Why are we so careful in determining the nature of scientific investigation?

There is only one simple answer to it. Its only because there is just a lot of other "Stimuli" out there (means a lot more observations) and many other methods of interpreting data (other intelligence)and these factors can lead to entirely different pictures of the same thing (for instance the picture of world in large quantum no.s is just like the classical picture of the world but we can't say it is classical infact we use approximations for easy handling of data). These factors can affect the nature of fact in a way we don't know.

Now this is an universally agreed point. The question is "blindly" following the scientific rules for investigation , can we still say that Big Bang is a fact or just a theory (cherished hypothesis)? Of course, there will always be people who will make their own opinions about the whole event. Does Big BAng in such a situation reduces merely to an "opinion" (definitely being extremely harsh; I like the big bang picture though).

I am a bit aware of the biological aspect of the scientific method. I think I need to realize the power of equations (which provide a very 'comfortable' formalism to place big bang inside and fit the observed facts) to really understand why is Big Bang so successful.What do you think?

Where am I wrong?
Yasir.

• I do not understand. Do you deny redshift? - alexander - November 27, 2001 - 20:20 UTC
  • Of course not. - ymateen - November 28, 2001 - 16:34 UTC