One of the evolutionist's favorite tactics is to immediately appeal to a "scientific consensus" that Evolution theory is beyond all reasonable doubt. If the vast majority of scientists accept Evolution theory (or more accurately, do not publicly oppose it) then it simply must be true. This reasoning is absurd on its face to any sophisticated reader, but lets demonstrate that it is false.
First, think about how many popular-science presentations you've watched where you've been matter-of-factly assured that the Big Bang really happened and is beyond reasonable doubt. It is casually stated as if it were as clear as the sky is blue. Audiences are never given the slightest hint that anyone with relevant expertise questions whether or not the Big Bang really happened.
Next, have a quick read through the following publication. (some technical jargon snipped)
An Open Letter to the Scientific Community
(Published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004)
http://homepages.xnet.co.nz/~hardy/cosmologystatement.html
"The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.
But the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation...
...What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The successes claimed by the theory's supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centered cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles...
...Supporters of the big bang theory may retort that these theories do not explain every cosmological observation. But that is scarcely surprising, as their development has been severely hampered by a complete lack of funding. Indeed, such questions and alternatives cannot even now be freely discussed and examined. An open exchange of ideas is lacking in most mainstream conferences. Whereas Richard Feynman could say that "science is the culture of doubt", in cosmology today doubt and dissent are not tolerated, and young scientists learn to remain silent if they have something negative to say about the standard big bang model. Those who doubt the big bang fear that saying so will cost them their funding.
Even observations are now interpreted through this biased filter, judged right or wrong depending on whether or not they support the big bang. So discordant data on red shifts, lithium and helium abundances, and galaxy distribution, among other topics, are ignored or ridiculed. This reflects a growing dogmatic mindset that is alien to the spirit of free scientific inquiry.
Today, virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang studies. Funding comes from only a few sources, and all the peer-review committees that control them are dominated by supporters of the big bang. As a result, the dominance of the big bang within the field has become self-sustaining, irrespective of the scientific validity of the theory..."
----------------------------
(Now, 'consensus defenders' would love to say these are just a few cranks making this noise, but that is not true. Have a look through the signees and you will find highly credentialed astronomers and physicists, and a great number of credentialed scientists in general.)
However, this thread is not about debating the Big Bang theory. It is to shed light on the reality of "consensus" and the nature of the academic world in general.
Notice what is being expressed in the letter above, that a dominating theory is so entrenched, that scientists do not feel comfortable openly questioning it. Not because of the strength of evidence for the theory - (as stated they have sound scientific reasons for calling it into question) but because the theory is being protected ideologically. It is protected from question because so many parties are invested in it.
(Again, recall all of those popular science broadcasts where some 'science-spokesman' like Carl Sagan or Neil DeGrasse Tyson tells you completely matter-of-factly how the Big bang occurred billions of years ago)
This paints quite a different picture than the mantras we hear day after day about how the consensus is based strictly on scientific merit, how scientists are eagerly waiting to have their theories disproved, how any young scientist who finds a hole in a reigning theory will be fast-tracked to a Nobel prize, etc. etc. This is all simply a myth that is perpetuated to give the scientific community an aura of righteousness and selfless pursuit of truth. It is simply not true.
So, while I know this clarification will bounce off most consensus-worshipers like rubber, I hope it will contribute at least a little bit to chipping away that silly myth that is promoted all over the internet.
....
Now, some additional thoughts... think about the Theory of Evolution for a moment in this light... think about how many parties and institutions are invested in it. Think about what they stand to lose if Evolution theory is, not even disproven, but simply allowed to be openly questioned in a scientific setting. Think about how disastrous that would be for so many invested parties that have been telling the public for the last century that the theory is simply beyond question.
Evolution is their ultimate Creation Story - think about how much ideological power is in that.. being able to tell all of society where they originated from. Think of the culture that is been built around that ideology. The entire "science vs. religion" narrative.
It makes the ideological stakes for the Big Bang theory look paltry in comparison.
With this in mind, only the most blind and naive would believe that Evolution theory is maintained based strictly on its scientific merit. What utter nonsense.
Do you really think this level of ideological investment is not playing a role in maintaining the "consensus" and protecting the theory from question?
