o_O.Q said:
"So then is the peer review process a better way to evaluate things than religious hierarchy" of course it is and i never argued that its not
"And why is it more speculative than the theory of gravity?" the theory of gravity can be tested right now by either of us simply by observing things accelerating downwards the big bang theory on the other hand depends on the idea that an infinite point of matter expanded outwards and formed the universe its pretty much based entirely on mathematical equations, there is no practical way to experiment with the different aspects of the theory sure you can say that we can see the universe expanding out from a particular point but that does not naturally have to follow from a singularity expanding |
The theory of gravity is not tested by observing things accelerating downwards, that's the law of gravity. The theory of gravity is why. Spacetime deformation and that kind of thing well outside my field. Something that was given more evidence not too long ago after the detection of gravity waves.
What is the other theory from the universe all expanding out from a particular point that fits with all the other observables? If you have that you can write a peer reviewed paper and help advance science. If all you have is a general sense that it doesn't work for you then I don't see why you shouldn't just trust that the group of people who dedicate their lives to these questions are more likely to be correct than someone who hasn't.
It honestly must be infuriating as a medical doctor, cosmologist, or evolutionary biologist to have all these people who put nowhere near the amount of work that you have into studying your field telling you that you're wrong just because they feel like it. Thankfully the closest something related to my field gets to these kind of incredulous reactions from those less informed is in quantum chemistry and I haven't really had to face it personally.
...
