In the blog very poorly titled “Intelligent Science”, Eric Kemp discharges some warped or misunderstood concepts of his own, enlisting the help of colleagues. Although there is a bit of Intelligence, there is very little Science.

The latest episode is “The Fine-Tuning Argument“. The post itself contains a good review of the idea, although it slowly transfigures into a “fact”.

Going through post and comments is an entertaining yet painful experience, as we watch distorted scientific statements or simply plain falsehoods. To much surprise, theoretical research about the Big Bang and early stages of the universe is discarded or devalued as “just theory”, as if any research on the first second of the universe were applied science.

But when those theories are agreeable with their own chosen understanding of the universe, then scientific theoretical results get upgraded to the status of certainty, mixing up with distorted and/or misunderstood science statements that also had become “facts”.

To top it off, an utter refusal to research on your own leads to some interesting reference-picking: the poster read one book and quotes from it, yet turns down the chance to learn from other books or papers.

There is nothing wrong with ignorance, for we all have to start somewhere. But the refusal to learn or at least try to understand, that tells a different story.

On another note, most of the followers of that blog seem to share a common misunderstanding about the nature of “theory”. “Just a theory“, “could/would vs facts”, reflect how people normally have no idea of what it takes for an idea to become a scientific theory. “Theory”, it seems, refers to an imaginary concept that is too weak to stand on its own.

Such widespread mistake might reflect some basic educational handicap for a society that tries to reach the 21st century. On the other hand, before our schools get to the basics of what theory is, we should focus on simply high-school-level math:

I actually happen to know a bit about the Cyclic Model’s mathematics. And if I’m not mistaken, it was first figured out by Hawking, correct? And in his formulas he used the imaginary number “i” did he not?

So “i” is really imaginary… On that point, I threw the towel.

Advertisements