Article View: sci.philosophy.tech
Article #608Re: Assumptions vs. assertions (was: Re the Cosmological Bad Dream)
From: John Snodgrass
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 06:20
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 06:20
40 lines
2746 bytes
2746 bytes
frank@Cookie.secapl.com (Frank Adams) writes:
> >to the Cosmological Bad Dream) there are scientific utterances that
> >I don't know whether to assign to (a) or (b), such as a detailed
> >description of the first three minutes in the existence of the
> >universe.
>
> I think these things are clearly in category (a). Why should a detailed
> description of the first 3 minutes of the universe be any less of an
> assertion than a detailed description of Paris last summer? In neither case
> can we go back and look. We make the best guess we can based on the
> evidence; we are prepared to modify it if new evidence disproves it; and
> there will always remain some residual doubt, since the evidence is
> necessarily incomplete. The evidence in the case of the first 3 minutes of
> the universe is more sketchy, and so the amount of doubt is higher; and it
> may indeed be the case that the public does not understand the appropriate
> level of doubt and inexactitude for these kinds of statements. But this is
> a conventional problem of misunderstanding, not anything fundamental.
"The public" is hardly the only ones who don't understand the
appropriate level of doubt for these things. As I said in my original
post, Freeman Dyson, a physicist of some note, presenting himself as
public interpreter on these matters, plainly _does not himself believe
these matter ARE in doubt_! And don't tell me he's the only one. The
big bang model is highly dubious in every way that a model COULD BE,
yet if you go over to sci.physics and start casting asperions, you will
probably be deluged with the annoyed remarks of _true believers_, not
casual observers. To claim that the public is experiencing a
"conventional problem of misunderstanding" is stretching it a bit. What
we have is a self-serving group of people, i.e. cosmologists, who would
like nothing better than to be taken seriously in these pronouncements.
And they are.
John E. Snodgrass [snodgras@cyber.net]
--
INTERNET: snodgras@netlink.cts.com (John Snodgrass)
UUCP: ...!ryptyde!netlink!snodgras
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 453-1115
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<aT5PsB5w165w@netlink.cts.com>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!europa.asd.contel.com!darwin.sura.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!think.com!ames!agate!dog.ee.lbl.gov!news!nosc!ryptyde!snodgrasReferences:
<1992Oct13.192242.157437@Cookie.secapl.com>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!europa.asd.contel.com!darwin.sura.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!think.com!ames!agate!dog.ee.lbl.gov!news!nosc!ryptyde!snodgras Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech Subject: Re: Assumptions vs. assertions (was: Re the Cosmological Bad Dream) From: snodgras@netlink.cts.com (John Snodgrass) Message-ID: <aT5PsB5w165w@netlink.cts.com> References: <1992Oct13.192242.157437@Cookie.secapl.com> Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 23:20:45 PDT Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA Lines: 40