You’ve heard, I hope, about NASA climate scientist James Hansen, who the Bush administration tried to silence when he called for reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases. Cosmology, as it turns out, is not exempt from the radical anti-science agenda. The New York Times, via Atrios:
In October, for example, George Deutsch, a presidential appointee in NASA headquarters, told a Web designer working for the agency to add the word “theory” after every mention of the Big Bang, according to an e-mail message from Mr. Deutsch that another NASA employee forwarded to The Times.
…
The Big Bang memo came from Mr. Deutsch, a 24-year-old presidential appointee in the press office at NASA headquarters whose resume says he was an intern in the “war room” of the 2004 Bush-Cheney re-election campaign. A 2003 journalism graduate of Texas A&M, he was also the public-affairs officer who sought more control over Dr. Hansen’s public statements.
In October 2005, Mr. Deutsch sent an e-mail message to Flint Wild, a NASA contractor working on a set of Web presentations about Einstein for middle-school students. The message said the word “theory” needed to be added after every mention of the Big Bang.
The Big Bang is “not proven fact; it is opinion,” Mr. Deutsch wrote, adding, “It is not NASA’s place, nor should it be to make a declaration such as this about the existence of the universe that discounts intelligent design by a creator.”
It continued: “This is more than a science issue, it is a religious issue. And I would hate to think that young people would only be getting one-half of this debate from NASA. That would mean we had failed to properly educate the very people who rely on us for factual information the most.”
Emphasis added. Draw your own conclusions, I’m feeling a bit of outrage fatigue at the moment.
Update: Phil Plait has extensive comments at Bad Astronomy Blog. Also Pharyngula, Balloon Juice, Stranger Fruit, Gary Farber, Mark Kleiman, World O’ Crap, and Hullabaloo.
Update again, for our new visitors: Folks, of course the Big Bang model is a theory, and of course it is also correct. It has been tested beyond reasonable doubt: our current universe expanded from a hot, dense, smooth state about 14 billion years ago. The evidence is overwhelming, and we have hard data (from primordial nucleosynthesis) that the model was correct as early as one minute after the initial singularity.
Of course the initial singularity (the `Bang’ itself) is not understood, and there are plenty of other loose ends. But the basic framework — expanding from an early hot, dense, smooth state — is beyond reasonable dispute.
It’s too bad that scientific education in this country is so poor that many people don’t understand what is meant by “theory” or “model.” It doesn’t mean “just someone’s opinion.” Theories can be completely speculative, absolutely well-established, or just plain wrong; the Big Bang model is absolutely well-established.
This is good news ! And did you also hear that the House Republican who is on the subcommittee which oversees the NSA has called for a full congressional investigation into the domestic eavesdropping program! Things are looking up!!
Well, well, well. Got farked here, like so many others, but have to comment on the overwhelming miss the mark I read here.
Scientific knowledge, by definition, is comprised of only those observations and descriptive narratives connecting them that can be attained by anybody with the time and cash nd inclination to do so. The body grows by accretion of repeatedly confirmed observations, and by refinements of the narratives that explain them and guide the acquisition of new observations. The more solidly repeatable by more observers a result is, the more its narrative gains strength as what is scientifically called a Theory. Conversely, an observation that contradicts some particular prediction of a theory will falsify that part of that theory and remove it from discourse. Opinions do not enter into it. At all.
Very pragmatic – a scientific theory is a description of how something works that can be practically uised to either arrive at a desired result or to know why same cannot be realized. And the strength of a scientific theory is proportional to (amongst other things) the number of supporting independent observations and experiments.
The existence of this blog is a prime example of the confluence of many such theories, and would not have been possible were there any fudging or wishful thinking involved. I know this – I do computers for a living, and do it because my efforts can be seen to work without needing my continued attention to maintaining any kind of illusion or deseption. Cellphones, GPS, Play-Stations, plasma widescreen TVs, all are possible only because of the scientific method. Dis it, and retreat bck to mediaeval times. You really want that? Die of old age at 40? or more likely die of an infected scratch at 20?
By descriptive narratives I include descriptions of how the various aspects of the observations inter-relate, what tools and how to build them to make the observations, and predictions of observations yet to be made. Perhaps also including descriptions of possibilities of things to poke and what changes that would make to the observations (aka experiment). In other words, observer independent and purely objective. By definition.
