inconsistent with well-established theories where their respective domains of applicability overlap.

In other words, just the same way you'd "disprove" any other scientific theory ...

I agree. If we were trying to deprive a citizen of their freedom based n te BBT, a savvy defence lawyer could probably convince a jury that it was not beyond reasonable doubt.

But we are not tryig to lock anyone up. We are trying to explain the observed phenomena and make predictions, The BBT is the best explanation that the best astrophysical minds have come up with... so far.

I think that most of the general public are aware that when something is presented in the media as a "theory", it is an explanation of phenomena that is accepted by a large body of experts as the best available explanation at this point in time.

However, many are not aware of the difference between a hypothesis and a theory. I could hypothesize that moon is made of swiss cheese based on the observable holes, but unless a large body of experts agree it would never be given the status of "theory". A non-scientific publication might call it the "swiss cheese theory (SCT)", but they would be wrong.

The best brains on the planet have been working on this for years. (The BBT nt the SCT).
The LHC offers to enlighten us a bit more. As they have had to build the largest and most complicated machne on the planet to further our knowledge, i doubt that there is a simpe test that interested lay persons could conduct, that could prove or disprove the BBT. (I dont want to blow up the microwave again)

You've alluded to eletricity/magnetism several times in this thread. Are you really asking "Why is te BBT theory more credible than the electric field theory?"

I will leave that to better brains than mine.

Because that little corner of cosmology is non-disprovable conjecture. Whereas a tremendous number of ideas regarding electrons, light, atoms and whatnot are based on experiments and other methods of disproving.

Think about it this way. Evolution is disprovable. Intelligent design is inherently non-disprovable. How do I disprove the big bang theory? When a court considered whether teaching intelligent design in school was constitutional under the freedom of religion clause one of the key turning points was when the government lawyer asked the intelligent design advocate "what experiment do I conduct to try to disprove the theory of intelligent design?" In good part because the witness had no coherent answer the judge ruled teaching intelligent design in school unconstitutional.