Many apologies guys for leaving this thread unattended and not coming back in the last few days. I've been reading your comments but on a speed in and out of here.
Thanks for all your input everyone.
One thing that Carl said, really hit the nail on the head for me..
Quote:
Originally Posted by renormalised
Strictly speaking, science doesn't require proof, but it's proof it gets and gives out....all the time. You only have to listen to some scientists to see where they're coming from. Read a few of the textbooks and you'll see plenty of assumptions/theories that are taken as gospel truths, so to speak.
|
As someone trying to learn and a 1000 steps (and the rest) behind you guys, I get this all the time and that's where it bails me up. I have to know enough also to
try and sort out the wheat from the chuff. All the docos I watch, the person being interviewed always makes their statements to appear factual. Rarely do I hear... according to current theories it may be etc etc.
The other day I was watching a doco on different theories of the big bang. Brains (?spelling), inflation, singularity, big bang etc. One guy insists that the universe emerged in a gentle *puff*. He can prove it, he just needs time. Another insists, the universe resembles something like a block of swiss cheese - yes the multi universes. Some german guy. He knows he's right too. Same goes to the guy who tells us, no, we are here because of membranes rubbing each other and gently merging. etc etc. I am not knocking any of these theories. Personally, I tend to go along with string theory (it's the best we've got so far, right?). And not that I know enough about it as you guys do, I just seem to read a whole lot about it over anything else and it seems to make sense to me.
And...
The other day I got caught up in learning all about the Oort cloud. Well didn't that take me off on a confusing venture. Especially when Nasa updates their page and they don't bother updating the picture to go with it (Voyager page with Oort cloud info), so what they were saying didn't make a whole of sense to me. Well there I was googling my eyes out for days. After 3 days, I find it it's only a hypothesis. There might not be an Oort cloud out there after all. Yet All the docs I have watched have said exactly where this Oort cloud lays. Not once, have I heard a reference of "we're not sure", so I always thought they somehow had proof of the Oort cloud.
I have to start learning to take many things related to science/astronomy as "perhaps", even if those presenters with big excited eyes and arms flying everywhere in their explanations tell me otherwise with their insistent statements. Which when I think of it, so much can't be proved, it's based on theory - unfortunately people like myself do indeed get bogged down into believing it to be fact, brainwashing us of the theories that they are.
Wish they'd just put a "we think" in front of their sentences sometimes.
I"m trying to learn.... it's difficult. You ask one question which leads on to a whole new tangent. And then you have to stop and ask yourself, well is this actually proven?
Sorry guys, I was having a rant
I came to the right place for a rant though didn't I?