Therefore there is no such thing as a conflict with religiousness, since anybody, religous or not, can follow the given recipes and make the same observations. It makes no such claims over subjective experience (yet) since that cannot be observed in any given individual by anybody other than that individual. And religion is purely concerned with the subjective experience and explanations of meaning of life.
There is therefore no corresponding meaning to be derived from attempting to categorise or otherwise inject religious commentary into scientific discourse. It literally makes no sense. Just as nonsensical as attempting to use science to circumscribe religious discourse.
Finally (been up all night on this) the matter of the Big Bang Theory itself. First, the theory makes no assertions about time 0 through the first microseconds. But after that, contrary to those who say nay, we have abundant observations.
Maybe we were not in proximity to those events some 13 billion years ago, but we can certainly observe them. Light from those events is still arriving here, and what else is an observation but seeing the light from the event being observed? And there are many observers, many telescopes, all pointed at refining the measurements, looking for deviations from theoretical predictions that can be used to further refine those theories. And through this process the BBT is become very strong indeed. About as far from a guess as one can get.
Now it maybe takes very deep pockets and exquisitely sensitive instruments (Hubble Telescope, with the most sensitive camera yet built, required an exposure time of 100 hours for the deep field pics. That’s 36,000,000 times longer than your typical snapshot of the family at play) but anybody with those resources can play, and will get the same results. And they do. The Hubble is not the only eye on the Big Bang.
I repeat – will get the same results. That is what science is about. If you don’t see the same thing, or don’t get the same results, you are not dealing with science, you are dealing with opinion. Or delusion. Or you are simply incompetent, and perhaps not willing to face up to that fact. Or lazy. Or in too much of a rush to pay attention to the details. Or cheap. Anything but following the prescription in excrutiating detail.
Or, and this is very rare, you have actually discovered something new. But you’d better be able to a) back up your observations with strong justification that your methods were thorough, b) be able to repeat them, and c) be able to describe to others how to repeat them and have them actually be repeated.
There is of course much more that can be said, but it would be mostly either essentially repetitive or too much detail or both. And I need to sleep. Thanks for listening.
Hey George maybe you can get a job over at Mike Brown’s consulting company….
good riddance.
Elliot
Now that Deutsch has resigned, this becomes reminiscent of the Jeff Gannon debacle. Don’t these jerks ever learn any lessons from their screwups?
Actually, I guess it’s better that they don’t, insofar as it will hasten their departure from the national political scene. Let’s hope so…
There is nothing for them to learn because they already know everything.
Elliot
Apparently this George Deutsch is a liar. The New York Times reports today that he resigned from NASA when it was discovered he never graduated from Texas A&M.
Some Christian, huh?
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/08/politics/08nasa.html
One should in my opinion not mix up science with politics here. Naturally, Big-Bang cosmologists would like to see their theory being the ‘official truth’ and other groups theirs (not only for idealistic reasons but also in order to secure further funding for their work). In the end however it is solely NASA who are responsible for what they publish or not.
One can just hope that this affair doesn’t affect the scientific discourse as such.
Thomas
http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk
I must say of the many blogs (and other sources) I read on this topic the comments here were without contest the most thought provoking and coherent of the lot. There is the typical bickering and bashing, but even that is eloquent. Bravo!
Now have a look at a cartoon I made to lighten things up a bit:
http://greedoneverfired.blogspot.com/2006/02/big-bang-for-your-buck.html
Pingback: Cosmic Variance
I’m not a cosmologist, but, based on everything I’ve read, I question the premise that the Big Bang is a certainty… at least to the same degree that evolution is a certainty. I’d say there’s a very high probability it’s right but that you have to withhold certainty until we’ve got a better understanding of gravity, dark energy and the true nature of spacetime.
And of course it’s definitely questionable whether “our” Big Bang — the one 13.7 billion years ago — was a truly “universal” event… or whether the observable universe created by that Big Bang is merely a local region within the true universe.
It’s worth remembering that the Steady State Universe was considered a virtual certainty in its day. It’s ALWAYS possible that we’re wrong, no matter how certain something may SEEM. I’m not sure that science should ever assert certainty on a subject, because that’s equivalent to closing one’s mind. To paraphrase somebody: our true ignorance lies not in what we don’t know; it lies in all the stuff we DO know that ain’t really so.
