It's not that Smolin's theory is more likely to be "right", but that it's such a perfect example to show how models of our universe differ from the popular idea of a single universe, and how cosmology differs from astrophysics. It also shows how biology-centric views of reality that say our universe is like an organism differ from mechanistic paradigm explanations that try to "prove" our universe is like a clockwork.
The redundancy is regrettable, but it's probably necessary, as no other theory can illustrate all these issues, and it would be hard to explain how these paradigms, fields, and models differ without forcing the Simple English Users to actually learn all about all of them. Using one theory as an example, particular such a vivid one, is helpful, even if it seems to lend it credibility.
We can always add a disclaimer if this is a problem, saying "we don't endorse this theory, it just helps us explain differences between types of science.'
- I don't think you need to specifically state that we do endorse it. We aren't really here to endorse anything, but some way of making the problems with this clear might well be needed. A
- No, I mean, of course WE DO NOT ENDORSE ANY THEORY. But when one is used as an example frequently because it is convenient to make certain critical distinctions, we might want to state that explicitly: WE DO NOT ENDORSE THIS THEORY, but its credibility is good evidence that certain distinctions really are made in the field under discussion...
Okay, explain to me why this article is a good one for the Simple English Wikipedia.
- It's all in the above. Please respond in detail to the above if you disagree. It's abusive to ask for more explanations of something already explained, until you've dealt with the original explanations. To indulge you, because you're new, I'll restate four reasons off the top of the head:
- 1. First, the main reason it's here, is it's a test of how much language we really need to explain complex ideas. The Simple English Reading in Cosmology is an attempt to lay out a reading that a late high school or first year college student, whose English is not great, but has a technical mind, is ready to absorb. It will probably need a few dozen words not in the 2000 words, but that's fine for this kind of an article, since dictionary definitions are allowed. It will take a dozen or so such "readings" to flesh out the limits of the terminology.
- 2. It's a highly visual metaphor that is quite easy to explain, much easier than almost any other modern cosmology theory. This and Weeks "soccer ball" model are pretty easy for anyone to grasp even with limited English. The two contrast nicely as examples of mechanistic paradigm, and the more cognitive/universe-is-alive-because-we-see-it-as-alive thinking that is now the more dominant force in both science and religion. Explain both, let 'em choose. That's a meaningful bit of cosmology they can absorb from here. We can list all other theories of course, but these two are the most interesting from a teacher's point of view because of the contrasts.
- 3. It's a good example of other things too, like inference testing of theories, which is part of cosmology and cognitive psychology, and which makes them statistical sciences. A distinction between hard statistical sciences like these, hard predictive sciences like chemistry, soft statistical human science, and pure soft science humanities, should be made in terms the Simple English User can understand. This may for all we know affect career choices they make. It is also a good introduction to standard of evidence, burden of proof and other issues at the corner of science & religion.
Ok, but - I think maybe you and I have different ideas of the purpose of the Simple English Wikipedia. I'm not sure I could say what I think the purpose is. Can you say what you think the purpose is?
- There are many purposes. See Simple English Users for a list of people we assume will use this, and why they will use it. To discuss this you may edit Simple English Users/Talk, or just add more groups of users and more purposes. If you think a group doesn't really exist, say so in talk.
- Responses and further discussion at Simple English Users/Talk
Also, please don't begin to say that I am "abusive", and that you will "indulge" me. Maybe we need to make an article about WikiLove. -- RJ208243.user.veloxzone.com.br (signature added later here)
- Go ahead. You are right, it is not up to me to indulge you, but please remember that every minute spent explaining is not spent writing new articles. I don't mean to imply that YOU were trying to waste my time by asking for something that was already answered, but many people do that to exhaust other people they do not like or agree with. Of course you might not have understood the stuff stated above, so my apologies if you took any offense.
- Who's new? Who's being abusive? How am I to tell? Do the two of you see the problems involved with not signing what you write? Angela
Sorry, Angela. Of course you are right. -- RJ208243.user.veloxzone.com.br