We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Cosmology has been on a long, hot streak, racking up one imaginative and scientific triumph after another. Is it over?
We might be trapped in this snow globe of photons forever. The expansion of the Universe is pulling light away from us at a furious pace. And even if it weren’t, not everything that exists can be observed. There are more things in Heaven and Earth than are dreamt of in our philosophies. There always will be. Science has limits. One day, we might feel ourselves pressing up against those limits, and at that point, it might be necessary to retreat into the realm of ideas. It might be necessary to ‘dispense with the starry heavens’, as Plato suggested. It might be necessary to settle for untestable theories. But not yet. Not when we have just begun to build telescopes. Not when we have just awakened into this cosmos, as from a dream.
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.
The gravitational Standard Model of the Universe.
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.
science is not dogmatic, at best, no established theory is anything more than established conditionally. note that the Standard Model Standard Model of particle physics does not claim to be a theory of everything.
junk "science" like the coming ice ageglobal warminclimate changery warmal colding is not "science", or "settled science" or anything but guesses supporting political goals.
Donny "The Bear Jew" Donowitz
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.
actually, I don't argue with people unfamiliar with the issues. that means you. no one says the SM is complete and the search for what's beyond isn't new. saying, "The Standard Model of the Universe is wrong" wins the strawman of the day award ... now, just go off and invent cold fusion, ok?
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...