What do those Nobel people know anyway?

[Sparko]

For what exactly?

for everyone to get bored and leave the thread so he can declare victory, probably.

[shunyadragon]

For what exactly?

I have listed more scientists, and I will list more. You are picking frog hairs on an idiot issue of definition. You have presented absolutely nothing, nor has anyone else to refute that the their view does not represent a consensus of physicists and cosmologists.

Again and again . . .

I listed four major well respected physicists/cosmologists, and I could easily cite more. I believe the view of the cosmologists I cited represents at minimum a plurality of scientists.

Add Max Tegmark to the list:

Source: https://www.google.com/search?q=Max+...hrome&ie=UTF-8

I can think of four scientists who aren't convinced that carbon emissions have warmed the planet. Doesn't mean there's any sort of consensus on that - it's a tiny, fringe opinion in the field, and the scientific consensus leans the exact opposite direction. Words matter, and choosing to use it the way you did has the potential to confuse things even more badly than they already are.

general agreement.

[TheLurch]

I have listed more scientists, and I will list more. You are picking frog hairs on an idiot issue of definition. You have presented absolutely nothing, nor has anyone else to refute that the their view does not represent a consensus of physicists and cosmologists.

Again and again . . .

I listed four major well respected physicists/cosmologists, and I could easily cite more. I believe the view of the cosmologists I cited represents at minimum a plurality of scientists.

Add Max Tegmark to the list:

Source: https://www.google.com/search?q=Max+...hrome&ie=UTF-8general agreement.

You're completely conflating two unrelated things, and wrong on both of them.

The first is the use of the term "consensus" when it comes to science. As i explained it has a meaning in the field that's different from the common dictionary definition. By using the dictionary definition in the context of science, you're acting no different from a creationist who dismisses evolution as "only a theory."

Even if you take the dictionary definition, your approach to handling it is meaningless. You're essentially selecting physicists based on whether they seem to agree on this one issue, and then saying "there's agreement!" It's a tautology.


The second issue is whether there is actually a consensus of any sort among physicists on this issue. You're the one claiming one exists; it's your responsibility to support that claim. Your approach, instead, has been to name a few names and then demand we provide evidence showing you're wrong. That's not how argument works. You need to make the case that your argument is correct.

The problem, of course, is that you can't. Why? Because this is a completely theoretical issue. As has been discussed extensively above, is that the idea in question is a consequence of specific versions of inflation. At this point in time, we have 1) only indirect (if extremely persuasive) evidence for inflation; 2) no evidence for or against any particular form of inflation; 3) no clear ways of generating empirical evidence for any particular form of inflation.

As such, the best that can be said for the idea is that it's sound on theoretical grounds, and would likely be correct should we develop evidence for how inflation operated.

And NB: this is coming from someone who was defending the idea as something much more scientific than the wild-assed speculation that some people in this discussion were dismissing it as.

[shunyadragon]

You're completely conflating two unrelated things, and wrong on both of them.

The first is the use of the term "consensus" when it comes to science. As i explained it has a meaning in the field that's different from the common dictionary definition. By using the dictionary definition in the context of science, you're acting no different from a creationist who dismisses evolution as "only a theory."

Even if you take the dictionary definition, your approach to handling it is meaningless. You're essentially selecting physicists based on whether they seem to agree on this one issue, and then saying "there's agreement!" It's a tautology.


The second issue is whether there is actually a consensus of any sort among physicists on this issue. You're the one claiming one exists; it's your responsibility to support that claim. Your approach, instead, has been to name a few names and then demand we provide evidence showing you're wrong. That's not how argument works. You need to make the case that your argument is correct.

The problem, of course, is that you can't. Why? Because this is a completely theoretical issue. As has been discussed extensively above, is that the idea in question is a consequence of specific versions of inflation. At this point in time, we have 1) only indirect (if extremely persuasive) evidence for inflation; 2) no evidence for or against any particular form of inflation; 3) no clear ways of generating empirical evidence for any particular form of inflation.

As such, the best that can be said for the idea is that it's sound on theoretical grounds, and would likely be correct should we develop evidence for how inflation operated.

And NB: this is coming from someone who was defending the idea as something much more scientific than the wild-assed speculation that some people in this discussion were dismissing it as.

No coherent response. Too long and rambling. 'Thou dost protest too much.'

I believe the core of scientists I presented, now up to five, represents the science. How many scientists do I need to provide to satisfy your requirements or the consensus?

[Jedidiah]

. . . I believe the core of scientists I presented, . . .

That is the point of The Lurches post. Did you miss that?

[rogue06]

That is the point of The Lurches post. Did you miss that?

Repeatedly

Simply dismissed as incoherent rambling.

[TheLurch]

No coherent response. Too long and rambling.

Each paragraph is largely self contained, except for the one that starts "as such", which should be treated as part of the paragraph immediately above it. If you can't deal with the response as a whole, maybe try tackling it a paragraph at a time.

[Roy]

believe the core of scientists I presented, now up to five, represents the science.

