Method for accepting science

[Michael]

*stares*

Seriously? Because understanding how our universe is a good thing and leads to technological advances, maybe?

While that is applicable to EMPIRICAL physics (stuff that shows up in the lab), like my computer and my cell phone and my car, what "good thing' or 'technological advance" ever came from 'dark energy' or 'inflation' in terms of useful tangible goods or services?

I'll be MORE than happy to agree that QUALIFIED physic leads to useful consumer products. Dark math sky deities and dead inflation entities in the sky serve no such useful purpose. They are every bit as much of an 'act of faith" on the part of the 'believer' as any religious concept. Inflation has no tangible effect on even a single atom in a lab. Ditto for dark energy and nobody knows where it even supposedly comes from! Talk about acts of pure faith in something never seen in a lab on Earth!

 

[[serious]]

Because nobody even knows where it comes from, and it magically filled the gaps of their otherwise FALSIFIED interpretation of the redshift phenomenon.

Absolutely not. Neutrinos were first proposed due to observations made in CONTROLLED EXPERIMENTATION ON EARTH. Either a law of physics was being violated, or some amount of energy was being "lost" to some other particle. Their SOURCE was clearly identified and methods of generation and detection were absolutely possible here on Earth. Dark energy on the other hand has NOTHING to do with "controlled experimentation" and everything to do with SUBJECTIVE INTERPRETATION of pure observation. No source has been identified, and therefore no controlled experimentation is even possible. Two ENTIRELY different animals. One idea came from controlled experimentation the other did not. One idea is well qualified in terms of source, the other is not. One has been verified in many labs, the other can NOT be tested here on Earth because no source has been identified. One is physics. The other is "magic gap filler" to save one and only one otherwise falsified cosmology theory.

So what your are saying is the [observation of beta decay/observation of gravitational lensing] presented a missing [energy/mass] problem for which a theoretical particle was proposed which would only make it interact with gravity and the weak force. This particle is [legitimate/magic] because of what exactly?

EDIT: I suppose one difference is that we eventually figured out a way to directly detect neutrinos. However, in 1935, prior to the direct detection of what was then a theoretical particle, were they magic?

 

[Michael]

So what your are saying is the [observation of beta decay/observation of gravitational lensing] presented a missing [energy/mass] problem for which a theoretical particle was proposed which would only make it interact with gravity and the weak force. This particle is [legitimate/magic] because of what exactly?

Beta decay is a controllable process that occurs on Earth. It releases measurable energy that we can both CONTROL and observe. As we understood the laws of physics, all energy is constantly conserved in all energy exchanges. None is ever 'lost'. The early empirical CONTROLLED experiments with beta decay processes on Earth suggested that A) energy was destroyed in the decay process and our LAWS were instantly overturned from one set of experiments, or B) a small amount of energy was being released in a new form, in that set of CONTROLLED experiments. The source as well as the detection process was fully CONTROLLED. The control mechanism of the transmitter was a simple on and off state of the reactor, but it's a valid control mechanism. The empirical tests were all possible on Earth, and they all occurred on Earth.

Compare and contrast that now with the mythical "dark energy". We CONTROL absolutely nothing. We OBSERVE the sky. We observe redshift in the photons that reach earth. We SUBJECTIVELY INTERPRET that redshift to mean anything from 'tired light' to "cosmic acceleration", depending on the individual in question. Since no source of dark energy has been demonstrated, we have no way to CONTROL any experiment designed to demonstrate the acceleration of matter by "dark energy". I need to convey the concepts of a control control mechanism, and identified source quite clearly because those two things are the EMPIRICAL and PHYSICAL differences between "neutrinos" and "dark sky thingies". Does that help clarify the difference?

EDIT: I suppose one difference is that we eventually figured out a way to directly detect neutrinos. However, in 1935, prior to the direct detection of what was then a theoretical particle, were they magic?

We already identified a suggested source, and we had a way to "control" that source from day one. The only thing that wasn't demonstrated on day one was the "detection" of that particle. It took time to figure out a way to use what we did know (source and control mechanism) to figure out a way to detect it. That does take time, but at NO time was the source unidentified, and at no time was the control mechanism unidentified and at no time was it impossible to create a controlled experiment to detect it. Inflation doesn't even necessarily exist in our universe today even if current theory is correct. How would we "control" it, let alone 'detect' it?

 

[Tiberius]

If it's ultimately not accurate, was it ever actually "useful science"?

