This one is for Ohioan, but hopefully everyone will get something from it. The video below will speak to him and his wife, I think.
My morning caffeine has long since worn off and I'm writing without the aid of bourbon, so my energy level is a bit low right now. I've been spending most of my free intellectual energy on my upcoming talk, but I didn't want to neglect the blog, so here's a few tidbits on physicist and astronomer, Fred Hoyle, the chap who came up with the name, "The Big Bang Theory." To me, they paint a picture of a brilliant, fallible, very human man who spent his life in a sincere search for truth.
From Harpers in 1954:
And now I should like to give some consideration to contemporary religious beliefs. There is a good deal of cosmology in the Bible. My impression of it is that it is a remarkable conception, considering the time when it was written. But I think it can hardly be denied that the cosmology of the ancient Hebrews is only the merest daub compared with the sweeping grandeur of the picture revealed by modern science. This leads me to ask the question: is it in any way reasonable to suppose that it was given to the Hebrews to understand mysteries far deeper than anything we can comprehend, when it is quite clear that they were completely ignorant of many matters that seem commonplace to us? No, it seems to me that religion is but a desperate attempt to find an escape from the truly dreadful situation in which we find ourselves. Here we are in this wholly fantastic Universe with scarcely a clue as to whether our existence has any real significance. No wonder then that many people feel the need for some belief that gives them a sense of security, and no wonder that they become very angry with people like me who say that this security is illusory.
From a thoroughly Mormon BYU site:
I was privileged to be at a conference 20 years ago when the great cosmologist, and devoted atheist, Fred Hoyle gave a stirring talk on why he resisted the big bang theory. It was Hoyle who derisively gave the theory its name, and to the end of his life he refused to endorse it even as his own theories crumbled for the lack of evidence. In his talk he confessed that as a youth he was forced to attend church by his parents. This so offended him he determined to never support the idea of God. The big bang theory just looked too much like God’s hand to him.
From the Philosophical Society site:
"A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature" (Fred Hoyle).
Finally, here's Fred himself. I found this snippet of him endearing. I would have loved to have worked for him.
I thought about this a bit before commenting. Fred Hoyle was a great scientist, but like many great people, he refused to accept when his favorite theory (i.e., the Steady State Theory - the one he formulated) was demolished by the evidence confirming a competing theory. This hardly makes him unique, or even just unusual. Be all that as it may, it does not mean that he did not steadily pursue truth (pun intended). Indeed, there is always a place in science for those who challenge 'the prevailing belief,' even if they are mostly tilting at windmills, and I suspect that the BBT folks worked harder to get and explain data than they might have had he not been present.
ReplyDeleteI hate to go off on a tangent, but the case for the 'skeptic' is becoming clearer by the day when it comes to my favorite windmill, the Covid-19 Vaccination crusades. There are two very interesting fairly recent studies. The first Serious adverse events of special interest following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in randomized trials in adults (available here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9428332/ ) - the interesting data is in Tables 3 & 4. The second Appendix 1: estimation of number needed to vaccinate to prevent a COVID-19 hospitalisation for primary vaccination, booster vaccination (3rd dose), autumn 2022 and spring 2023 booster for those newly in a risk group (available here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1131409/appendix-1-of-jcvi-statement-on-2023-covid-19-vaccination-programme-8-november-2022.pdf) - the interesting data is also, coincidentally, in Tables 3 & 4. I could delve into the data, but long story short, it is clear that any additional vaccines carry more risk than the then current variants, or as stated in section 3.4 of the first paper "In the Moderna trial, the excess risk of serious AESIs [adverse events of special interest] (15.1 per 10,000 participants) was higher than the risk reduction for COVID-19 hospitalization relative to the placebo group (6.4 per 10,000 participants). [3] In the Pfizer trial, the excess risk of serious AESIs (10.1 per 10,000) was higher than the risk reduction for COVID-19 hospitalization relative to the placebo group (2.3 per 10,000 participants)." [Note that I added the italicized text in square brackets to define the acronym.] Anyways, it is now clear that anyone advocating for additional Covid vaccinations are not following the science, but rather are following "the ScIeNcE!"