Do Cosmologists Truly Believe in Their Theories?

[Dadface]

Thanks for your comments Fredrik.I have never suggested that the fundamental claims are wrong and I would never do such a thing unless I could justify it, which I can't.Any implied suggestion otherwise was unintentional and it seems that perhaps I needed to be more careful with my wording.
I agree wholeheartedly with your second paragraph and this is precisely the thing I have been trying to get across.
I do not agree that I throw ignorance at my students and I teach the facts as I knew them.What is one to do,however,when you get the occasional student trying to bring religion into the argument.In my case I don't even go there and I will never argue against someones religion. I will go back to the physics I will stress that big bang is a theory and you can make of it what you will.I can't remember a single case when someone has objected to this and people do go away happy the majority finding the whole topic fascinating.I don't know what other strategies I could use without causing offence.
Thank you again.I found your comments to be constructive.

 

[Astronuc]

who placed science on a "much higher pedestal " than "mere personal belief".

Well some people do. Back in the 40's, 50's, even 60's, the media portrayed scientists as heroes. There was a lot of popularization of science. Look at the popularity of Einstein and others.

However, science or rather the scientific method is supposed to be a rigorous process or application of logic, separate from prejudices, biases, and emotions. But humans, even those who practice science, are susceptible to prejudices, biases and emotions, and in some cases, dishonesty.

Belief is not necessarily rigorous, and in the extreme, is diametrically opposed to the scientific method, for instance when the belief continues/persists in the face of incontrovertibly contradictory evidence.

If people go away happy with the notion that 'a theory is just a theory', or 'only a theory', and their own misinterpretations are just as valid, if not moreso, then this is a disservice or diminution of science.

I think there are always niggling doubts, which are more about the completeness or incompleteness of a theory, rather than validity. On the other hand, we know we don't know everything, so one continues to test a theory and look for situations where the theory doesn't necessarily hold.

We're still looking for a GUT or TOE.

 

[Huckleberry]

What's kind of funny is that Dadfaces approach to teaching the layperson might be more effective, as long as the information itself is correct.

If someone holds a belief that contradicts a solid theory then there will probably be hesitation to accept the conclusions of that theory. It create's internal conflict that is irrelevant to understanding the concept. Saying "it's only a theory" downplays the effect the conclusion has on their belief. They can either dismiss or accept the results of the experiments and as Russ said, either choose to learn or not. This way they can come to terms with their beliefs at their own rate, rather than forcing the discussion into irrelevant areas.

Still not sure it's the right thing to do, but it's a lot easier to learn when you're happy and not frustrated.

Science looks for fact. When someone applies these facts to their beliefs they are looking for truth. Frustrating a person by challenging their beliefs will only make them defend those beliefs more fiercely, making the facts much more difficult to teach. The facts are forgotten and the truth is lost in the mix. A person who's identity isn't threatened will be more accepting of evidence. I know it can be difficult to dismiss terms like "It's only a theory", but for one sincere in the attempt to teach a layperson it's better not to take offense to it.