Depends on how accurate you mean. Newton's ideas about gravity aren't accurate, but NASA still used them when sending man to the moon. Or space probes to Neptune.

Anyway, unless we work at it, how will we ever know if things like string theory are correct?

But dark energy theory doesn't actually produce any testable "predictions" it only produces testable POSTDICTIONS. It's a total dud in the lab and nobody on Earth knows where it would even come from were it to actually exist. String theory isn't actually 'testable', nor is the concept of MULTIPLE extra dimensions. Inflation isn't "testable" in the lab either. There are all "acts of faith' on the part of the 'believers' in those 'scientific' concepts. What makes "inflation' any more empirically 'scientific' than string theory?

First of all, it does not need to be testable in the lab for it to be good science. Not all science takes place in the lab. Please learn this. As long as it tells us something we can expect, then we go out and find that, it has allowed us to make a prediction, and it is worthy of being called Science.

Secondly, I'm not aware of anyone who presents string theory as a scientific theory on par with gravity or evolution.

So can atheists really fault theists for their attempt to explain reality via various "religions"?

They can fault theists for attempting to explain reality by invoking the supernatural, for claiming that their ideas are right despite not only having no evidence to support them but evidence which contradicts them, and for then trying to explain away that evidence.

I think your idea of 'predictions' vs. postdiction (gap filler) is a bit naive for starters. 'Dark energy' came right out of someone's back pocket quite frankly. It wasn't invented to 'predict' anything we MIGHT find in space, it was POSTDICTED 'gap filler' to try to 'explain' a set of observations related to redshift phenomenon.

And you'll notice that I haven't said anything about dark energy at all, because frankly, I don't know enough about it.

That would depend entirely on the type of theory wouldn't it?
http://www.christianforums.com/t7440288/

Pretty much all the electric universe aspects of that particular theory could in fact act as a falsification mechanism to this theory, whereas none of those aspects would NECESSARILY demonstrate a macroscopic "awareness".

How is inflation theory any more 'falsifiable'?

First of all, that theory suggests pantheism, nothing more.

Secondly, you are still jumping to conclusions without evidence. You do not explain how solar flares, or electrical activity in the brain can ONLY be a result of God.

Only if you ASSUME that God's answer SHOULD NECESSARILY ALWAYS BE YES. Why would you start ANY experiment based on that premise?

But we SHOULD expect God's answers of YES, NO and LATER to occur at different frequencies than they would if we were praying to the television, and yet God's answers seem to come about at the same frequency as they would if nothing but random chance were in operation!

 

[Nabobalis]

String theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hmmm. Wiki would tend to disagree:

They sure "market" it as scientific theory, in fact they claim it's a "theory of everything" that presumably ties all physics together. That sure "sounds" like a "scientific theory".

That sentence disproves your point.

String theory is an active research framework in particle physics

Which has a nice link on what it means by research framework. The people who work in string theory hope one day it will be this magical "theory of everything" but we shall see.

So how are they really any different (functionally) than any "small religion/cult"? They can't ALL be "truth" can they?

No, but the people who work in these fields don't claim it to be the truth. Several competing ideas exist and right now, it is more mathematicians enjoying themselves by working with complex and unwieldy math. There is no religion here. No truth, no converting, no gods, no churches etc

Hmmm. Does that matter? GR theory took time to become "accepted" by the mainstream. The transition wasn't instant. Is it really valid to use "popularity' to decide which ideas have scientific merit and which don't?

It does, popular science isn't a good representation of the current status of the actual science that is actually going on in these communities.

 

[sandwiches]

Um, even I would would argue that it's technically a religion as well as being a 'scientific' theory. So? I simply see "inflation", "dark energy" and "dark matter" as a "religion" as well, a religion that requires FAITH in the UNSEEN, in the lab.

An unfalsified belief does not make a religion; an unfalsiable belief does.

No such "acts of faith" are even necessary in my 'religion' or my scientific theory. All of the proposed physical mechanisms and emergent qualities of those physical mechanisms (awareness) exist on Earth in ABUNDANCE. Awareness exists in MANY forms on Earth. That's not something I have to accept on FAITH alone.

I thought you claimed to be a Christian. Now, you're not? If you're a Christian, you need faith in that which not only has no evidence but a lot of it is unfalsifiable. And just because one aspect of your religion has an a known analog, doesn't make your religion faith free. That both tentacles and awareness exist is true and requires no faith. That Cthulhu slumbers at the bottom of the ocean requires faith.

That awareness exist, we need not argue. That your God exists, we need evidence.

