- #1
me_aguevas
- 2
- 0
Positing the Big Bang as a "definitive theory".
What is the best way to go about countering the supposition that since the Big Bang used to be competing with other models to explain the origin of the Universe, that the Big Bang itself is like a placeholder of our era, as malleable and subject to fall down as any previous model, and that it can be just as easily discarded in the future?
The assumption is super ignorant about the development of our cosmology and it drives me up the wall, really... but when they can apparently support their view by pointing at how our historical understanding of the universe has kept changing, I'm not sure about the best way to counter it other than by pointing to the evidence that invalidate other models just as much as they point towards the Big Bang.
What is the best way to go about countering the supposition that since the Big Bang used to be competing with other models to explain the origin of the Universe, that the Big Bang itself is like a placeholder of our era, as malleable and subject to fall down as any previous model, and that it can be just as easily discarded in the future?
The assumption is super ignorant about the development of our cosmology and it drives me up the wall, really... but when they can apparently support their view by pointing at how our historical understanding of the universe has kept changing, I'm not sure about the best way to counter it other than by pointing to the evidence that invalidate other models just as much as they point towards the Big Bang.