Do you really think the average young scientist trying to make a living feels comfortable openly questioning the theory, or even voicing the slightest hint of doubt?
Do you really think they're being honest and upfront with you about Evolution theory's weaknesses?
First, think about how many popular-science presentations you've watched where you've been matter-of-factly assured that the Big Bang really happened and is beyond reasonable doubt. It is casually stated as if it were as clear as the sky is blue. Audiences are never given the slightest hint that anyone with relevant expertise questions whether or not the Big Bang really happened.
Next, have a quick read through the following publication. (some technical jargon snipped)
An Open Letter to the Scientific Community
(Published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004)
http://homepages.xnet.co.nz/~hardy/cosmologystatement.html
"The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.
But the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation...
...What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The successes claimed by the theory's supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centered cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles...
...Supporters of the big bang theory may retort that these theories do not explain every cosmological observation. But that is scarcely surprising, as their development has been severely hampered by a complete lack of funding. Indeed, such questions and alternatives cannot even now be freely discussed and examined. An open exchange of ideas is lacking in most mainstream conferences. Whereas Richard Feynman could say that "science is the culture of doubt", in cosmology today doubt and dissent are not tolerated, and young scientists learn to remain silent if they have something negative to say about the standard big bang model. Those who doubt the big bang fear that saying so will cost them their funding.
Even observations are now interpreted through this biased filter, judged right or wrong depending on whether or not they support the big bang. So discordant data on red shifts, lithium and helium abundances, and galaxy distribution, among other topics, are ignored or ridiculed. This reflects a growing dogmatic mindset that is alien to the spirit of free scientific inquiry.
Today, virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang studies. Funding comes from only a few sources, and all the peer-review committees that control them are dominated by supporters of the big bang. As a result, the dominance of the big bang within the field has become self-sustaining, irrespective of the scientific validity of the theory..."
----------------------------
(Now, 'consensus defenders' would love to say these are just a few cranks making this noise, but that is not true. Have a look through the signees and you will find highly credentialed astronomers and physicists, and a great number of credentialed scientists in general.)
However, this thread is not about debating the Big Bang theory. It is to shed light on the reality of "consensus" and the nature of the academic world in general.
Notice what is being expressed in the letter above, that a dominating theory is so entrenched, that scientists do not feel comfortable openly questioning it. Not because of the strength of evidence for the theory - (as stated they have sound scientific reasons for calling it into question) but because the theory is being protected ideologically. It is protected from question because so many parties are invested in it.
(Again, recall all of those popular science broadcasts where some 'science-spokesman' like Carl Sagan or Neil DeGrasse Tyson tells you completely matter-of-factly how the Big bang occurred billions of years ago)
This paints quite a different picture than the mantras we hear day after day about how the consensus is based strictly on scientific merit, how scientists are eagerly waiting to have their theories disproved, how any young scientist who finds a hole in a reigning theory will be fast-tracked to a Nobel prize, etc. etc. This is all simply a myth that is perpetuated to give the scientific community an aura of righteousness and selfless pursuit of truth. It is simply not true.
So, while I know this clarification will bounce off most consensus-worshipers like rubber, I hope it will contribute at least a little bit to chipping away that silly myth that is promoted all over the internet.
....
Now, some additional thoughts... think about the Theory of Evolution for a moment in this light... think about how many parties and institutions are invested in it. Think about what they stand to lose if Evolution theory is, not even disproven, but simply allowed to be openly questioned in a scientific setting. Think about how disastrous that would be for so many invested parties that have been telling the public for the last century that the theory is simply beyond question.
Evolution is their ultimate Creation Story - think about how much ideological power is in that.. being able to tell all of society where they originated from. Think of the culture that is been built around that ideology. The entire "science vs. religion" narrative.
It makes the ideological stakes for the Big Bang theory look paltry in comparison.
With this in mind, only the most blind and naive would believe that Evolution theory is maintained based strictly on its scientific merit. What utter nonsense.
Do you really think this level of ideological investment is not playing a role in maintaining the "consensus" and protecting the theory from question?
Do you really think the average young scientist trying to make a living feels comfortable openly questioning the theory, or even voicing the slightest hint of doubt?
Do you really think they're being honest and upfront with you about Evolution theory's weaknesses?