Of course, I realize the admission of ANY uncertainty on the part of scientists will be instantly latched onto by the religious right and held up as weakness, but ultimately what we must be defending are not the truths of science — evolution, the Big Bang, etc. — but the truth of Science itself, which ultimately depends on an open mind.
Moreover, practically speaking, I think it’s critically important for scientists to err on the side of too much doubt rather than on the side of too much certainty. If the Big Bang has been presented to the public as a certainty, and if it were then — against all odds– disproved, the credibility of the scientific community as a whole could be undermined.
Science is not under attack from the religious right alone. There is a more generalized skepticism, and it’s partly the result of “arrogant” scientists having been proved (or perceived to be proved) wrong about the safety of nuclear power, pesticides, wonder drugs and other aspects of the “better-living-through-science” modern world which didn’t pan out. There’s also the persistent (and not ENTIRELY unfounded) myth of a closed-minded scientific establishment fiercely resistant to unorthodox ideas. Obviously this idea has been exploited by the religious right with some success in their depiction of evolution as an orthodoxy the scientific establishment refuses to have questioned.
I realize that the attempts of this fellow insisting that the word “theory” be tacked onto any mention of the Big Bang represent an attempt to undercut the authority of science and are thoroughly deplorable, but — to play devil’s advocate — mightn’t it be preferable, in terms of the way we want to have people view science, to present the Big Bang as a “well-founded theory” rather than as a certainty (and thus, as some would have it, a tenet of the scientific religion)?
Again, isn’t it more important that people believe in science than that they believe in the Big Bang?
Peter,
Again, isn’t it more important that people believe in science than that they believe in the Big Bang?
Do you not think the “big bang,” science?
Re. ‘Dark Energy’ and the fact that the Universe is accelerating, is it not possible that there was an earlier ‘Big Bang’ which created a much bigger Universe than ours and it, is slowing down and we are experiencing its gravitational pull, hence we are being accelerated towards it. We are as it were a ‘small’ Universe within a very large Universe the ‘Dark Energy’.
Re. ‘Dark Energy’ and the fact that the Universe is accelerating, is it not possible that there was an earlier ‘Big Bang’ which created a much bigger Universe than ours and it, is slowing down and we are experiencing its gravitational pull, hence we are being accelerated towards it. We are as it were a ‘small’ Universe within a very large Universe the ‘Dark Energy’.
In this case, you would get different redshifts looking towards and away from this attractor. Galaxy redshifts are evenly distributed in direction on cosmological scales once you account for peculiar motion arising from local clustering of matter.
Pingback: Bad news continues to mount for administration | Cosmic Variance
I really hope this isn’t a pointless addition, though I suppose I’m taking that chance, with 138 replies before me.
There would seem to be no stronger proclamation of the veracity of a concept than that it is a theory. This applies within and without the domain of professional scientific scrutiny. As single observation is an, if not the, initial point of exploration of a pattern. It might be argued that it is the detection of and application of recognized patterns that is the seat of what we call “intelligence”. Upon that argument we’d build the idea that any decision, no matter how minute, is the result of at least some minimal search for a pattern among one or more observations. That is, you reach for the doorknob to open a door based on a recognized pattern showing that that is the easiest way to get through a closed doorway. Young children often take some time to come to this conclusion after successive attempts and observations of other people using this method. In that sense, through several iterations of observation, hypothesis formation, hypothesis testing, and hypothesis refinement (i.e. the scientific method), the child has developed a successful theory for getting through the closed doorway.
No one would argue that that process is nearly as rigorous as that practiced by practicing scientists, but it needn’t be to motivate an understanding of the language of “theory” and “fact”. No one would argue, I’m sure, that attempts at understanding the early conditions of the universe can be as easily investigated as can be the opening of a door. If we were instead to use as an example a criminal trial, wherein there is only a variety of indirect evidence (e.g. no witnesses, no direct detection, etc.), I’d be astonished to learn that any among you would baulk at a verdict based on 50 verified exhibits of evidence, verified at least insofar as the court is capable (e.g. DNA testing which, itself, is not fault-proof but which has been shown to have a high degree of accuracy), all of which most strongly suggested the defendant. This is, after all, the purpose and nature of our legal system, and cynics though we may be, outside the hype of prime time “news” magazines and the like, we expect that it works pretty well.