Actually my cosmology beliefs revolve around the PC/EU orientation to plasma physics with or without any concepts related to awareness. I also 'entertain' the possibility that the physical universe is "aware" and "aware of me", and it may provide a rational physical 'explanation' for the human experiences of 'God'. My "faith" in the existence of God however PREDATES my cosmology preference changes, and I'm not emotionally attached to any ONE concept of God. I tend to favor EMPIRICAL concepts and I tend to put less credence in "supernatural" ideas of God, or inflation for that matter. It's nothing personal, it's just a personal preference for empirical physics.

The fact that your religious beliefs came before your choice of cosmology was exactly my point. You sought and found the cosmology that best fit what you already believed.

FYI I started publicly promoting EU/PC theory several years before even really reconsidering a pantheistic view of the universe. It's only because it is electric in nature that I'm willing to entertain the idea that it's also "aware". In other words, the electrical current, the 'physics' and science related to PC/EU theory actually piqued my curiosity in a pantheistic view of the universe. Until I got into the 'science' of PC/EU theory, pantheism wasn't really even a consideration from my perspective. The universe seemed "dead" to me. Now it seems to posses many more qualities that are typically associated with 'life' and living organisms. I can't help but see how the science (physics of plasma) might very nicely tie directly back to the "religious' aspects (awareness of the entire organism).

Well, once we start having a conversation with your god, scientists and laymen like myself might have more reason to think you're right. Until then, it's all nice analogies and wishful thinking, but don't let me or anyone else stop you from doing research on this matter. You may very well be the first man to speak to God, one day.

 

[sandwiches]

Only if you ASSUME that God's answer SHOULD NECESSARILY ALWAYS BE YES. Why would you start ANY experiment based on that premise?

So, since the result of praying is identical to NOT praying, for all intents and purposes and measurable results, it makes no difference whether you pray or not.

 

[Michael]

So, since the result of praying is identical to NOT praying, for all intents and purposes and measurable results, it makes no difference whether you pray or not.

It depends on what you pray for I suppose. If you pray for 'enlightenment', perhaps it matters IMMENSELY. It may matter to the individual that you pray for them too, even the outcome isn't changed by the act of prayer.

If I pray to effect the outcome of a sporting event, which side should God listen to exactly? Some prayers seem frivolous to me and I wouldn't engage myself in such silliness. I do however pray for help in changing internal behaviors and for others in some scenarios. I don't however instantly assume that God should say "yes" to everything I personally ask for, anymore than I said "yes" to everything my children ever asked me for.

 

[Michael]

Depends on how accurate you mean. Newton's ideas about gravity aren't accurate, but NASA still used them when sending man to the moon. Or space probes to Neptune.

Indeed. I tend to point out that fact in debate as well. Some things can be directly and empirically related to physical process on Earth, like Newtons ideas and like GR theory. Some things however are 'pure mental constructs' that have no empirical connection to any process on Earth, string theory being one of them, gravitons being another.

Anyway, unless we work at it, how will we ever know if things like string theory are correct?

Why wouldn't that same argument apply to pretty much ANY theistic concept of God? I mean if you're willing to entertain MULTIPLE new dimensions of time and space as being "worthwhile' how can you be sure God won't pop out of one of those extra dimensions?

Surely you can appreciate why I would entertain a purely *EMPIRICAL* concept of God, can't you?

First of all, it does not need to be testable in the lab for it to be good science.

Then no "theistic" concept of God can ever be excluded from being considered "science", not even 'supernatural' concepts of God or inflation.

Not all science takes place in the lab. Please learn this. As long as it tells us something we can expect, then we go out and find that, it has allowed us to make a prediction, and it is worthy of being called Science.

Well then, how again is it possible for you to expect theists to pull God out their pocket all the time?

Secondly, I'm not aware of anyone who presents string theory as a scientific theory on par with gravity or evolution.

But I don't see string theory "disbelievers" trying to "change the minds" of string theorists, whereas evangelical atheists are a dime a dozen on the internet. Most of them (I'm not saying anyone here necessarily falls into that category by the way) tend to insist on "empirical evidence".

They can fault theists for attempting to explain reality by invoking the supernatural,

String theory isn't "supernatural"? Really? What other form of energy fails to decrease in density over multiple exponential increases in volume like inflation genies?

for claiming that their ideas are right despite not only having no evidence to support them but evidence which contradicts them,

I could (and do) make the same complaints about mainstream astronomy theory. Tons of things contradicted Guth's original inflation theory and it was in fact falsified. Even still the DOGMA lives on.

and for then trying to explain away that evidence.

