Using the Planck spacecraft, scientists have discovered what they believe to be the axis around which the entire universe spins. They refer to it as "The Axis of Evil". Seems a strange title to give to their observations. In fact, it sounds like the title to a fairy tale, doesn't it? So what's in a name? Why do they feel the need to inject some malevolent or sinister evil into this discovery?
I see nothing evil in the axis upon which the universe spins. What evidence could there possibly be to frame the universe this way?
The Axis of Evil
Moderator: Moderators
-
Neatras
- Guru
- Posts: 1045
- Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2011 11:44 pm
- Location: Oklahoma, US
- Been thanked: 1 time
Post #2
Scientists, especially physicists, tend to utilize rough-sounding terminology to indicate how badly their predicted models get obfuscated by certain proposed structures.
Recall the "Goddamn Particle," a term for the Higgs Boson that highlights the sheer difficulty of finding the offending boson. It was later coined by journalists to be the "God Particle," which you are probably familiar with due to its rather edgy title and subsequent hyping, by evangelists mind you, when the Higgs was eventually discovered in a scientific experiment, as the current existing models of the physical universe predict.
The reason it's called the Axis of Evil is remarkably similar. Your attempt to overinflate the term to make it seem like some kind of global conspiracy or fairy tale is nothing more than a surface-deep, self-congratulating interpretation of physical models. Clearly because you're so intelligent, them naming it that way must have some kind of sinister meaning, and you can see through their guise, yes?
Creationists are easy to understand. They look at a physical model of reality, pick the components they like, and do away with the rest. Back on topic.
The Axis of Evil refers to anomalous measurements in Cosmic Background Radiation. It is based on the data that shows the observable universe has an alignment in two or more of its components, which I am not qualified to speculate about. Merely that the anomaly is purported to exist.
Naming it this way is a means of making the technical jargon more lighthearted and genial; it actually reduces the stress about modeling the abnormality because it's a very carefree label handed to a very pressing issue.
Even now, scientists are doing their best to model the universe in a way that agrees with the data. Their models will make predictions, some will fail, others will succeed. And if we discover some kind of physical force that we previously failed to detect, then all the better. But scientists have the right to name new things whatever they like. And Creationists are free to overestimate the significance of labels because they lack the expertise to discuss the contents of those labels.
Recall the "Goddamn Particle," a term for the Higgs Boson that highlights the sheer difficulty of finding the offending boson. It was later coined by journalists to be the "God Particle," which you are probably familiar with due to its rather edgy title and subsequent hyping, by evangelists mind you, when the Higgs was eventually discovered in a scientific experiment, as the current existing models of the physical universe predict.
The reason it's called the Axis of Evil is remarkably similar. Your attempt to overinflate the term to make it seem like some kind of global conspiracy or fairy tale is nothing more than a surface-deep, self-congratulating interpretation of physical models. Clearly because you're so intelligent, them naming it that way must have some kind of sinister meaning, and you can see through their guise, yes?
Creationists are easy to understand. They look at a physical model of reality, pick the components they like, and do away with the rest. Back on topic.
The Axis of Evil refers to anomalous measurements in Cosmic Background Radiation. It is based on the data that shows the observable universe has an alignment in two or more of its components, which I am not qualified to speculate about. Merely that the anomaly is purported to exist.
Naming it this way is a means of making the technical jargon more lighthearted and genial; it actually reduces the stress about modeling the abnormality because it's a very carefree label handed to a very pressing issue.
Even now, scientists are doing their best to model the universe in a way that agrees with the data. Their models will make predictions, some will fail, others will succeed. And if we discover some kind of physical force that we previously failed to detect, then all the better. But scientists have the right to name new things whatever they like. And Creationists are free to overestimate the significance of labels because they lack the expertise to discuss the contents of those labels.
Post #3
I couldn't agree more, hence my question.Neatras wrote: Scientists, especially physicists, tend to utilize rough-sounding terminology to indicate how badly their predicted models get obfuscated by certain proposed structures.
More examples simply point to more evidence of some strange need to use figurative speech to express what the observer is feeling, which isn't evidence in the first place, but what the observer is projecting onto what they're attempting to observe; fairy tales.Recall the "Goddamn Particle," a term for the Higgs Boson that highlights the sheer difficulty of finding the offending boson.
Whatever gave you that idea? I simply pointed out a simple observation. e.g. It's strange to refer to the axis of the universe as evil. Evil is a term that one encounters in fairy tales, myths etc.; not science.The reason it's called the Axis of Evil is remarkably similar. Your attempt to overinflate the term to make it seem like some kind of global conspiracy or fairy tale
No doubt, so why not just call it the axis, and leave it at that?is nothing more than a surface-deep, self-congratulating interpretation of physical models.
Yes, I can see that they're engaging in nonsense, not science. They're injecting nonsense into their own interpretations.Clearly because you're so intelligent, them naming it that way must have some kind of sinister meaning, and you can see through their guise, yes?
People are easy to understand, especially those who feel the need to label people.Creationists are easy to understand.
Sorta like picking up the word "evil" and doing away with just the a simple observation of the axis of the universe.They look at a physical model of reality, pick the components they like, and do away with the rest.
Therefore anomalies are evil.The Axis of Evil refers to anomalous measurements in Cosmic Background Radiation. It is based on the data that shows the observable universe has an alignment in two or more of its components, which I am not qualified to speculate about. Merely that the anomaly is purported to exist.
Seems like it's the other way around, we observe this anomaly which we don't understand and turn it into some pressing issue with grave ramifications. The scientists look at each other in stunned amazement, and can only come to one conclusion <queue foreboding bass drum>; it's evil. I'm sure their first label was scoliosis, but that would have offended some people, so they went with evil instead because we all know how funny that phrase was in political circles.Naming it this way is a means of making the technical jargon more lighthearted and genial; it actually reduces the stress about modeling the abnormality because it's a very carefree label handed to a very pressing issue.
I'm not suggesting that scientists be forced to answer to some regulatory agency of etymology. I'm simply pointing out that they aren't engaging in science. They're playing with words.But scientists have the right to name new things whatever they like.
Are you a Creationist? If so, then why do you feel this freedom to overestimate the significance of labels? If not, then what is the accurate estimate of the significance of labels? And why are you even bringing Creationists into this in the first place? Are these scientists Creationists? If so, then the answer is as I stated earlier; they're injecting fairy tales into their observations just like all mythologists have from time immemorial. Coming up with a good framework to explain what's going on can be stressing, so it makes sense to inject good and evil into one's myths and fairy tales.And Creationists are free to overestimate the significance of labels...
Perhaps simply looking at the evidence might prove more effective at arriving at an accurate interpretation rather than throwing labels around, or coming up with lighthearted jargon to ease the stress of observation. If scientists are finding this so pressing, perhaps they might consider taking a vacation. "Max, you look a bit frazzled, perhaps you should take a break, get some time in at the positively charge ionic hydro-turbulator?"
"Thanks for noticing Einstein, but I think a better idea is to just refer to the axis of the universe as evil."
This is what those with superior powers of observation come up with for blowing off steam? Perhaps we need to get the Creationists out of the lab coats and get someone in there that is ready to take this seriously.
