A Brief History of Intolerance in Modern Cosmology

I am not a scientist myself, but I'm very interested in Cosmology and other scientific things.

Thanks to the Internet it is possible for everybody to read a lot about it today - which I have done for some years now.

It is certainly not my impression, that questioning the current Big Bang theory is suppressed in any way. I have read several articles on "arXive.org" and other sites, which does that.

It might be true, that mainstream-media only present the established theories in a popularized form, but isn't that a pure necessity?

In order to understand the nuances, you have to know a little more than the average layman.

Typically, papers expressing genuinely new ideas are refused publication by referees of reputable scientific journals on the ground that they undermine the generally accepted principles of physics. Those who persist in writing such papers are usually sidelined from the astronomical community by their peers (Hawkins 1997, p. 29).

This pattern is well know and applies to every established organisation, covering the whole spectrum from Religion to your friendly Bridge club. Science is no exception: Once you deviate from the established path, you become some kind of outcast, and are punished by the establishment. Nothing new here.

This reinforces my views on fractals and patterns: You find the same patterns in all fields.

Just because one writes a paper does not mean it is an academic work worthy of consideration.

Although there are problems with the "Big Bang Theory" scientists continue to wrestle with the problems, often from opposing camps. I am no cosmologist, but the fellow who had the new ideas on quasars sounded like a nut to me. Do we really want every crank with an idea to be published? How would that help the progression of science?

This article appears to be an attack on science itself, similar to the film "Exposed" which attacked evolution.

While complaining that anti-big bang scientists were discriminated against because of a monolithic pro big bang conspiracy it failed to note that science based controversy abounds withing cosmology. In essence it used the tactic that it accused mainstream science of.

Nothing is certain in science. It is a progressive discipline that grows from its mistakes. The one certainity is that there has never been any scientific proof of any supernatural event ever taking place. This makes the Big Bang a far more likely cause for the universe than "god did it."

You decided to confront me on my assertion that the reluctance of the scientific establishment to accept new theories is fashioned after a universal pattern.

From that perspective, you are now airing in details that are irrelevant to my observation. I have no time to waist with you.

Corr

"From that perspective, you are now erring in details that are irrelevant to my observation. I have no more time to waste with you."

Bah, Big Bang Theory is likely to be replaced as the prime theory for the beginning of the universe (or at least, how the universe came to be the way it currently is...not necessarily the ACTUAL begining), but other theories that fit the evidence better and are more testable. Certain theories are already getting some steam, though none are really taking over yet.

Part of the the problem with spreading the most current theories on the topic is that they tend to be more complex and don't make for an interesting or accessible mental imagery as "BANG!!!!! The universe exists", making it less likely the mass media will cover them with enough detail to actually explain anything.

As to the intolerance of conflicting theories in scientific circle, I'm sure it happens (internal politics is a bitch in any large group of people with vested interest in their own ideas...or ideas that tend to get them funding, as is often the case with scientific research), though I have serious doubts that is a big problem, as such counter-theories are generally looked at quite thoroughly by anyone who thinks they may be able to either help prove or disprove the theory, since either way they'd make a name for themselves.

There are exeptions mind you, many theories (or hypothesises, depending on the state of the idea and research), simply are not testable at all, or fly in the face of otherwise accepted theory or observation without explaining away the original idea it goes against, and as such cannot be considered to be scientific and thus tends to cause whoever put together the hypothesis (or potential theory) to be subject to a certain level of redicule for attempting to push a badly thought out (or just badly explained) idea as valid. The "theory" of Intelligent Design comes to mind...but that's a whole other issue :)