What do figure that astronomers try to do with all the evidence they don't like to hear or deal with? Did you see anyone give up on "dark matter' when the LHC experiments all but ruled out the simplest SUSY theories?

And you'll notice that I haven't said anything about dark energy at all, because frankly, I don't know enough about it.

The only thing you need to know is that nobody knows where it even presumably comes from, and it's only useful value apparently is to save one single otherwise falsified cosmology theory. Talk about "acts of faith".

First of all, that theory suggests pantheism, nothing more.

No, it suggests that the Universe/God is alive, aware, aware of us, and interacting with us in the moment.

Secondly, you are still jumping to conclusions without evidence. You do not explain how solar flares, or electrical activity in the brain can ONLY be a result of God.

Not only do want to see empirical cause/effect relationships demonstrated (unlike "scientific" ideas) you also expect me to rule out all other possible cause/effect options as well? Wow. Talk about double standards.

FYI, I think your point is actually VALID by the way, but don't expect me to personally demonstrate this in my lifetime, nor blame me if it doesn't happen.

But we SHOULD expect God's answers of YES, NO and LATER to occur at different frequencies than they would if we were praying to the television, and yet God's answers seem to come about at the same frequency as they would if nothing but random chance were in operation!

I don't even know where you get that idea in the first place. Why should God *NECESSARILY* change his 'plans' because I personally don't like it, particularly *EXTERNAL* (from my physical self) events?

 

[Michael]

That sentence disproves your point.

Which has a nice link on what it means by research framework. The people who work in string theory hope one day it will be this magical "theory of everything" but we shall see.

I love this "wait and see" attitude when it comes to anything with the term "science' associated with it, but complete impatience when it comes to expectations of empirical validation of 'God'. Man, the double standards are AMAZING. In a very real way, a God theory is another 'theory of everything' and most theists have adopted a "wait and see" (live and let live) attitude about it. Only atheists need to "see" everything right now.

No, but the people who work in these fields don't claim it to be the truth.

Well, they certainly act that way, particularly in their collective attitude toward other branches of empirical physics, like PC/EU theory. They pretty much IGNORE empirical physics altogether and they keep making up TV presentation claiming "dark energy' and inflation does stuff.

Several competing ideas exist and right now, it is more mathematicians enjoying themselves by working with complex and unwieldy math. There is no religion here. No truth, no converting, no gods, no churches etc

Plenty of funding similarities, group meetings, "faith in the unseen' happening at those meetings, etc. Sure seems like any number of "Gods" might pop out of a dozen new extra dimensions of space/time.

It does, popular science isn't a good representation of the current status of the actual science that is actually going on in these communities.

Sorry, but I've seen how it operates on the internet. "Scientists" can be just as intolerant of dissent as even the most conservative religious cults I've run into. In fact I know of at least one very popular astronomy hangout that actually GLORIFIES the concept of public "witch hunts' and has a whole forum set aside for that exact purpose. Anything they disagree with instantly goes into that forum and the one that made the disagreeable claim is then "put on trial". It's BIZARRE online behavior, akin to the worst religious cult one might imagine.

 

[SkyWriting]

But we SHOULD expect God's answers of YES, NO and LATER to occur at different frequencies than they would if we were praying to the television, and yet God's answers seem to come about at the same frequency as they would if nothing but random chance were in operation!

That is only true for the people not hearing God's answers.

Every person is speaking directly to God at all times.

His answer is in direct response to the level of Trust or Faith that underlies the communication. I say this because none of us are blessed with the ability to speak at birth. But all can converse with God immediately. Those who listen with Belief & Faith are blessed with actual conversation. The rest just hear the background noise of blessings that all of God's Children receive, whether they are believers or not.

 

[SkyWriting]

I love this "wait and see" attitude when it comes to anything with the term "science' associated with it, but complete impatience when it comes to expectations of empirical validation of 'God'. Man, the double standards are AMAZING.

No double standards are present. Validation requires repetition
by multiple inquiring parties. We can't force God to do anything
so scientific validation is not possible for any claims about God
and His properties or actions.

 

[SkyWriting]

So, since the result of praying is identical to NOT praying, for all intents and purposes and measurable results, it makes no difference whether you pray or not.

I get instantaneous answers and dramatic results
WHEN
I turn over complete control of the outcome.

