An article about a pseudoscientific theory that went viral in August, and which mischaracterized quotes from an astronomer, did not disprove the Big bang.
The James Webb Space Telescope has only been in use for a few months, but it has already made some amazing discoveries, such as the discovery of some of the earliest galaxies ever seen. Although issues with calibrating the instruments might mean that some of these galaxies are not as far away as first thought, they have almost certainly broken the record with some of them.
An astronomer at the University of Kansas told Space.com that theJWST is designed to find the earliest galaxies in the universe. One of the things that it found is that the galaxies are larger than we thought, and another is that they have a lot of structure.
In 10 easy steps, you can read the history of the universe.
The first galaxies were formed through a process that involved small clouds of gas and clusters of stars. There is an intriguing astrophysical puzzle that confounds current models of galaxy growth.
On July 27th, Nature wrote a piece about the research, in which Kirkpatrick said, "I find myself sleeping at three in the morning wondering if everything I've done is wrong." This is the quote that was later used.
It was a great quote. The person said, "Kirkper said." I said that everything I had learned from previous telescopic data probably wasn't the complete picture, and now we have more data so we can refine our theories.
When she returned to her research, she forgot about her quote. She got a text from a friend saying that there was an article that was originally published by an organization called the Institute of Art and ideas but is now being published on mainstream news sites.
The article took what Kirkpatrick had said to Nature and used it to make a false impression that astrophysicists were worried about the Big Bang theory.
The author of the article, an independent researcher named Eric Lerner, has been a serial denier of the Big bang since the late 1980's.
"I saw it and thought it was horrible, but nobody is going to read it," he said. Everybody has read it.
Things were starting to take a turn for the worse. Even though her immediate friends and colleagues were aware that she had been misquoted, distant acquaintances began asking if she really said it and if she was sane. She got dozens of emails from people who had read the article and thought it was true. people called her
She did not want to engage with anyone. It upsets me because there are a lot of people who are very interested in science, but who don't have the background to distinguish fact from fiction.
Lee McIntyre is a philosopher of science and author of the book How to Talk to a Science Denier.
McIntyre wants to point out the difference between people who peddle anti-science narratives and people who think they know better. McIntyre spent several days at a flat- Earth convention talking to believers and came away with a better understanding of the methods science deniers use.
6 ways to stay out of the way of science deniers.
1. Check the source — is it from a reputable source such as a peer-reviewed journal or a mainstream news site? 2. Qualifications — is the writer with a university or reputable institution, or are they an 'independent researcher' with no accreditation? 3. Who else agrees — can you find other accredited experts from mainstream institutions who are in agreement, or at least provide some validity? 4. References — has the writer done their research and cited other credible research to support their results? 5. Follow the logic — are they just cherrypicking evidence, leaving things out to suit their narrative?
6. Become an expert — if all else fails, and you're still not sure, then do a bit of open-minded reading on the subject to make sure you're not being misled.
McIntyre said that the first step in science denial is cherrypicking evidence. They lied about conspiracy theories. They are engaging in illogical reasoning. They rely on fake experts and don't respect real experts. Science has to be perfect in order to be credible.
The tactics used in the article are classic misdirections, according to McIntyre. In the Big bang model, more distant galaxies should look larger because their light should have left when they were closer to us. The idea that these were the farthest galaxies when their light left them makes no sense.
He cherrypicks data and ignores other evidence such as the Cosmic Microwave Background which is leftover heat from the event. He suggests that the unexpected characteristics of the early galaxies are not just a problem for models of galaxy formation, but also a problem for the entire universe. He ridicules real scientists by using their words against them and claims that there is a conspiracy to stamp out any heretical ideas that question the Bigbang.
There is a growing problem of science denying. Science denial has existed for as long as science has existed, but it seems to have grown more pervasive in the last few years. Climate denial and not believing in vaccines are examples of science denial that are not so benign.
McIntyre said that science denial has become more of a threat to the wellbeing of our society. enialism costs lives
McIntyre has a line of thinking. "In this case, it's pretty benign if someone thinks the Big Bang didn't happen, but you see the same kind of thing with things that really matter," she said. Is it possible that people will be more willing to believe other conspiracy theories if we start getting them in astronomy?
McIntyre admits that it is hard to get through to science deniers because they distrust what they are being told. McIntyre suggests that it is a mistake for scientists to not respond to them and hope that they will leave.
If we ignore it, they are going to recruit more believers and it can get out of hand. It's difficult to win over science deniers if you don't trust them.
McIntyre said that the only people who have ever changed their minds were people they trusted. Most science deniers are victims, that's what it requires. I'm talking about the people who believe in him.
Astronomers have a head start over many other scientists because public outreach is a huge part of their work and amazing images such as those taken by JWST reliably wow people. Astronomers are able to engage with the public and put a human face to the science in a way that is more difficult for other researchers.
Astronomers are still some of the more trusted scientists despite the erosion of trust in science.
Astronomers are learning more about the early universe with the data coming down from the telescope.
The Big Bang model is supported by the fact that the first galaxies were smaller and grew bigger over time. The finding that the early universe is a little more massive and structured than thought doesn't mean that the Bigbang is wrong. It just means that there is some tweaking that needs to be done to the universe.
That's what science is all about. Science is based on observation and evidence, which is what the Bigbang has in spades.
intelligent questioning is done in a framework of open-mindedness without pre-conceived ideologies, where beliefs are forged by evidence, instead of the other way around. By following the evidence that the universe is expanding, working out what this might mean, and then testing it on predictions, the Big bang theory was conceived nearly a century ago.
Don't take for granted what someone says when they say that the Earth is flat or that climate change isn't occurring. Ask them for their evidence and hold it to the highest standards.
The 21st CenturySETI has a verified account. We encourage you to follow us on social networking sites.
All Rights Reserved © 2024
