Re: Lets keep it simple this time.

"On 14 Dec 2005 09:45:23 -0800, in article
<1134582323.577237.130580@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Gordon Hill stated..."
>
>
>TomS wrote:
>> "On 14 Dec 2005 09:00:04 -0800, in article
>><1134579604.816050.282420@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Gordon Hill stated..."
>> [...snip...]
>> >Embracing new scientific ideas--dark energy, string theory--takes a
>> >scientific belief as deep as any religious one.
>>
>> I find that statement nothing less than incomprehensible.
>
>What would you call a scientific idea, in its early form, if not a
>belief?
>

I would call it "a scientific idea in its early form".

Or I would call it "a hypothesis", or even "a speculation",
or "a guess".

Or maybe "an idea not yet well established", or "a promising
line of research".

Or, sometimes, "a very unlikely scenario".

In any case, it would be something which is open to
growth, enhancement, modification, or change.

I certainly can't imagine saying that someone has a *deep*
belief in any scientific idea.

Most assuredly not for the two examples that you give, of
dark energy and string theory.

To hear someone say that - let me be blunt about it - gives
me the impression that they don't have a clue about why someone
brings up the ideas of dark energy or string theory. There are,
after all, good reasons - even if they don't come up to the
standards imposed on well-established parts of science, such as
evolutionary biology - for thinking that something like dark
energy or string theory is worth spending a lot of work on
developing.

And, moreover, that there really is work being done on
developing these ideas - the scientists don't just stand pat on
saying, "there's gotta be dark energy". Dark energy is a living
field of active research, not just a take-it-or-leave-it belief.
If it comes to a dead end - that is, if there is nothing more
that can be done with it - then it is dead, and soon forgotten.




--
---Tom S. <http://talkreason.org/articles/chickegg.cfm>
"It is not too much to say that every indication of Design in the Kosmos is so
much evidence against the Omnipotence of the Designer. ... The evidences ... of
Natural Theology distinctly imply that the author of the Kosmos worked under
limitations..." John Stuart Mill, "Theism", Part II

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Aldebaran Mystery
    ... almost every researcher who has looked at the problem agrees that the ... Ohh, so you do retain the right to be skeptical of claims of scientists, except in the case of AGW, where we must believe what we are told. ... remains so regardless of whether dark energy theory is well understood ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: Lets keep it simple this time.
    ... >>TomS wrote: ... > brings up the ideas of dark energy or string theory. ... > developing these ideas - the scientists don't just stand pat on ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Why NASA tells us we have 72% Dark Energy, 23% Dark Matter and 4.6% Atoms.
    ... Why NASA tells us we have 72% Dark Energy, ... Atoms. ... The majority of scientists have absolutely no answer for this. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Dark Energy and Dark Matter
    ... realize that dark energy and dark matter have completely different ... matter" exists because nearby galaxies should be flying apart based on ... gravitational effects. ... scientists believe they exist because of the unexplained ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: A New Generation of Scientists Turning Against Evolution
    ... a new generation of scientists is ... According to one participant, "Evolutionists and their dogma ... What, in your own words, do you think string theory claims? ... there are several space-time dimensions that turn ...
    (talk.origins)