Gosh src666. If that is the level proof you require, then you have just consigned yourself to the level of phantasm. I thought it was very nice of you to offer the opportunity for such an obvious reposte. I had hoped it would prompt a smile. It did for me.

Oh well.

Cogito ergo sum!

A while back you were claiming that climate change isn’t a theory because it doesn’t meet your (excessively narrow) criteria for testability. Most of astrophysics has the same property, only (in many cases) more so. I mention this, and you backpedal. So since you’re now willing to call the Big Bang a theory, I take it you have also dropped your spurious objections to calling climate change a theory. Have you? Or are you only willing to call things theories if they don’t contravene your political agenda? (Hint: that’s called Lysenkoism.) Or are you just spouting denial left and right and hoping nobody will notice it doesn’t make sense?

I suppose another alternative is that src666 is right and you don’t really exist.

A lot of people say that Detcord exists, and seem to be acting as if this were a proven fact, but I haven’t seen any solid proof that there is, in fact, an individual by that name. Judging by the evidence I have personally seen, I suspect that “Detcord” is actually a conspiracy cooked up by some people who would like to muddy the waters on climate science in these comment threads. I suspect this based on the muddled, disjointed and often contradictory positions taken on science. There are also instances where a future instance of “Detcord” seems to not know what a prior instance of “Detcord” has said, furthering my suspicion of a grand, although not very well run, conspiracy.

So, since “Detcord” doesn’t really exist, I can ignore it totally, until the fact of “Detcord’s” existence can be proven beyond all doubt.

Wheee, this is fun!

Well src666, you may be on to something, albeit unintentionally. Science (referred to as Epistemology) is a branch of Philosophy, as is the Philosophy of Religion, Ethics, Logic etc. Some of these branches contest the reality of existence. You don’t think they made up that “Matrix” plot out of thin air, do you?

The French philosopher, René Descartes, effectively gave the boundaries of science, when challenged to prove his own existence, by stating the following Latin phrase, “Cogito ergo sum”, which in English means I think, therefore I am; or I am thinking, therefore I exist.

That’s it. That’s all we have to go on. We trust things we can sense with our eyes, ears, nose, touch and taste. Nothing else. Well, we now trust the machines we’ve made with these senses to detect facts beyond our immediate senses. But we don’t assume anything as “fact” until it’s proven.

The Princeton website offers this definition of a Theory: “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world;” I’ve already given the standard definition of an hypothesis in my 30 post. Note how hypotheses and theories try to explain facts.

You don’t have to accept these terms src666. As I noted, Science is only one branch of Philosophy. There are others that do not require this level of rigour and, at the Philosophical level, are just as valid. Religion, for example, usually only requires some sort of fervent belief (and maybe a catechism or doctrine) and generally does not require facts to support that belief.

Science tends to earn its respect through tangible results that can be experienced via those 5 senses. The various religions earn their respect in other ways. Ways which are just as valid to those who believe. Thus it is entirely possible for a scientist to follow a particular religion. They are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Just glad to finally understand the context behind your posting.

Um… Yeah!

The concept of the Big Bang is a “theory”. It is not a “fact” as you apparently think. And there are other alternatives, you know.

An hypothesis is even less: the Priceton website offers this definition - Hypothesis: a tentative insight into the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; “a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory”

I like that last part. The one where, “surviving experimental testing”, is a requirement for becoming a theory.

The point, Dave in Boston, is to keep looking, keep testing, keep challenging. I found three alternative theories in just a few minutes of web searching. Some are old, others more recent. String Theory seems to be on the way out – as it hasn’t been able to predict anything. Then there is Expansion Theory, which says the universe is accelerating. http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1126-6708/2001/07/003 and this theory says the Big Bang is wrong. Which one do you believe?

The only problem, Dave in Boston, is when we turn our brains off and refuse to keep seeking and testing. And to forestall your next insult (some hope?), I can assure you my brain is fully switched on.

There’s clearly a problem with that line of reasoning, and the problem isn’t in astrophysics.

Thanks for the laugh. I can do with one, which is why I like to follow comics.

Sadly, I have no “notions” about science to refine. I only go by what I was taught – by scientists and historians. Since you appear to need some help – and I really don’t want you shouting yourself deaf – here’s a handy definition of what Science is. Enjoy!
.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science