Five? Wow.

I can easily find five scientists who think the Earth is 6000 years old and was globally flooded in 2348BC.

[Sparko]

No coherent response. Too long and rambling. 'Thou dost protest too much.'

I believe the core of scientists I presented, now up to five, represents the science. How many scientists do I need to provide to satisfy your requirements or the consensus?

You are clearly insane.

cherry picking a few scientists to agree with you doesn't make it a consensus among all scientists.

[shunyadragon]

Five? Wow.

I can easily find five scientists who think the Earth is 6000 years old and was globally flooded in 2348BC.

You missed the request. How many do you want? I can easily list 20 or more.

Actually all this manure slinging misses the point. Sparko challenged me that citing scientists is the fallacy of appealing to authority, which is not a fallacy concerning the testimony of scientists. Some have gotten anal retentive on numbers and lost cite of the reality of Sparko's foolishness based on his anti-science view and his agenda.

[Sparko]

Sparko challenged me that citing scientists is the fallacy of appealing to authority, which is not a fallacy concerning the testimony of scientists. Some have gotten anal retentive on numbers and lost cite of the reality of Sparko's foolishness based on his anti-science view and his agenda.

No I didn't shuny. You can't seem to read. Even OBP pointed this out to you. I said you were dismissing everyone else and using a nebulous appeal to authority to claim that our views were wrong because you found some authorities who agreed with you and their views counted more. That is classic appeal to authority. And when confronted about them, you basically just used some cherry picked scientists who have nothing more than a hypothesis and no evidence.

Just because people point out your faults and don't agree with you doesn't make them anti-science. If you want to produce some ACTUAL science, I am more than happy to listen. So far you have just tossed out conjecture and tried to dress it up as science.

[shunyadragon]

No I didn't shuny. You can't seem to read. Even OBP pointed this out to you. I said you were dismissing everyone else and using a nebulous appeal to authority to claim that our views were wrong because you found some authorities who agreed with you and their views counted more. That is classic appeal to authority. And when confronted about them, you basically just used some cherry picked scientists who have nothing more than a hypothesis and no evidence.

Just because people point out your faults and don't agree with you doesn't make them anti-science. If you want to produce some ACTUAL science, I am more than happy to listen. So far you have just tossed out conjecture and tried to dress it up as science.

My citation of physicists and cosmologists did not constitute a 'nebulous appeal to authority.' Here and and in previous posts you have consistently held an anti-science agenda concerning the science of the origins and nature of our universe and the possibility of a multiverse. The scientists I cited have provided a consistent widely accepted explanation of the origins of our universe based on objective verifiable evidence of Quantum Mechanics, and you, like seer, chose not to accept it based on your religious agenda.

[Sparko]

My citation of physicists and cosmologists did not constitute a 'nebulous appeal to authority.' Here and and in previous posts you have consistently held an anti-science agenda concerning the science of the origins and nature of our universe and the possibility of a multiverse. The scientists I cited have provided a consistent widely accepted explanation of the origins of our universe based on objective verifiable evidence of Quantum Mechanics, and you, like seer, chose not to accept it based on your religious agenda.

Shuny you don't even seem to remember WHAT your post was that I was complaining about do you? Let me remind you:

Seer, you have zip, nada, negatory background in the science of physics and cosmology. Vilenkin, Guth, Krauss and Hawking believe there is enough evidence to conclude that the origin of our universe came about through natural law, Quantum gravity from the nothing that is indeed something. Yet, you selectively cite Vilenkin to justify your agenda, and than consider 'there is no evidence. Well, Vilenkin, Guth, Krauss and Hawking believe there is evidence, and they are far more qualified than you to reach these conclusions than Sparko nor you.

Ah the old "Appeal to Authority" fallacy. nice.

All you did was dismiss Seer and use an appeal to authority to do the dismissal. Basically "You are not as smart as the scientists whom I am name dropping here, Seer so your voice doesn't count" You used an appeal to authority and they are not even using science, they are merely hypothesizing. And you cherry picked them.

You continue to do it too. While denying doing it.

For your information: The Appeal to Authority Fallacy is:

Argument from authority (Latin: argumentum ad verecundiam), also called the appeal to authority, is a common form of argument which leads to a logical fallacy. The appeal to authority relies on an argument of the form:

1 - A is an authority on a particular topic
2 - A says something about that topic
3 - A is probably correct

Which is exactly what you keep doing.

[seer]

Which is exactly what you keep doing.

I spent ten years working with the mentally handicapped, even they understood, at some level, that they were delusional.

[TheLurch]

They are not even using science, they are merely hypothesizing.

Uhm, it's entirely possible to use science while hypothesizing. Indeed, it's difficult to hypothesize without using science, given that a valid hypothesis has to be consistent with all the scientific information we have already.

I think there's two iffy bits of language usage that are contributing to the two of you talking past each other. One is that you're terming a theoretical extension of known physics as non-scientific, when that's not how it works. And Shuny is taking that and accusing you of being anti-science, which you're clearly not.