[madbadgalaxyman (Robert)]

I still remain unconvinced about the idea that reliable information about the nature of the universe can be obtained, in the sense of "information very likely to be true", from the analysis of the microwave background which is said to be a relic of the big bang.

If you observe a pattern in the background radiation and then you come up with a model to account for it; why not come up with another model which accounts for the radiation, or another one, or another one....(and so on, and so on, till you have created a billion different models, all of them equally likely to be true)
As we know, theorists are very good at coming up with multiple models, all of which they swear are true.
Only problem is, observations usually disprove most of them.

Could the study of the distribution and polarization of the microwave background radiation be a bit like gazing at the clouds and seeing patterns in them?
Yeah, we observe patterns, but can we really interpret them and say what they imply about the cosmos?

We have plenty of "cosmology fanatics" in IIS....so I would like to know if they think that the current interpretations of the microwave background are mere hypotheses which could easily be disproven when further facts come to light?!?

Cosmologists seem to be people who adopt the manner and tone of "true believers"; why do they seem to be unable to adopt a skeptical tone in relation to their theories?