archive: SETI Re: [ASTRO] Big Bang Bashing
SETI Re: [ASTRO] Big Bang Bashing
Larry Klaes ( lklaes@bbn.com )
Fri, 05 Feb 1999 11:37:02 -0500
>X-Authentication-Warning: brickbat12.mindspring.com: majordom set sender
to owner-astro using -f
>Date: Wed, 03 Feb 1999 19:59:44 -0700
>From: crinklaw@totacc.com (Greg Crinklaw)
>Organization: CapellaSoft
>X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I)
>X-Accept-Language: en
>To: ASTRO <ASTRO@lists.mindspring.com>
>Subject: Re: [ASTRO] Big Bang Bashing
>Sender: owner-astro@brickbat12.mindspring.com
>Reply-To: crinklaw@totacc.com (Greg Crinklaw)
>
>Ok, I couldn't stay out any longer.
>
>"Victor R. Ruiz" wrote:
>[snip]
>> In the febrary issue of "Universo" (the spanish "S&T" where I have my
>> monthly column) I read an interview with Geoffrey Burbidge where he says:
>> "There are quasars and galaxies physically connected with different
>> redshift". "There are extrange things with them [quasars]: they change its
>> brightness, wich implies that it should be very small. And then, how can
>> they emit so many energy with that small volume?". In practice, Burbidge
>> says it is very difficult to have observing time trying to add more light
>> in this events or even publish a paper in a peer reviewed science journal.
>
>Arp and his friends the Burbidges are off in la la land on this
>one--that's why they have trouble getting observing time. It's rather
>a case of a POLITICAL self fulfilling prophesy:
>
>(1) Postulate that the astronomical establishment (whatever that is!)
>is closed minded to new ideas; evidence for this is expected in the
>form of denied requests for observing time for projects that do not
>fit the "standard view."
>
>(2) Propose a far fetched hypotheses that requires enormous amounts of
>observing time on the world's largest telescopes. This idea has no
>evidence to support it, contradicts existing observations, and the
>observing project uses a statistically flawed approach.
>
>(3) When your request for observing time is either denied, or the
>total time you have asked for is cut down, claim that (1) is true!
>
>Even with all of this, they still manage to get observing time! I've
>read many of Arp's papers and I've heard Geoffrey Burbidge speak. It's
>about time someone simply came out and said the obvious--it's all
>nonsense that is no better than the so called "Creation Science" and
>for much the same reasons: these people have a POLITICAL axe to grind.
>
>It isn't the so called establishment that has lost its objectivity.
>
>Look at the similiarities in the approach of creation "scientists" and
>Arp/Burbidge:
>
>(1) Ignore all of the evidence in favor of the opposing theory at all
>costs
>
>(2) Search for a single instance of an observation that can be
>interpreted as condradictory to the opposing theory.
>
>(3) Accuse the proponents of a lack of objectivity at every
>opportunity
>
>(4) Ignore any other interpretations of this observation that do not
>fit your theory; simply assert that you have found "proof."
>
>(5) Show after the fact statistically that the exception that you have
>searched so long for is statistically significant. This is the most
>subtle of the steps. Suffice it to say that history has shown this
>approach to be wroght with the peril that you will simply find what
>you are looking for. This approach contains a subtle but profound lack
>of objectivity. It is backwards, and simply not a valid scientific
>approach. See the so called "research" done on the "Face" on mars for
>a prime example of doing science backwards.
>
>> I think the science community should be more skeptical with their own
>> theories. Maybe, the astronomy departments aren't going to spend money if
>> they can't have a good press release. And, at this moment, the wave is
>> where the Big Bang is. While I'm knowing more and more how real science is
>> done, I think it is based more on political than on research and kwnoledge
>> issues. I believed that all scientists have the passion and vision of
>> Sagan, but they also are persons ;)
>
>I'm going to make a lot of enemies here, but you've got it backwards.
>It is Sagan who spent far more time doing politics than science. While
>politics are clearly present and sometimes come into play, it is as
>innacurate as it is popular to assume that somehow the politics of the
>Big Bang have led to a closed minded fraternity that is incapable of
>considering alternative ideas or hypotheses. It just ain't so.
>
>>
>> Good nights... of good observing.
>
>Observing? Does anyone on this list still actually observe? ;)
>
>>
>> Víctor R. Ruiz
>> rvr@idecnet.com
>
>Greg
>
>--
>Greg Crinklaw
>crinklaw@totacc.com
>Astronomical Software Developer
>Astronomer, Educator, Skyhound
>CapellaSoft: http://www.skyhound.com
>Cloudcroft, New Mexico
>