How, then, assuming I am correct in that second paragraph, could you so easily dismiss several orders of magnitude more and stronger evidence of the scientist’s conception of the early universe? If in each case there was no witness, that shouldn’t matter lest we assume that the person with what appears, under close scrutiny, to be the victim’s blood all over their clothes and hands, and who is thought to have had significant motive for murder, and has no alibi at the time of the death, and whose footprints were found around the scene of the death, to be actually innocent because no one saw the murder happen. To be a little less wordy, when there is available a system of indication of such weight that it includes almost all evidence outside of direct observation, whatever conclusion is most strongly indicated by said system of indication should reasonably be considered the best available conclusion. It would, of course, be a conclusion open to scrutiny; but after thousands of iterative challenges, each of which either dismissed by prediction borne out by observation, or used to inform the theory further, there really would be very little room for alternative conclusions of any use.
This is a theory, no? When a turd is found on the floor, with chunks consistent with undigested dog food, with a form factor consistent with a dog’s anus, and in a room recently departed by a skulking dog, all evidence save direct observation suggests that the dog just shit on the floor. Granted: there is some (we likely all agree nearly zero) probability that some other agent, e.g. another dog or a small faerie of fecal mischief, snuck in and framed your dog; but that is just about ludicrous.
We use, whether we want to or not, the basic framework of the scientific method in our everyday lives. I can’t think of very many things which are absolutely certain events. I can only base my expectations on a rational interpretation of and inference from things I have observed and what those observations best indicate. Each of you does this, too. We should hope that our conceptions of patterns in the world around us are strong enough to be called theories.
I wasn’t sure where to add this, so I thought what the heck, if Roger Penrose can have a change of heart then why not those who hold speculative idealization and models as insignificant as an affront to reality. Then hey, this place and thread would have been most apprporiate? 🙂
Hey anybody consider the possibility that Dick Cheney was performing an experiment to see if the “Big Bang” was real or just a theory 🙂
Pingback: Cosmic Variance
I remain truly amazed by the thought processes revealed here, and encountering beings who would literally wish you into non existance because you would dare to have a different opinion! But then again, what is more explosive than Religion & Politics, with Science mixed in for good measure.
25 years ago, an article appeared in “Popular Science” that stated a super computer had determined the odds the Big Bang Theory was correct were one in a “cazillion” (paraphrasing here) A while later, I read about another super computer that had determined that if a human studied all there was written in the Old Testament about the coming of Christ, the odds were one in one with seventy zero’s that he could’nt make it happen by any means.
My belief based on scientific “fact”, & historical “fact”, lead me to believe that both occured. I personaly believe neither can cancel out the other. Both require “fact” and both require “faith” I can think of nothing science could discover that could shake my belief in a “creator”
I am truly awed by the scientific mind and encourage the search for God’s signature. Let’s hope when they get around to creating man, they can come up with their own dirt.
Hello scholars!
I just came upon this site by accident. Well, I can say that there are a lot of people in here that really hate the theist argument and are militantly opposed to the concept of a supreme being creating all of what we see.
I read the posts of many who believe that we evolved from simian ancestors. I thought that most of those theories were already given up on much as the “theory of spontaneous generation” and the concept of “an upward urge in nature” to produce an evolved and supposed better species. Louis Pasteur’s findings and the demonstrable laws of physics disproved these theories long ago. On another note if you folks don’t believe that science and politics should ever cross paths, you may want to go back in time and inform Germany’s chancelor Adolph Hitler that it was not okay to murder
“lesser evolved” forms of homo sapiens.
regards,
Tom
Hi you guys!
thoughts from Australia.
it seems to me that a lot of you delight in showing your learning with your big words and theoretical meandering.
My observations show that the proposed ideas of B.B. are bringing out the religionist intolerance like those who opposed Galileo, Copernicus and others, and the real threat ( to them ) of eternal damnation and excommunication from their religous ideals. Whether one believes or not is ones own choice just as the U.S.constitution decrees and allows ( and we need to be thankful for that). The fact that America developed out of the idea that people need to be free to make their own decisions, and that that freedom is cherished is a great blessing for mankind. The fact of “ex nihilo” is still accepted by some deluded persons, and a “7 day creation” idea is still about, is a pity!