Just like every human, reaching that level of Faith is difficult.
But it has happened many times and every time, without fail.
To get a random result would require thousands of failures and I've
not yet had one.

 

[sandwiches]

It depends on what you pray for I suppose. If you pray for 'enlightenment', perhaps it matters IMMENSELY. It may matter to the individual that you pray for them too, even the outcome isn't changed by the act of prayer.

If I pray to effect the outcome of a sporting event, which side should God listen to exactly? Some prayers seem frivolous to me and I wouldn't engage myself in such silliness. I do however pray for help in changing internal behaviors and for others in some scenarios. I don't however instantly assume that God should say "yes" to everything I personally ask for, anymore than I said "yes" to everything my children ever asked me for.

I didn't God should say, "yes." I was merely clarifying what you implied: That there is no DISCERNIBLE difference in OBSERVABLE results between those who pray and those who do not.

 

[Michael]

I didn't God should say, "yes." I was merely clarifying what you implied: That there is no DISCERNIBLE difference in OBSERVABLE results between those who pray and those who do not.

Research Shows Religion Plays A Major Role In Health, Longevity

I'm not sure which study you're referring to exactly, but there is a discernible difference between church goers and non church goers in terms of lifespan.

 

[mkatzwork]

Research Shows Religion Plays A Major Role In Health, Longevity

I'm not sure which study you're referring to exactly, but there is a discernible difference between church goers and non church goers in terms of lifespan.

Correlation does not equal causation. Doesn't in any way suggest that the religion is true or that prayers are being answered. The key thing here is it doesn't actually matter which religion you follow, to get the beneficial effect, which clearly shows veracity has nothing to do with it...so it doesn't exactly help your cause at all - quite the opposite.

Incidentally, the study is very biased, because it is only in the United States - and here's proof. The Swedes - arguably one of the least religious societies on earth - have one of the longest average life expectancies at 80 years...compare with Swaziland, with 82.7% of the population estimated as being Christian, which has the second lowest average life expectancy on the planet, less than 40 years.......

So perhaps religion has a lot less to do with it than say, economic circumstances...

 

[CabVet]

Research Shows Religion Plays A Major Role In Health, Longevity

I'm not sure which study you're referring to exactly, but there is a discernible difference between church goers and non church goers in terms of lifespan.

Well, following your logic, since Japan is the world's longest-lived country:

In Search of Enlightenment: Centenarian Prevalence in Okinawa

If we want to live long, we should all convert to Shintoism and Buddhism since those are the two prevalent religions there.

 

[Nabobalis]

I love this "wait and see" attitude when it comes to anything with the term "science' associated with it, but complete impatience when it comes to expectations of empirical validation of 'God'. Man, the double standards are AMAZING. In a very real way, a God theory is another 'theory of everything' and most theists have adopted a "wait and see" (live and let live) attitude about it. Only atheists need to "see" everything right now.

What is wrong with wait and see? String theory and many other ideas are at this moment purely math. Math takes time to develop, it isn't done over night. Einstein took about 10 years to go from SR to GR, these people are trying something more ambitious and might just end up failing. There is no double standard here, your "empirical theory" of god is impossible to falsify and is therefore hardly empirical.

Plenty of funding similarities, group meetings, "faith in the unseen' happening at those meetings, etc. Sure seems like any number of "Gods" might pop out of a dozen new extra dimensions of space/time.

They are nothing alike, the fact you can claim that with a straight face is amazing. There are no gods, nor "faith in the unseen" happening or anything. Just ask any one of them, they know they have access to the "truth", nor wiil they peddle it as such.

Well, they certainly act that way, particularly in their collective attitude toward other branches of empirical physics, like PC/EU theory. They pretty much IGNORE empirical physics altogether and they keep making up TV presentation claiming "dark energy' and inflation does stuff.

Sorry, but I've seen how it operates on the internet. "Scientists" can be just as intolerant of dissent as even the most conservative religious cults I've run into. In fact I know of at least one very popular astronomy hangout that actually GLORIFIES the concept of public "witch hunts' and has a whole forum set aside for that exact purpose. Anything they disagree with instantly goes into that forum and the one that made the disagreeable claim is then "put on trial". It's BIZARRE online behavior, akin to the worst religious cult one might imagine.

Again, popular science is not a good way to judge progress that is occurring in any scientific community. Let alone an internet "debate". If those are your only two methods of getting into / understanding the scientific community and the state of science at the current time, then you are doing it wrong.

