Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Yes that describes it but what do we have that predict the Big Bang,
different types of science have different methods for ascertaining evidence. Astronomy is notorious for being difficult, if not impossible, to test empirically through predictable observation.
In this way, astronomical theories shouldn't be interpreted the same way as, say, chemistry or cellular biology, but rather more akin to history and evolutionary science. It is the best interprative framework that exists for the evidence we have.
So yes, it is a patchwork of findings woven into a tapestry, and is not a testable empirical phenomenon, but no, it is not simply "religion" for science. While it is not directly testable, at this point, testable and repeatable results and observations do lend it credability, and currently there are no theories or facts that are irreconcilable with it (as would be required in the philosophy of science for the theory to change, see: Kuhn).
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
what do we have predicted by the Big Bang?
Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation is, as far as I know, the best evidence of the big bang.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation
however, many observations, such as the uniform nature of planets moving away from the Earth, redshift, etc, all support the Big Bang hypothesis.
Originally posted by One Free Man
Seriously, how can you not know how the scientific method works?
irony, or very apt sarcasm
Originally posted by inimalist
different types of science have different methods for ascertaining evidence. Astronomy is notorious for being difficult, if not impossible, to test empirically through predictable observation.In this way, astronomical theories shouldn't be interpreted the same way as, say, chemistry or cellular biology, but rather more akin to history and evolutionary science. It is the best interprative framework that exists for the evidence we have.
So yes, it is a patchwork of findings woven into a tapestry, and is not a testable empirical phenomenon, but no, it is not simply "religion" for science. While it is not directly testable, at this point, testable and repeatable results and observations do lend it credability, and currently there are no theories or facts that are irreconcilable with it (as would be required in the philosophy of science for the theory to change, see: Kuhn).
In astronomy, one predicts observations. In biology, eg, one predicts results from manipulation of variables. Since either could occur with equal regularity, what are the philosophical reasons for seeing the latter as "harder" evidence than the former?
Originally posted by inimalistSure we have credibility and probability, but the scientists see something, and they attribute it to some theory about something. "oop the planets are getting farther apart. Let's give that to the big bang." what? You say you can't make another element out of a noble gas? Uhhhhhh welll, we could imperically test that little fact and find out, but uhhhh it'd destroy the universe.
different types of science have different methods for ascertaining evidence. Astronomy is notorious for being difficult, if not impossible, to test empirically through predictable observation.In this way, astronomical theories shouldn't be interpreted the same way as, say, chemistry or cellular biology, but rather more akin to history and evolutionary science. It is the best interprative framework that exists for the evidence we have.
So yes, it is a patchwork of findings woven into a tapestry, and is not a testable empirical phenomenon, but no, it is not simply "religion" for science. While it is not directly testable, at this point, testable and repeatable results and observations do lend it credability, and currently there are no theories or facts that are irreconcilable with it (as would be required in the philosophy of science for the theory to change, see: Kuhn).
Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation is, as far as I know, the best evidence of the big bang.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation
however, many observations, such as the uniform nature of planets moving away from the Earth, redshift, etc, all support the Big Bang hypothesis.
irony, or very apt sarcasm