They don’t actually. You only have to show that the model being presented is inconsistent and dos not prove and predict what it says it will. It’s not a beauty show, it’s science. It’s perfectly fine for us to just say “We just don’t know, but this is the direction were working on.”
I consider it pretty reverent when a good part of the population assume that scientists know what they’re talking about in their exposure to the public about the BBT (in ubiquitous programs) without understanding anything being talked about. Especially when what’s being talked about has no current utility. It’s not like they’re making a judgment on whether the electrical system or nuclear power is safe. Those people are mostly using experience as their guide (The history of these systems seems ok so ok).
Taking a groups word for it (which are not just any scientists but really very specific scientists with funding from suspect governments that have promoted them to a status where they’re listened to) when you don’t have any reason to again is reverence.
We take other people’s word for things every day. I don’t know anything about plumbing, so when I call in a plumber I’m taking his word that the things that he’s doing will actually fix my sink. Does that mean I revere plumbers?
It’s not like science is some magical mystical priesthood handing down cryptic pronouncements from the mountaintop. Everything that’s done in science is published for anyone who’s interested to read. If you want to know more about the big bang, there are hundreds of books on it. And if that’s not enough detail, there are thousands of research papers.
Of course, no one person can read everything about every topic. But with everything out in the open, ANYONE who wants to can become an expert in a particular field. That makes it really hard to sustain a conspiracy of falsehoods within science. We are justified in having confidence in scientific consensus because we know that experts have spent thousands of man-hours trying to tear down any new idea before it eventually becomes consensus.
You hardly know anything about the big bang. There are other people who have spent their entire adult lives studying it. Is it reverence to trust their opinions more than yours?
To do that you have to understand the model in the first place. Otherwise how can you possible judge it as inconsistent? You can’t just pull an opinion out of your nose and expect to be taken seriously unless you can back it up.
That is not reverence. That is a track record of accuracy that the scientific community has rightfully earned. It’s the knowledge that the scientific community has a very rigorous peer review process.
Suspect governments funding specific scientists? Now what on earth are you talking about? Which “suspect” governments (I’m not sure what that means - a government that you don’t believe is real, in the same way that you think the BBT is suspect?) and for what reason?
Nobody posting so far in this thread, at least. I think it’s fair to say that there do exist some people who are proponents of what might be called “science-ism” or exaggerated admiration of and deference toward scientists.
But I agree with you and other respondents to Untoward_Parable that the mere fact of accepting as authoritative the mainstream consensus of reputable scientists concerning a scientific subject that they know a lot about, even if you personally know nothing about it and can’t independently verify their statements, does not constitute an example of “science-ism” or “revering” scientists.
Well, OK. But I’m pretty sure the OP was implying that was the norm; there are nutters who do anything you can think of.
Yeah; I just can’t wrap my head around that point of view. As someone said above, does he think the same about plumbers, mechanics, doctors, electricians, computer programmers? How does he get anything done if believing anything they say is disallowed “reverence”? Or is it just theoretical physicists he distrusts? Does he believe Einstein (does he use GPS?)
I’d get “I don’t understand this, and find the ideas unintuitive; feel like helping me?”, but not claims of absurdity, suspicion and rogue governments propagating beliefs in black holes and the Big Bang for their own gain (whatever that might be).
There’s something about physics that causes people to make these statements. In fact, there’s another thread going on right now, Speculations about physics, where the OP thinks that because he has no understanding of the subject it must be wrong. And we’ve had literally dozens of other physics threads that start in similar ways.
It’s not a slippery slope argument to observe that this thinking lies behind conspiracy theories, Creationism, climate (and other kinds of) deniers, and anti-intellectualism in general. Doctors and plumbers are directly useful in peoples’ everyday lives. Physicists and other thinkers are not seen that way. They apparently exist solely to tell people that their “common sense” is wrong. By definition, “common sense” can’t be wrong; therefore physics must be.
I know, that attitude makes no sense whatsoever. Yet something like it must be behind all these OPs. How can anybody explain them otherwise?