There is nothing intrinsically wrong with an under constrained system. What is wrong is to teach it as dogma in schools, and spend public money following a course of action based on such ideas.
It is very likely that the "big bang" theory is wrong. New data gathered by the Planck satellite has shaken the foundations of the "big bang". Actually the "big bang" has been hobbled by problems for over 50 years - the amount of time spent looking for and not finding any dark matter or dark energy needed for the theory to explain the observables. That has not stopped our educators from presenting the "big bang" as a proven scientific fact.
So it goes with AGW. Is the world's climate changing? A lot of observables suggest that it is. What is not known is the underlying causality. Is it related to human activity or is it the result of other physical processes? No one knows with any degree of certainty. Spending money to reduce the impact of humans on the earth is probably a good thing to do. Teaching AGW in our schools as a provably correct theory is total nonsense. The reality is we do not know if human activity is causing global warming.
Evolution happens. We can see it occurring in our world. Can it explain the diversity of plants and animals on our planet today? No. There are serious problems related to the observed rate of genetic mutation and the age of the earth. It is not a small disconnect. It is an order of magnitude disconnect. This problem gets no mention as evolution is spoon fed to our children as the correct explanation for every plant and animal on our planet.
The search for MH370 highlights over a short time period the 50 year trend mentioned in the first paragraph above. The SSWG and many analysts outside the SSWG busied themselves sticking pins in a map based on speculation. There was nothing intrinsically wrong with that process except the manner in which it was presented and preserved. Like the "big bang", AGW, and evolution you had to be part of the club of believers or you were invited to leave the discussion. Is this the new trend in scientific enquiry? Apparently so. Steinhardt and Loeb conclude their paper highlighting the problems with the "big bang" with an interesting discussion in this regard. Their paper is a very worthwhile read.
Pop Goes the Universe
Speaking about theories in general...
The theory becomes more highly tuned and arcane to fit new observations until it reaches a state where its explanatory power diminishes to the point that it is no longer pursued. The explanatory
power of a theory is measured by the set of possibilities it excludes. More immunization means less exclusion and less power. A theory like the multimess (big bang) does not exclude anything and,
hence, has zero power. Declaring an empty theory as the unquestioned standard view requires some sort of assurance outside of science. Short of a professed oracle, the only alternative
is to invoke authorities. History teaches us that this is the wrong
road to take.
The work of the SSWG, IG, DSTG, and other outside analysts falls exactly into the problem area above. It excludes nothing and has zero power. An oracle would be appreciated.
Taleb makes an interesting observation relative to people "categorization" - people that know how (surgeons, Uber drivers, machinists...) and people who know what (economists, cosmologists, climatologists,...) I am done paying any attention to people in the know what category.
edit: 4/17/2017
So the ATSB put the lid on information disclosure today. I suppose I would do the same thing if I was in their shoes.
atsb-threatens-staff-with-jail-if-mh370-details-leaked