Thinking persons have to agree that there is proven knowledge that pre-Adamic events did happen, that Dinosaurs did exist, Ive seen some of their bones, and that the earth has a long history of developement. At the same time I question Darwins ideas, that,if he had the knowledge of D.N.A.,and other matters as we have today, showing the unlikely event of genetic change to convert a fish into a man in one fell swoop, or whatever link that is put forward to support his theory, that we may give more credibility to I.D. Contrary to the thoughts of some, Science and religion must be in agreement, otherwise the idea of God would fall flat on its face, for if we are to believe in a creation,(how else did we get here ???), how could this happen without the creator being endowed with a knowledge of all the sciences that we presently know and maybe some that we do not yet understand and or that we are not yet endowed with, such as computer technology, which my Grandfather would have revelled in, as he was a radio enthusiast from the days of Marconi. As for the steady solid state before the B.B,where did all this stupendous amount of matter that we know to be in our universe originally come from???. We are obviously in deep water when we try to fathom that one (remember ex nihilo).
I do not totally discredit B.B., but one thing remains to be said, maybe there are other forces that we do not know of as yet that will give us a clearer understanding of the cosmic powers in our universe. Who will be foolish enough to say without trepidation, we know every thing that there is to be known, just like the Religious bigots who threatened Gallileo when he said that he believed that the earth revolved around the Sun.
We have to accept that the religious idea that God made man is no more than a theory to many, just as Darwins ideas which are so fully accepted by many, are only just a theory, so we likewise have to accept that the big bang idea, while seemingly supported by measurement and collation of many ideas accepted by some, is after all only a theory, and after all, is a only a possible chance event, which begs the question why did it happen???
So, I conclude my diatribe with the following quotation of which I do not have the author:-
Intelligent design advocates do support the big bang. Young earth creationists do not.
Hello folks!
Hey Max. You make some very good points. I don’t think many people even Christians or theists consider science an anathema unless they are completely ignorant. We all come into this world with the question “how” on our lips. You cannot have an intelligent exchange of ideas with such a person nor can you have a discussion on philosophy or religion without first establishing that there is some truth in the writings of the philosophers or theists. Otherwise you have no reference or common ground. In like manner scientists take creedence in many theories that have been accepted in their community but are not yet proven. It is much like a discipline.
I believe that science is a systematic attempt to gather knowledge of the tangible things in the universe through study and observation. Many study and observe the mechanics of matter and energy and leave out the big question of “why”as though it is some sort of stumbling block. The greatest minds always ask “why”.
On the other hand, you have creationists holding to a literal six day creation with one day of rest explanation from the Bible. The Biblical texts expound that God/the Creator transcends time and that to Him a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day.
It is more likely describing 6 or seven units of time rather than the period it takes for the Earth to rotate once on it’s axis. Without this understanding you are having an ideological debate rather than a comparison of theorum. The finding of homo sapien footprints in the same stratum of soil as dinosaur remains is another stumbing block for many. It doesn’t however surprise me.
regards,
Tom
Hello,
I read back in a post a while back from a fellow named JW stating that a law and a theory are pretty much the same. What’s that all about? No wonder everybody is so messed up over the classification of a theory/hypothesis
My understanding of what a law is relating to physics or science: a sequence of natural events occurring with unvarying uniformity under the same conditions. In otherwords scientists have observed these events occurring where the conditions were the same and pretty much concur that based upon the uniformity and probability that unless conditions change, the events will occur as expected.
Though both a law and a theory deal with principles of science, a theory is much more speculative based upon verified principle and a law relates more in being the know/verified substantiation for the principle.
Tom
Im afraid I have to agree most with ATHIEST (122) and LIFE_OF_BRIAN (98) on most of these issues. I am not personaly religious, however beleive in the “to each his own philosophy.” What I have a problem with is people who invade other’s personal inalienable rights for the sake of faith such as muslim suicide bombers and christian housewives who kill their children for the sake of a better afterlife.
I also have a problem with religious people who so blindly devote themselves to god or allah or whoever the hell else without seriously reciprocating the possibilities first. Does a god exist? Maybe, I guess you could call me agnostic, but I do know that life everyone should make the best of life and (at the risk of being labeled really gay) you should go out with a positive attitude and make the world a better place.
I know personaly that I am not going to devot myself to a faith just because some random middle eastern guy in a turban said without having some type of rational thought toward my own means of existence. Nonetheless, I belive that our society and gov’t should be totaly secualr and advocate science, space research and stuff like that.
Can’t we all just get along without going to war, killing each other, or providing an environment of intolerance, ignorance, and apathy?