- richard moody jr
- Berne, NY
- United States
This conversation is closed.
Is the role of the non specialist in technical matters useful?
As as geologist when people talk about an expanding earth in the National Philosophy Alliance seriously, my immediate reaction is that it is "crackpottery". I have stood on the floor of an ocean that predated the Atlantic Ocean and know beyond a reasonable doubt that an expanding earth beyond a fraction of a percent is impossible---no mineral assemblage will support it.
When I am told that there are at least 30 data sets that require adjustable parameters to explain the Big Bang Theory what do I think as a non-specialist?
The Big Bang Theory has proven to be perhaps the most spectacularly maladjusted predictive theory ever; it has predicted practically none of the major feautures of the universe from dark energy to dark matter to inflation, etc. Instead the theory is so malleable that any set of facts (data) are simply required to fit the theory with some ad hoc suggestion. While it is true that some of these unexpected phenomenon received support later, it does not alter the fact that they were not predicted.
This is a dangerous precedent. What if other branches of the sciences started formulating theories without substantial support, and never made testable predictions that came true?
The single greatest criticism of the BBT is that according to an opponent, it has never made a prediction that would falsify the theory if proven true and that is a damning indictment of the theory.