Why the Big Bang Couldn't Have Happened

Davidjayjordan said:
There couldn't be a Big Bang, cause it takes two to bang and reproduce. Athiests and evolutionists are so dumb, they think 'one' can bang alone, and then explode into all the Universe, and be fruitful and multiply. We have to teach these nonX'ers about the facts of life, and how to bang in rthymn and harmony.

But then again, it might mean they would reproduce into more non thinking atheists...... and we would have to teach their next generation how to bang again. Darn, they just don't get it.
Click to expand...


I will never again argue that it's possible to write a parody of fundamentalists that can't be mistaken for the real thing.
 
Wait, wait. OK, so this guy shouldn't be on the radio talking about something he knows nothing about, but why are we berating him for assuming that the Big Bang was a bang? I don't doubt that he's representing a large group and a popular misconception.

I bet if you polled the general public, most would think it means an actual bang. A bang is a noise that we all know, it's the most common definition of the word.

Did scientists come up with the name 'Big Bang', or the media? Cause if the former, then perhaps less mockery is in order and more examination of the basics of science communication? If you don't mean a bang, don't say a bang. Most people watch Star Wars and don't question the sound effects they hear in space battles. Most people are science illiterate.

So if there is confusion about what the bang in the Big Bang means, then the problem is that the concept is misnamed, not that the public have misunderstood it.
 
tkingdoll said:
Did scientists come up with the name 'Big Bang', or the media? Cause if the former, then perhaps less mockery is in order and more examination of the basics of science communication? If you don't mean a bang, don't say a bang. Most people watch Star Wars and don't question the sound effects they hear in space battles. Most people are science illiterate.
Click to expand...


As I recall, the term 'big bang' was coined by opposing scientists who initially wanted to ridicule the theory. The name stuck when the theory became accepted.
 
Tanstaafl said:
As I recall, the term 'big bang' was coined by opposing scientists who initially wanted to ridicule the theory. The name stuck when the theory became accepted.
Click to expand...
Quite correct. Specifically it was Fred Hoyle who coined the term "Big Bang" in a dismissive way, preferring the rival Steady State Theory, but this was many decades ago.
 
Last edited:
Given current theories, wouldn't the "Big *pah....pppppffffffffffffFFFFFFFT!* Theory" be more appropriate?
 
Davidjayjordan said:
There couldn't be a Big Bang, cause it takes two to bang and reproduce. Athiests and evolutionists are so dumb, they think 'one' can bang alone, and then explode into all the Universe, and be fruitful and multiply. We have to teach these nonX'ers about the facts of life, and how to bang in rthymn and harmony.

But then again, it might mean they would reproduce into more non thinking atheists...... and we would have to teach their next generation how to bang again. Darn, they just don't get it.
Click to expand...

So you must be a polytheist, yes? Otherwise the universe must be the result of a divine act of masturbation. 'Cause if it takes two to bang then one god ain't gonna help much either.
 
tkingdoll said:
Wait, wait. OK, so this guy shouldn't be on the radio talking about something he knows nothing about, but why are we berating him for assuming that the Big Bang was a bang?

...SNIP...

So if there is confusion about what the bang in the Big Bang means, then the problem is that the concept is misnamed, not that the public have misunderstood it.
Click to expand...


I’m sorry, but that’s like saying the word “gravity” should only pertain to the seriousness of situations, or the word “relativity” should constrain itself to second cousins twice removed.

This is not a failure of science to communicate. It has plenty of problems communicating, but not because of what it names its theories. Once a theory has an established name, the meaning of its words become, properly, the scientific meaning.

True, a black hole isn’t a hole, nor is it black. But please don’t tell scientists to rename it because people who have little to no interest in the subject are unwilling to learn newly accepted meanings of existing words or phrases. I would hate for language to become that restricted, or for science to lose such a wonderfully playful streak (“strange quarks” anyone?).
 
Foster Zygote said:
So you must be a polytheist, yes? Otherwise the universe must be the result of a divine act of masturbation. 'Cause if it takes two to bang then one god ain't gonna help much either.
Click to expand...
That would make it the Big Wank.

Gee, sounds like a lot of the internet . . .

*sings*

The internet is for porn
The internet is for porn
. . .
DR
 
Ryan O'Dine said:
I’m sorry, but that’s like saying the word “gravity” should only pertain to the seriousness of situations, or the word “relativity” should constrain itself to second cousins twice removed.

