Big Bang Theory

I once asked my uncle, who is an astronomer, if he believed in the Big Bang Theory.  He told me that he did because of the discovery of the Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR).  Although I don't believe in the Big Bang Theory, I let it drop at that.  I could have continued with any number of reasons why the CBR isn't consistent with the Big Bang Theory like the smoothness, that the theory originally predicted a temperature closer to 50ºK, or something else but I didn't.

Instead I thought about science - what it really is and how it works.

Let's follow my uncle's logic process from start to finish.  First we have a theory called the Big Bang Theory (BBT).  The theory predicts things about the CBR.  Then we find the CBR so my uncle concludes the BBT is correct.  Unfortunately, however, this is a classic case of a logical fallacy.

Thanks to Wikipedia it's easy to find an absurd example following the same pattern of logic.  If Bill Gates owns Fort Knox, then he will be rich.  Bill Gates is rich, therefore he owns Fort Knox.  This logical fallacy, called affirming the consequent, is the basis of the so-called "scientific method."  We can express it in symbols, as follows:

If P, then Q ( or P=>Q )
Q
therefore P

This pattern is reflected in almost every aspect of scientific "knowledge" that we find nowadays.  If Einstein's theory of relativity is correct then the orbit of Mercury will be such-and-such.  The orbit of Mercury is, indeed, such-and-such, therefore Einstein's theory is true.

If the Earth is 4.5 billion years old (give or take) then we will find a certain ratio of uranium-238 to lead.  We find that ratio, therefore the Earth is indeed 4.5 billion years old.

Realizing this, a sensible person will say, "Well, all of these are just theories," but don't say that too close to a true scientific believer.  He will assure you that a scientific theory is a special thing - not a hunch, a guess, or anything else.  It's well-documented, well-supported, and well-tested.

Unfortunately all this documentation, support, and testing follows the above logic-challenged pattern.  I guess they feel that although one logical fallacy proves nothing, a large number of logical fallacies do indeed prove something.

And that's why Science... is BS.