Please explain: The Big Bang Theory

[Chevalier des Poissons]

Greetings, everyone.

Following Vekseid's suggestion, I decided to copyuse the idea to create a new thread. The idea here is to create a healthy debate, without misinterpretation, putting words in someone else's mouth, or I will get sad and we won't go to a picnic together.

Let's roll: I will start with a simple question. The Big Bang Theory is incomplete. Should we consider it invalid somehow? Why?

[Vekseid]

Explaining relativity needs to come first, and these should go in Elliquiy U.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

May also want to start with the definition of a theory.  Just because a theory isn't complete doesn't make it invalid.

[Chevalier des Poissons]

Explaining relativity needs to come first, and these should go in Elliquiy U.

Gah. I just made another one.

Move it for me? <3

May also want to start with the definition of a theory.  Just because a theory isn't complete doesn't make it invalid.

Wikipedia is my friend:

"In philosophy, theory (from ancient Greek theoria, θεωρία, meaning "a looking at, viewing, beholding") refers to contemplation or speculation, as opposed to action.[1] Theory is especially often contrasted to "practice" (Greek praxis, πρᾶξις) a concept that in its original Aristotelian context referred to actions done for their own sake, but can also refer to "technical" actions instrumental to some other aim, such as the making of tools or houses. "Theoria" is also a word still used in theological contexts.

A classical example uses the discipline of medicine to explain the distinction: Medical theory and theorizing involves trying to understand the causes and nature of health and sickness, while the practical side of medicine is trying to make people healthy. These two things are related but can be independent, because it is possible to research health and sickness without curing specific patients, and it is possible to cure a patient without knowing how the cure worked.[2]

The verb θεωρία apparently developed special uses early in the Greek language. In the book, From Religion to Philosophy, Francis Cornford suggests that the Orphics used the word "theory" to mean 'passionate sympathetic contemplation' [3]. Pythagoras changed the word to mean a passionate sympathetic contemplation of mathematical and scientific knowledge. This was because Pythagoras considered such intellectual pursuits the way to reach the highest plane of existence. Pythagoras stressed on killing the emotions and the lusts of the body and the release of the intellect to soar into the exalted domain of theory. Thus it was Pythagoras who gave the word "theory" the specific meaning which leads to the classical and modern concept of a distinction between theory as uninvolved, neutral thinking, and practice.[4]

While theories in the arts and philosophy may address ideas and not easily observable empirical phenomena, in modern science the term "theory", or "scientific theory" is generally understood to refer to a proposed explanation of empirical phenomena, made in a way consistent with the scientific method. Such theories are preferably described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand, verify, and challenge (or "falsify") it. In this modern scientific context the distinction between theory and practice corresponds roughly to the distinction between theoretical science and technology or applied science."

[Pumpkin Seeds]

So, the definition posted also answers the question poised.  There you go.

[Chevalier des Poissons]

So, the definition posted also answers the question poised.  There you go.

And yet, some people still think that the big bang theory is invalid somewhy.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Probably because they don't understand the definition of a theory.

[Jude]

I don't think it's fair to consider it false or true at this point; it's a conjecture based on a ton of evidence, but there's so much yet to be verified about it.  Using it as an argument against religion is a little silly though.  If you're going to tell people that they're wrong in such terms, you damn well better have solid evidence.  It casts doubt on the need for a creator in order for the existence of such an "ordered" universe, but that's about it.  I guess more than anything it's a potential counterargument to the creationist arguments about how if the earth was a few hundred meters in either direction, none of us would exist, thus it must've been by divine design.