Big Bang?

[jporter]

On Oct 5, 2005, at 6:57 AM, Otto wrote:

> Nobody ever claimed here that "science is truth," which of course 
> would be nonsense. Actually the Big Bang-theory is the most likely 
> explanation for the observable universe, not more, not less. It's the 
> data telling us that, but we know that our image might change if/when 
> we get better data.
>

The majority of the universe is unobserved and unobservable. Most
of quantum mechanics and all of those more modern approaches
which attempt to reconstruct the first and most important time slices
of the hot big bang are beyond our ken.

What may have happened then is a matter of great concern for
theorists because it determined, according to theory, the physical
constraints (laws) which defined the rest of the expansion and the
characteristics of all matter and energy. It's where Quantum Mechanics
and Relativity must merge.

But most of the theory is untestable. Advances are made on the basis
of such subjective qualities as "elegance', "beauty", "symmetry", etc.,
as determined by the math- all beyond the reach of common sense
and smacking of idealism, or something akin to neo-Platonism.

So, it is not "Science is truth" that is being asserted, except by the
legions of camp followers who have minimal understanding of the
the practice and theory, but, the claim of "Objectivity" , that is 
either
overtly or tacitly being made by Science and its fans.

Science and its effects are social. The theory, practice, funding, use
and abuse of science are all social. This is inescapable and should
be taught in every science class from day one, but it is not.

jody