Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Alarmed_Economics_90 t1_j1dhqap wrote

Reply to comment by pete_68 in Can we truly know the age of the universe? by Geodad478

Yeah, scientists just guess, since they're not sure. /s

There are margins of error that are taken into account when values aren't known exactly. That doesn't mean we just have no darn idea. "It's all theoretical" is wildly inaccurate. The margin of error on the age of the universe is like 1% - so that's a lot, but it's not, like, "could just be anything, we have no idea."

4

pete_68 t1_j1djqrq wrote

"Calculating the age of the universe is accurate only if the assumptions built into the models being used to estimate it are also accurate. " - Wikipedia

So yeah assuming the model is accurate. But that's an assumption. Not a known.

−1

Alarmed_Economics_90 t1_j1ejm32 wrote

I assume you left out the rest of the paragraph because you don't know what Bayesian and Strong Priors means.

The inaccuracy is quantifiable if you do.

0

pete_68 t1_j1ew9vg wrote

I assume, based on the arrogance and presumptuousness of your comment that you have a GUT all figured out and have reconciled the disparities in Hubble values.

0

Alarmed_Economics_90 t1_j1exr11 wrote

That's called "a straw man" argument, with a bonus false dichotomy.

Pretending that we don't know anything because we don't know everything is a glaring indicator of ignorance - not only of the topic at hand, but more generally of a weak grasp of epistemology and argumentation.

1