But you really have to get over the fact you really love and want to compare anything you disagree with as a cult or a religion where scientists worship other "gods". Your vendetta against the mainstream astronomy community is clouding your judgement.

 

[sandwiches]

Research Shows Religion Plays A Major Role In Health, Longevity

I'm not sure which study you're referring to exactly, but there is a discernible difference between church goers and non church goers in terms of lifespan.

I was referring to YOUR OWN WORDS, not any study. You're telling us two different things:
1) You can't scientifically study whether prayer has any discernible effect
2) You can observe and scientifically study prayer having effects

Which is it? Does prayer have an observable effect or not?

 

[Michael]

What is wrong with wait and see?

I suppose, "nothing" is wrong with that attitude, assuming you apply that same concept to ALL topics, including the topic of God.

String theory and many other ideas are at this moment purely math. Math takes time to develop, it isn't done over night.

It's tad more than a mathematical model in the sense that it suggests/requieres that there are many new whole dimensions of spacetime that we know absolutely nothing about. If you'd entertain a concept that "far out", and still call it "science" what can't be considered "science"? Certainly there are more empirical concepts of "God" that don't require ANY extra dimensions.

Einstein took about 10 years to go from SR to GR, these people are trying something more ambitious and might just end up failing. There is no double standard here, your "empirical theory" of god is impossible to falsify and is therefore hardly empirical.

Oh boloney. Any number of issues/problems related to EU/PC theory could easily be used to "falsify" the concepts that I put forth. For that matter PC/EU theory isn't even a "mainstream" theory to begin with, in fact it's a MINORITY position within any cosmology group. Awareness isn't NECESSARILY unfalsifiable either, so nothing I've proposed is unfalsifiable, certainly not the extreme of something like string theory, or inflation.

They are nothing alike, the fact you can claim that with a straight face is amazing. There are no gods,

No, it simply requires MULTIPLE extra dimensions to exist, none of which can be shown to exist. Talk about FAITH!

nor "faith in the unseen" happening or anything.

You mean BESIDES all those extra dimensions? You certainly can't claim to have EVIDENCE that extra dimensions exist. What else can you call it besides 'faith'?

Just ask any one of them, they know they have access to the "truth", nor wiil they peddle it as such.

No, but they'll still take your funding/money anyway.

Again, popular science is not a good way to judge progress that is occurring in any scientific community. Let alone an internet "debate". If those are your only two methods of getting into / understanding the scientific community and the state of science at the current time, then you are doing it wrong.

I've tried the publishing route too. I see no evidence whatsoever that the astronomy community is even INTERESTED in making any "progress". They keep dumbing down events in space to "magnetism" when they know perfectly well it's an "ELECTROmagnetic process". Birkeland explained why the solar atmosphere is hotter than it's surface over 100 years ago! He also explained coronal loops to them over 100 years ago. They aren't the LEAST BIT interested in PROGRESS IMO.

But you really have to get over the fact you really love and want to compare anything you disagree with as a cult or a religion where scientists worship other "gods". Your vendetta against the mainstream astronomy community is clouding your judgement.

Not at all. I have no "vendetta" for starters. I embrace real empirical physics and real "science", I simply reject ONE cosmology theory. I like and respect actual "science".

Most branches of science actually produce TANGIBLE goods and/or services. Astronomers do too. They produce good satellites, nice pictures, and bad dogma. I enjoy the satellites and I appreciate the images, I simply reject one creation mythos.

Astronomy isn't like other branches of 'science' IMO. I simply dislike "supernatural", and empirically impotent (in the lab) ideas like inflation and dark energy and such. It's nothing personal toward anyone. Like many other skeptics that reject mainstream cosmology concepts, I simply prefer a more 'empirical' view of the universe around me. That preference for empirical physics is hardly something that most atheists complain about. Astronomers on the other hand.......

I have however met a lot of astronomers online. Most of them are quite nice, really wonderful people who keep an open scientific mind. Some (admittedly a minority) of them are downright irrational and highly aggressive. Their strong emotional and professional attachment to their dark dogma is very much cult-like in it's zealousness at times.

Unfortunately most of them (even the nice ones) know almost nothing about MHD theory as it relates to solar physics, my personal field of interest. They go out of their way to ignore the effect of electrical current in events in space to the point of shear absurdity. The high coronal temperatures would NOT have been a "mystery' to Birkeland. The fact it's still a mystery to astronomers today, 100 years later, is a powerful testament to the fact that mainstream astronomers have absolutely no interest or desire in progress, or at least no aptitude for it.