Changes

:::::I think you may be seeing this is really a discussion about logic.  I only asked for conclusions.  They can't give factual conclusions, and they will tell you so.  All they can say is "most people (in the field) beleive...".  And it would ''in fact'' be bad science to represent what they beleive as facts, because ''they'' don't, and they ''can't''.  Even a scientist who, in his heart and soul, beleives in proposition X, would ''still'' have to add the disclaimer, "this is my judgement on the matter".  That ''still'' does not qualify it as an idependent and observable phenomenea of nature.  And the legions of researchers and astrophysicists can only produce a concensus of what the community beleives, they cannot establish the facts of this particular matter. And their concensus is always subject to revision.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 01:12, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::I think you may be seeing this is really a discussion about logic.  I only asked for conclusions.  They can't give factual conclusions, and they will tell you so.  All they can say is "most people (in the field) beleive...".  And it would ''in fact'' be bad science to represent what they beleive as facts, because ''they'' don't, and they ''can't''.  Even a scientist who, in his heart and soul, beleives in proposition X, would ''still'' have to add the disclaimer, "this is my judgement on the matter".  That ''still'' does not qualify it as an idependent and observable phenomenea of nature.  And the legions of researchers and astrophysicists can only produce a concensus of what the community beleives, they cannot establish the facts of this particular matter. And their concensus is always subject to revision.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 01:12, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

Would it be possible to link to and cite the papers instead so that any individuals who want to read the rest of the article can follow the link?  --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 00:15, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

Would it be possible to link to and cite the papers instead so that any individuals who want to read the rest of the article can follow the link?  --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 00:15, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

Another aspect to consider - there are theories about planetary formation, star formation, and galaxy formation.  While it is reasonable to say that we do not know with certainty about these things, once can at least present information about them.  If one is to present educational information, presenting information is much more useful than presenting someone saying "don't know."  One could link to and explain http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1955PASP...67..154H for star formation for example.  This would be much more useful to a student or teacher who wants to actually learn about or teach about star formation.  With what is here, one would be tempted to go to another site that has the information instead. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 00:38, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

Another aspect to consider - there are theories about planetary formation, star formation, and galaxy formation.  While it is reasonable to say that we do not know with certainty about these things, once can at least present information about them.  If one is to present educational information, presenting information is much more useful than presenting someone saying "don't know."  One could link to and explain http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1955PASP...67..154H for star formation for example.  This would be much more useful to a student or teacher who wants to actually learn about or teach about star formation.  With what is here, one would be tempted to go to another site that has the information instead. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 00:38, 4 May 2007 (EDT)