(November 2, 2016 at 11:22 am)Irrational Wrote:(November 2, 2016 at 11:16 am)Asmodee Wrote: That would kind of make sense, maybe, IF you weren't leaving out the final step, peer review. That's the step where you release your theory to the world and a bunch of people who can make a name for themselves by tearing yours to shreds go over it for validity. There's no glory for the scientist who says, "Yep. He was right. Wish I'd thought of it." There IS, however, incentive to say, "That guy is stupid. I checked his results and they aren't right, making me smarter than him."
In addition, it's not even true that what Drich is referring to is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Why would the predictions be tested at all if that was the case? Might as well just formulate a "hypothesis" and then look for whatever "evidence" to confirm it.
the higgs/boson theroy was formulated in the 1960s fast forward nearly 50 years of doing that very thing (searching for anything they could use to support it) several billion dollars was spent building the hadron colider and a billion more will be spent to keep chasing this pig in a poke particle.
Not to mention after the accelerator was built, the Cern 'scientist' took took a phenoma that could be used to verify the H/B but also several other theories of other particles and out right lied it was definitive proof of the H/B to further their research. they even fooled the Nobel Prize committee into issuing a Nobel prize to the guys from the 1960s who came up with the theory, based on what the Cern scientists claimed they found!!!
What You mocking said in your quoted post, was in real life fleshed out by the scientist who are supposedly providing evidence to support the big bang...
They literally had a theory and collected evidence to support it, and tried to play down the fact that said evidence could be used to support several others.
