"Elegance? There's a certain elegance to it but I think Einstein had the appropriate remark. He preferred to leave elegance to his taylor."
DB  

Rusty,
I don't believe that science is 'broken' any more than does Peter Ridd. Ridd has clarified his use of that word. What I gain from Ridd's article is the need for more and continual debate, especially in regards to controversial areas.

If the letter published in New Scientist stirred discussion on the subject of the big bang, then those signatories who were challenging the concept would have achieved an aim and we are all the winners for seeing the discussion progress. I hardly think the matter forever settled.  

That the majority of the readership of that journal still support the popular view is not surprising (as per the reasons given in Ridd's article). Remember that we're not looking for the solution that's particularly elegant, we're looking for that which is correct.  In Copernicus day, the majority of scientists were quite satisfied that the old Ptolomaic system was wondrously elegant.

Pericles,
I think the two examples I gave, big bang and creation ex nihilo, are more similar than what you might suggest.

Both are one-off events and therefore unrepeatable. Neither was directly observed. This provides problems for investigatation within a methodology which depends so heavily on observation and repeatability (two key planks of science [measuring sticks]) And so I tend to agree with your earlier comment, that it's unlikely that we will ever reach complete conclusions satifactory to all. But that is no reason to stop the search.

Also, we could make informed guesses about what those three you mention (Ptolomy, Copernicus, Einstein) might have thought of these options, but I don't think any of them would have been nearly as dismissive of either option as I witness amongst the attitudes of some presently.  
    

I'm sure you do, Dan S de Merengue.

>>Pericles, I think the two examples I gave, big bang and creation ex nihilo, are more similar than what you might suggest.<<

But you might be kidding yourself.

>>Both are one-off events and therefore unrepeatable.<<

I'm not sure how you could ever justify that position.

Think about it.

If God caused one universe to come into being, what is preventing him from making another? The flood didn't accomplish much, let's face it, he might be inclined to scrap it all and start over. It's only a week's work, after all.

Similarly, if indeed there once occurred a big bang that caused the universe to emerge from a singularity, what - that we are aware of - is preventing it from happening again?

In the first instance, only God knows.

In the second, it is quite plausible to imagine that we can make considerable progress towards working out whether or not this was a once-off event. Or whether there might even be new universes coming into being, even as we natter away here?

That would be awesome, eh?

So, there is the unbridgeable divide between the two theories. One has God as an indispensable prerequisite, the other doesn't. Quite substantial, I would have thought.

As far as your contention that "the two ideas share common elements" goes, I would have thought that the different methods of analysing evidence would also separate them quite significantly. Because once again, your young-earth creationist cannot exclude God from the conclusions, where the scientist can.

>>I just believe one should apply the same standards, the same measuring stick, to all theories whether mine, yours, or anyone else's<<

Yup. Me too.

Dan,

Good to see you acknowledge there is no big fuss. As with so many "issues" in science, no "controversy" at all.

Perhaps what you failed to grasp was the conceptual validity, rather than merely the electoral nature. It is not *just* that there was a majority, the basis was well-understood and soundly covered by evidence. Attenpting to conflate poor old Ptolemy is not a good comparison as the observational basis was far more limited as were the geometrical and computational tools. Don't expect the sort of revolution that obsoleted his model to happen anytime soon, nor to result in a cosmology you prefer.

Various matters may not be "settled", but they are not settling far from where they are. Einstein did not make Newton "wrong", Newtonian physics come out as the simplified case. Better understanding of cosmology will not make Hubble wrong, or eliminate the Big Bang, but will confirm aspects of it's nature. More fossils and genetic evidence from living organisms is *refining* the observable history of evolution, not creating "controversy". and so on.

Your quote on elegance is almost apt, scientific elegance is not quite informed by the same aesthetic as the sartorial. Simplicity counts high in both, personal preference less so for science, and there are *many* undeniable facts with which to establish parsimony.

In comparison, trivial arrangements of words like "god did it", however elaborately expressed, are not worthy of consideration. *that* idea has had it's day and like the flat earth, the geocentric universe and Galen's four humours, is not coming back. We respect Ptolemy, Galen, Lamarck for *trying* diligently. This bears no relation the many manufactured controversies of crank scepticism which pursues self-promotion and is contemptible.

Rusty

Rusty - << Don't expect the sort of revolution that obsoleted [Ptolemy's] model to happen anytime soon. >>

No, I don't expect it to happen soon. Matters don't often settle far from where they are, for the sorts of reasons given in Ridd's article, neatly displayed by your tenacity.

As Kuhn pointed out, ideas evolve slowly, but revolution occurs rapidly.

Max Plank put it like this -
"A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light… but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

I am sure Herr Professor Planck would forgive your misspelling of his family name, Dan S de Merengue. I'm not quite so sure he would approve the use of his words in the context in which you place them.

>>Max Plank put it like this - "A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light… but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."<<

I'm not at all sure that it is the ideas themselves that are slow to evolve - at least, not in Planck's estimation. He was merely pointing out how difficult it is to wean folk off their pet theories, no matter how much evidence you place before them in their lifetime.

You yourself could be used as near-conclusive evidence of this, in fact. (I say "near-conclusive", only because you're not dead yet).

You are exempt from any concerns about speed of new ideas anyway, being able to ignore any and every advance that science may make, with the protection of your mantra, "go away, I already know the answer".