SMOGZINN
Lifer
- Jun 17, 2005
- 14,221
- 4,452
- 136
The space science seems very contradictory to me. You get a bunch of scientists with all kind of guessing theorems about the Universe. Some of them support a theorem, others not. I don't see this as being the answer.
That is because we don't have the answer yet. That is why there are multiple competing theorems. We inch towards daylight. We find evidence for one thing, we come up with a theory that fits that evidence and then collect more evident that gives us more or less confidence in that theory, if it is less we revise the theory and try again. We keep doing that loop until we have enough supporting evidence for the theory that we have stopped having to make any significant changes to it.
And we have thousands, if not tens of thousands, of scientists doing that loop, and they don't all have the same theories but share the same evidence. In this way we get competing theories that live or die based on how well they support all the evidence not just a subset of it. These theories get closer and closer to each other, with only minor differences, as we collect enough evidence, so that eventually we end up with a single theory that fits everything, is descriptive, and predictive. That is when we know we have it pretty close to true.
So, while we might not know which theory is correct, we do know which ones are not, and we are getting closer and closer to the truth. During this process we can be fairly sure we are at least on the right track.
The Big Bang theory has held up really well. It is descriptive and predictive. We are still working on it though, there are still some evidence that does not fit well, but we are working on ways to modify the theory to meet that evidence.
