Stan wrote:
> He incorporates revolutions in cosmology, particle
> physics, and themodynamics, to show that Big Bang is a consequence of the
> separation of academic work from practical work, and that every
> contradiction encountered (and there have been many) has been met with yet
> another theory that can not be confirmed, resulting in a Rube Goldberg
> bastardation that substitutes for scientific practice. His
> historical-cosomological correlations are gems of the historical
> materialist method, even if he never acknowledges (or even realizes) that
> they are.
Is he saying that the Big Bang theory is just bad science, leaving aside its
socio-historical origins? Care to summarise some of his ideas a little?
Mark
_______________________________________________
CrashList website: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
