The Big Bang and Darwinism

[Jimthered]

The Big Bang and Darwinism . Accepted facts or still just theories ?

In order for something to be considered scientific fact , then what criteria does it have to meet ?

Apparently , in order for a theory to be considered all of the following.

Consistent (internally and externally)
Parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations, see Occam's Razor)
Useful (describes, explains and predicts observable phenomena)
Empirically testable and falsifiable (see Falsifiability)
Based on multiple observations, often in the form of controlled, repeated experiments
Correctable and dynamic (changes are made as new data are discovered)
Progressive (achieves all that previous theories have and more)
Provisional or tentative (admits that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty)


So I have some questions then.

1/ Is Darwins theory provisional or tentative ?

2/ How can something be consistent yet progressive ?

3/ Does Steven Hawkings theory that "it can be shown that information crossing the event horizon of a black hole is lost to our universe, and that thus all black holes are identical beyond their mass" neet the "Empirically testable and falsifiable " and the "Based on multiple observations" criteria ?

[Hollowman]

3/ Does Steven Hawkings theory that "it can be shown that information crossing the event horizon of a black hole is lost to our universe, and that thus all black holes are identical beyond their mass" neet the "Empirically testable and falsifiable " and the "Based on multiple observations" criteria ?



Mr Hawking has since re-evaluated his stance on this.

[Dalglish]

Hawking is on record as being a Depeche MOde fan

And folk had the nerve to say he was all wheels....

[dww]

2/ How can something be consistent yet progressive ?


Clearly the consistancy is internally in terms of logic and external in the sense that it must correctly link to the data it claims to describe. The external consistancy to other theries is more complicated. A good example of what is meant here comes from looking at relativity (for the sake of ease I will talk about Special Relativity). Basically the equations used by Einstein to describe motion close to the speed of light reduce mathematically to those of Newton (the previous theory which had explained many everyday phenomena) in the limit of small velocity compared to the speed of light. Thus the Newtonian equations are merely a special case of a more general theory. The theory of special relativity is thus consistant and also obviously progressive as it describes motion close to the speed of light which is incorrectly handled by Newton.

[Kronenburg1892]

M theory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M_theory

Best intelectual hang-over cure I know.:crackoff:

[Nicey]

As Hollow man says "we" have been reconsidering our thoughts on blackholes over recent years. Up until very recently they were only ever seen on the chalk boards of Theoretical Cosmologists. The Big Bang is the main accepted theory on how the Universe was created, but there is a caveat, because our laws of science break down under ultra extreme conditions like the beginning of the Universe or inside a blackhole, we really do not have any solid data and all of it is theory.

[Nicey]

M theory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M_theory

Best intelectual hang-over cure I know.:crackoff:


Just flipped over to have a quick butchers at this and I have not read it all so perhaps i missed something. But I thought it was called M Theory because it basically suggest two dimensional membranes clash and create the universe we know, not because it is a "Master" theory although I believe it theoretically comes close to unifying General Relativity and Quantum mechanics.

The only Problem with string theory and its many variations is so far, we are so far off being able to carry out and observable experiments that can support the data its not funny. Someone once said that String theory is a 22 century scientific theory accidentally stumbled upon now. We are finding it very hard to make nor tail of it. All though I think with the general ideas behind this theory we are on the right track, in terms of particle wave functions f

[Kronenburg1892]

What's good about this one, is that it takes an extra dimension to explain the five indipendant string theories, which intern pull together Quantom and Relativistic theories.

When you read into teleportation experiments http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3576594.stm which use entangled particles, two particles which have the same 'spin' to transmit data via combining one (the carrier) with the signal (the modulator) to effect the other under 'spin' (the result of the modulator and carrier). You start to see similarities and how 'branes' may describe this phenomonem.

It sort of makes sense.

[SouthAfricaRed]

Trust Me - All Life begins with a BIG BANG :)

[Nicey]

Trust Me - All Life begins with a BIG BANG :)


LOL best thing I have read in years :rock:

[Jimthered]

Trust Me - All Life begins with a BIG BANG :)

Having now been totally confused by the other answers I will go with that theory. :haha:

[Jimthered]

The external consistancy to other theries is more complicated.

I thought the internal bit was complicated enough !

[Jimthered]

because our laws of science break down under ultra extreme conditions like the beginning of the Universe or inside a blackhole, we really do not have any solid data and all of it is theory.

Thank you Mr Nicey, this is what I was trying to get at.

This physics stuff does my head in. I have been reading up on it and I just cant get the concept of the big bang theory . Well not yet anyway :)

[Neil Young]

First, a word on nomenclature: scientific theories are not the same as scientific facts. Theories are constructions that help us explain facts. Good ones (i.e. ones that meet the tests you mention) become widely accepted not fact.

This is not to say that theories are somehow less true than facts. This is a common mistake - I think it was Reagan who said Darwinism is "only a theory, it's not a fact."

Talking of Darwinism, I think it passes the tests you make. It fits perfectly with (and indeed requires) discoveries that were made later (like Mendelian genetics) and explains other processes for which the theory was not originally intended (e.g. the evolution of the individual brain through stimulation of synaptic pathways) suggesting that it contains a very deep truth about how life works.

The Big Bang seems to fit with many later discoveries (e.g. background microwave radiation) but there is always the possibility that we are finding supporting evidence because we are looking for it (see one of my posts about Newtonian physics in Nicey's weird and wonderful "Ever Feel Small" thread if you can be bothered).

Incidentally M-Theory was recently attacked a theoretical dead-end by some eminent scientist or other and the jury is still out on it.

[Guest]

First, a word on nomenclature: scientific theories are not the same as scientific facts. Theories are constructions that help us explain facts. Good ones (i.e. ones that meet the tests you mention) become widely accepted not fact.

This is not to say that theories are somehow less true than facts. This is a common mistake - I think it was Reagan who said Darwinism is "only a theory, it's not a fact."

Talking of Darwinism, I think it passes the tests you make. It fits perfectly with (and indeed requires) discoveries that were made later (like Mendelian genetics) and explains other processes for which the theory was not originally intended (e.g. the evolution of the individual brain through stimulation of synaptic pathways) suggesting that it contains a very deep truth about how life works.

The Big Bang seems to fit with many later discoveries (e.g. background microwave radiation) but there is always the possibility that we are finding supporting evidence because we are looking for it (see one of my posts about Newtonian physics in Nicey's weird and wonderful "Ever Feel Small" thread if you can be bothered).

Incidentally M-Theory was recently attacked a theoretical dead-end by some eminent scientist or other and the jury is still out on it.

That's a succinct analysis. What's your job description Neil ?

[Neil Young]

That's a succinct analysis. What's your job description Neil ?
When it comes to this science stuff I'm no expert.

[Guest]

When it comes to this science stuff I'm no expert.

The way your rationalize and organize your arguments made me think you were clued up as regards to these things. :handshake:

[Hollowman]

Jesus. He'll never get his head through fucking door now.

[Neil Young]

Jesus. He'll never get his head through fucking door now.
:haha:

It's only fredo FFS.

[Neil Young]

The way your rationalize and organize your arguments made me think you were clued up as regards to these things. :handshake:
Cheers. Reading (the activity, not the place) is a wonderful thing.
:handshake:

[Red_Polo]

First, a word on nomenclature: scientific theories are not the same as scientific facts. Theories are constructions that help us explain facts. Good ones (i.e. ones that meet the tests you mention) become widely accepted not fact.

This is not to say that theories are somehow less true than facts. This is a common mistake - I think it was Reagan who said Darwinism is "only a theory, it's not a fact."


Confusingly though, all facts are ultimately just theories too :jaw: :o :shootmenow:

[Nicey]

Yep and almost everything we believe to be accepted scientific facts are wrong or more accurately soon to be updated with a more accurate understanding

[JRG]

I thought thta Gregor Mendel's work was largely discredites as he ahd manipulated some of the results of hos experiments on fruit flies (drosophila). If this is the case, then the genetic bsis of natural selection is flawed?

[Paul.S]

Tell ya one thing...

I go for this.... not some crusty old bloke making us all in 7 days. (well, 6 then lazing on the last)

[Nicey]

The ID people are now trying to say like everything else in the Bible that the 7 Days were metaphorical like you know the way we said the world was flat we that was a metaphor for round same with the earth being the center of the universe adam and ever, parting of the oceans.. Its all just Metaphors dumb ass ... Jesus !!! oh yeah he was probally a metaphor too

[Hollowman]

I thought thta Gregor Mendel's work was largely discredites as he ahd manipulated some of the results of hos experiments on fruit flies (drosophila). If this is the case, then the genetic bsis of natural selection is flawed?

The results of Mendel's own works are almost irrelevant though given that so many people have reproduced his experiments with similar results. He has been criticised for possibly censoring his work to fit his confirmation bias, but genetic evolution is hardly a house of cards that falls down if you remove his results from the picture.

[Neil Young]

Confusingly though, all facts are ultimately just theories too :jaw: :o :shootmenow:
I can see that's true in the sense that there is a difference between an event and our conception and description of it although I can't help feeling it's all getting a little tight in the Theories set.

Forgive my ignorance but isn't there a distinction between a description of something that we believe, based on observation and/or experiment, happens in the real world and an explanation that attempts to systematise these events? I would have called the former "a fact" and the latter "a theory" but is that false distinction and if so how?

[Red_Polo]

I can see that's true in the sense that there is a difference between an event and our conception and description of it although I can't help feeling it's all getting a little tight in the Theories set.

Forgive my ignorance but isn't there a distinction between a description of something that we believe, based on observation and/or experiment, happens in the real world and an explanation that attempts to systematise these events? I would have called the former "a fact" and the latter "a theory" but is that false distinction and if so how?

Your distinction between fact and theory was wholly correct (allowing for the metaphysical assumptions that are the basis of all knowledge). I was just being a pedant to point out an irony.

[Neil Young]

Ah, thank f**k for that. It's hard to keep up with changes in thinking.

:handshake:

[The incredible igor]

[QUOTE=Dalglish;249049]Hawking is on record as being a Depeche MOde fan
QUOTE]

:rock: rock on stevie

[The incredible igor]

evolution is accepted as fact due to over whelming amount of evidence. not quite sure if that means darwinism is:)

not sure about the big bang. Still theory i reckon but you can probably rule out the creationism counter argument for both :crackoff:

[Jimthered]

Having suffered a haemorage reading up on all this stuff, I have decided to stick with "Shankly's theory". Everything worthwile recording can be found at Anfield , and the world was created in 1892.

Everything esle is a crock of crap.

[Neil Young]

Having suffered a haemorage reading up on all this stuff, I have decided to stick with "Shankly's theory". Everything worthwile recording can be found at Anfield , and the world was created in 1892.

Everything esle is a crock of crap.
:haha:

You're probably right. :handshake: