Believer vs Knowers

[Little Dragon]

Logic would dictate that we take in all kinds of evidence, and collate and cross-reference them all to help us invent a 'picture of reality' for ourselves. And then remain skeptical of it.

Cross referencing untestable evidence with testable evidence? Hmm. I guess it's helpful, if you're willing to recognize untestable information, as valid. Supportive, or indicative, perhaps...

 

[Little Dragon]

So all this talk of evidence, and on the other side, faith, is completely human inventions.

Evidence, itself, is not a human invention, it is a word used to describe something that confirms a hypothesis. For example, the background microwave radiation of the universe, is evidence, of the Big Bang (rapid inflation theory). The latter is a human invention, in that it is a testable mathematical model of reality.

 

[PureX]

Not blind to untestable information, like for example, anecdotal evidence, is not wholly disregarded, but treated with suspicion. I will listen, but I will file it under, unreliable data.

You should treat it all with suspicion, becaise it's all susceptible to flawed interpretation and mislead. Understand that the "test" we devise is, itself, a huge bias designed to gain a specific result.

 

[Bthoth]

For example, the background microwave radiation of the universe, is evidence, of the Big Bang (rapid inflation theory).

No it's not. There has been radiation observed from that old horn (tool) but the hyothesis that it came from the BB is not verifiable

The latter is a human invention, in that it is a testable mathematical model of reality.

But did the theorem (model) take into account the dark matter / dark energy that was newly claimed to exist?

 

[PureX]

Evidence, itself, is not a human invention, it is a word used to describe something that confirms a hypothesis.

Actually, that's quite wrong. Evidence can both support and/or discredit a hypothesis. And is not required to do either. It's simply relevant information. That's all.

For example, the background microwave radiation of the universe, is evidence, of the Big Bang (rapid inflation theory). The latter is a human invention, in that it is a testable mathematical model of reality.

Everything is a "human invention". Perception is conception. "There" is a concept, not a place.

 

[Little Dragon]

Evidence can both support and/or discredit a hypothesis.

That's true. Forgive my omission.

 

[Little Dragon]

And is not required to do either. It's simply relevant information.

That's not true. I don't know why you think that. Evidence pertains to a question.

 

[Little Dragon]

No it's not. There has been radiation observed from that old horn (tool) but the hyothesis that it came from the BB is not verifiable

Of course it is. There has been considerable observation, since Bell workers thought a Pigeon had crapped in their receiving equipment. You're quite mistaken. Also it's not a hypothesis, its a bonified testable scientific theory. For which there are other evidences.

"
During the 1990s, the first peak was measured with increasing sensitivity and by 2000 the BOOMERanG experiment reported that the highest power fluctuations occur at scales of approximately one degree. Together with other cosmological data, these results implied that the geometry of the universe is flat. A number of ground-based interferometers provided measurements of the fluctuations with higher accuracy over the next three years, including the Very Small Array, Degree Angular Scale Interferometer (DASI), and the Cosmic Background Imager (CBI). DASI made the first detection of the polarization of the CMB and the CBI provided the first E-mode polarization spectrum with compelling evidence that it is out of phase with the T-mode spectrum.

In June 2001, NASA launched a second CMB space mission, WMAP, to make much more precise measurements of the large scale anisotropies over the full sky. WMAP used symmetric, rapid-multi-modulated scanning, rapid switching radiometers to minimize non-sky signal noise.[55] The first results from this mission, disclosed in 2003, were detailed measurements of the angular power spectrum at a scale of less than one degree, tightly constraining various cosmological parameters. The results are broadly consistent with those expected from cosmic inflation as well as various other competing theories, and are available in detail at NASA's data bank for Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) (see links below)"

Cosmic microwave background - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[PureX]

That's not true. I don't know why you think that. Evidence pertains to a question.

Yes, it's relevant to the question. But it is not a requirement that it determines the answer. We can assemble the evidence and still remain undetermined. We can assemble overwhelming amounts of evidence in support of a conclusion and still refuse to be 'convinced'. It happens all the time.

Most of the people on these threads think that if they are not convinced of whatever conclusion some bit of evidence favors, then it's not evidence. This is false, of course. It's ALL evidence, whether we are convinced by it or not.

 

[Little Dragon]

But did the theorem (model) take into account the dark matter / dark energy that was newly claimed to exist?

The existence of dark matter and dark energy are accounted for in modern inflationary models.

 

[Little Dragon]

Most of the people on these threads think that if they are not convinced of whatever conclusion some bit of evidence favors, then it's not evidence. This is false, of course. It's ALL evidence, whether we are convinced by it or not.

I have stated many times now. That there are two types of evidence. Testable and untestable. If you rely on the latter, over the former, best of luck to you. As for me, testable evidence, verifiable evidence, is of paramount consideration.

 

[Bthoth]

Of course it is. There has been considerable observation, since Bell workers thought a Pigeon had crapped in their receiving equipment. You're quite mistaken. Also it's not a hypothesis, its a bonified testable scientific theory. For which there are other evidences.

I actually studied the physics and papers decades ago.

There is 'background' radiation throughout the solar system right here from our sun, earth and even galaxy. Using that angle as evidence is a dead end across the board. Cosmology has so many loops and mistakes that it's sad to see how many theories have been created but never corrected. The perfect example is where did the water on the earth come from and even the KT extinction.

 

[Bthoth]

The existence of dark matter and dark energy are accounted for in modern inflationary models.

big bang? The Dark bang?

I am not playing the dance with you as it is very clear, that you have never done the work and have not just accepted that there are many mistakes. You sound like a creationist, that will never get over the old stories.

 

[Little Dragon]

There is 'background' radiation throughout the solar system right here from our sun, earth and even galaxy.

Yes high energy protons mostly, cosmic radiation also includes low frequency electromagnetic radiation, which is what the Cosmic microwave background radiation is, and it permeates all spacetime, in every direction, as one would expect if the universe arose from a singularity.

 

[Little Dragon]

I am not playing the dance with you as it is very clear, that you have never done the work and have not just accepted that there are many mistakes.

If you object to the theory of rapid inflation, then that is not an issue for me. Many scientists have and do. Astronomer Fred Hoyle objected to the theory too, he was the one that coined the phrase Big Bang, derisively, He changed his mind in later years. I have done some work, and can only try to answer any question about supporting evidence for the Big Bang. The theory that I personally feel is the most probable explanation. Certainly the best evidenced.

 

[Little Dragon]

You sound like a creationist, that will never get over the old stories.

Sorry to hear that.

 

[Bthoth]

Yes high energy protons mostly, cosmic radiation also includes low frequency electromagnetic radiation, which is what the Cosmic microwave background radiation is, and it permeates all spacetime, in every direction, as one would expect if the universe arose from a singularity.

All matter permeates em unless a standing wave upon super cold mass.

The magnetic field of the sun is hugenormous not to mention the Mag field of the galaxy.

Do you even know what wavelength, the horn was detecting? Or are you just entertaining the argument for fun?

 

[Little Dragon]

Do you even know what wavelength, the horn was detecting? Or are you just entertaining the argument for fun?

Yes, it was at the microwave wavelength...sub millimeter.

 

[Bthoth]

If you object to the theory of rapid inflation, then that is not an issue for me.

Not even relevant

Many scientists have and do. Astronomer Fred Hoyle objected to the theory too, he was the one that coined the phrase Big Bang, derisively, He changed his mind in later years. I have done some work, and can only try to answer any question about supporting evidence for the Big Bang. The theory that I personally feel is the most probable explanation. Certainly the best evidenced.

Not concerned about fred's beliefs either. I just cracked up on the use of the background radiation as evidence for BB. With modern research and theories there are a bunch of reasons for the radiation observed.

 

[Little Dragon]

The magnetic field of the sun is hugenormous not to mention the Mag field of the galaxy.

Sure, but it s not the magnetic field of the sun that is being observed, it is electromagnetic radiation, photons.