This is not a failure of science to communicate. It has plenty of problems communicating, but not because of what it names its theories. Once a theory has an established name, the meaning of its words become, properly, the scientific meaning.
Click to expand...

No, because those words have dual meanings already. The bang in Big Bang, as has been pointed out here, was to mock the theory, it wasn't meant as an actual description of the event. You can't say that scientists came up with 'bang' as a scientific descriptor that happens to have another meaning as well (a specific type of loud noise), because that's not what happened. So I don't think it's fair to mock the public's misunderstanding of the term, when the most popular definition for bang is 'a loud noise'. You are basically saying that if the public are stupid enough to believe that a black hole is both black and a hole, that's not science's problem. Well, it is science's problem, as evidenced by the OP and the Big Bang example.

If you don't want people to take something literally, you have to be specific about what you mean. If the Big Bang was not a big bang, then science communicators should ensure that's as widely known as the phrase itself. Otherwise it's entirely unfair to mock someone for thinking it was a bang.

ETA: I have less issue with the misunderstanding that I do the mockery that it's inspired. I don't see why anyone should be laughed at for taking something literally.
 
Last edited:
tkingdoll said:
No, because those words have dual meanings already. The bang in Big Bang, as has been pointed out here, was to mock the theory, it wasn't meant as an actual description of the event. You can't say that scientists came up with 'bang' as a scientific descriptor that happens to have another meaning as well (a specific type of loud noise), because that's not what happened. So I don't think it's fair to mock the public's misunderstanding of the term. You are basically saying that if the public are stupid enough to believe that a black hole is both black and a hole, that's not science's problem. Well, it is science's problem, as evidenced by the OP and the Big Bang example.

If you don't want people to take something literally, you have to be specific about what you mean. If the Big Bang was not a big bang, then science communicators should ensure that's as widely known as the phrase itself. Otherwise it's entirely unfair to mock someone for thinking it was a bang.
Click to expand...

I truly understand the need for science to communicate itself better. However, I don’t feel that theories should be treated as commodities to be “advertised” to the public.

Unlike deodorants, you’re not supposed to know everything important about a theory from its name. Even if the Big Bang had a better title, I doubt anyone would understand it any better unless they were willing to put in the time to learn it.

And THAT’S what science and its educators should be focusing on. Why it’s important to put in the time, and not make judgements based on the scantiest of understanding.
 
For anyone who remembers "The Young Ones" there was an explination like this in their book:

How could the big bang have created the universe? It couldn't explosions destroy things but to every action is an equal and opposite reaction, so as the big bang was blowing everything up, it was at the same time making everything. Q.E.D.
 
Ryan O'Dine said:
I truly understand the need for science to communicate itself better. However, I don’t feel that theories should be treated as commodities to be “advertised” to the public.

Unlike deodorants, you’re not supposed to know everything important about a theory from its name. Even if the Big Bang had a better title, I doubt anyone would understand it any better unless they were willing to put in the time to learn it.

And THAT’S what science and its educators should be focusing on. Why it’s important to put in the time, and not make judgements based on the scantiest of understanding.
Click to expand...

I completely agree, and I wish the public would engage with science more, but the sad fact is that the neat-but-misnamed soundbites and quirky analogies like 'black hole' or 'big bang' stick in the public conciousness precisely because they want something they can digest without thinking. "How did the universe begin?" "Well, it was sort of a big bang" is about the most info that people want, or dare I say, need.

The public won't take the effort to learn science until they learn to like science.

And actually, in everyday life, it doesn't really matter if Joe Average understands that the big bang was not really a bang. It'd be nice if he did, but he probably doesn't really care. It only matters when it crosses over into politics, for example, and a misunderstanding can have a tangible effect on policy.

But I still don't think it's right to mock the public for taking something literally :P
 
Ryan O'Dine said:
I agree with you in principle. Somehow, I can't get myself to agree with you in this particular instance.

Must be my mean streak.
Click to expand...

Nothing to do with the guy being a fundie then :D

And actually, I admit that if I had heard this on the radio myself, my gut reaction may well have been to yell "you stupid effing moron!" at the speakers. The luxury the internet allows is time to form a little mound of moral high ground from which to post opinions. I'm sure my principles would go out of the window if I was presented with this argument in person by a fundie. If it was Joe Average, though, I'd have every sympathy, and I guess that's the group I'm defending.

I acknowledge there's a difference between misunderstanding a science term and using that misunderstanding as ammo in a flawed argument, which is what the OP guy seems to have been doing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom