Theos-Talk Archives (September 1996 Message tl00256)

Murray,
It depends on which cosmology you mean.  The Big Bang hypothesis was created
after the leftover background "noise" of it appeared on an ocilloscope at
Bell Laboratory when they were testing the first commications sattelite.
Without objective, and by that I mean available to people other than the
prime experimenter, data, all you have is anecdotal evidence, which does not
mean that it is not true, or the conclusions drawn from it are not true.  But
there is no way of really knowing if it is or it isn't.
Unsupported testimony is not science and there is no way any clairvoyant
testimony can be supported right now.  It may be true, or it may not be.  We
have no way of knowing and to accept the idea that such work can be
scientific in the same way that mixing nitrogen, carbon and sulfur is is pure
nonsense.  At least we can get a bang out of that.
Show me the data and then come up a with a way to replicate it and then I'll
call it science.
But I'm beginning to think that the problem we have is the confusion of the
word science with the word knowledge.  Science is a method of discovery, a
method of gaining knowledge.   The two are not the same.

Chuck the Heretic