Maggie's Farm

Six posts below this one we find "Science is often flawed." Cosmology is perhaps the best example of this thesis.

Currently among the growing litany of accepted theories that have become tantamount to "science" and therefore dogmatic adherence, are:

The Big Bang.
The expanding universe and the nature of red shift.
Black holes.
The gravitational Standard Model of the Universe.
Star origin.
Galactic spin.
The "Multiverse".
Antimatter and the nature of mass and matter as they relate to gravity.

The list goes on.

The article linked here is very long but confused and overstated - too much narrative and not enough emerging theory. Watch for alternate findings and revelations that refute much of "settled science" theory of the the last seventy five or so odd years, and watch it coming from places other than the established sciences, per se.

Science is often flawed. Nowhere more than cosmology, the arena for philosophers.

I meant to add that each of the items on that list appear to be failing as theory. And if theory goes, it's probably wise to not faithfully hitch too many "scientific" wagons to them...

Too narrowly defined. Of course science - as in Big Science - is dogmatic. And it's corrupt and wrong and misled and wrongly directed. It is, after all, a human endeavor at least as subject to foible and wrong interest as any can be. I can give you encyclopedias of evidence, and you can easily find them for yourself.

As I also said, six posts below this one we find "Science is often flawed." Cosmology is perhaps the best example of this thesis. The Standard Model of the Universe is wrong, it certainly appears to science but not Science, as is the nature of the old quantum mechanics, referring to the pre-mid century relativists, etc. Subquantum is one competing theory, and silliness like superstrings have been or will be discarded.

Too, see your own litany of wrong-minded and profoundly dogmatic sciences. Now expand it. A lot. Science is in a crisis of its own making.

On the other hand, if you define science as only that which is valid, good luck establishing that set of proofs. They cannot exist.

Probably you never argue when you lose...because you're preoccupied with calling names over your shoulder.

The notion that scientism or materialism or a thousand other fanatical errors carried out under the rubric of Science! while science proves them wrong is preposterous on its face.

But carry on.

Ah, so being "unfamiliar with the issues" means what, that there are issues? But I thought the science was settled as long as you got to define what those sciences were (that could have no tinge of dogmatic error on them, says you) and what they weren't.

That list in my first post? Every one of those is under valid, highly scientific, growing suspicion, that being the way of cosmological and astrophysical theories since their inception. They and more are being found to have holes the mainstream cosmologists cannot patch anymore. Nine out of ten related recent press releases indicate "bafflement"' and "rewrite the theories" and "against everything we know" as reliable as the clock ticks.

So yeah, I'm familiar with the issues. Add the Higgs Boson flop, the LHC at Cern being repurposed into a big bang disprover, the failure of standard comet theory, Hawking's turnaround, and all all sorts of other standard model handwaving. The standard model is wrong because science is saying the standard model is wrong.

Over here, for your part twice you've altered definitions. First you claim to define science into categories you can't enumerate, and then you project intent and capacity into a target, again, sans defining any facts.

Funny how strawmen really work, isn't it, "The Bear Jew"? You a bear about fallacies? Because I've always found I can't really blame someone projecting their factlessness and then resorting to transparently claiming high ground over their shoulder.

Because it's more convenient.

When ego and intellectual dishonesty nearly keep up with the racing goalposts, I find it's always a fun show. At least scientists mostly having the sense not to put one on when they're wrong, they being scientists...