> ... yet considerable effort is spent trying to figure out the Big Bang - and it's not like you'll find anyone claiming those efforts are "not science".
Good observation. I thought there was a context to Hoyle's statement, so I checked the Wikipedia:
Hoyle died in 2001 never accepting the Big Bang theory.[25]
"How, in the big-bang cosmology, is the microwave background explained? Despite what supporters of big-bang cosmology claim, it is not explained. The supposed explanation is nothing but an entry in the gardener’s catalogue of hypothesis that constitutes the theory. Had observation given 27 Kelvins instead of 2.7 Kelvins for the temperature, then 27 kelvins would have been entered in the catalogue. Or 0.27 Kelvins. Or anything at all."
— Hoyle, 1994[26]
Good observation. I thought there was a context to Hoyle's statement, so I checked the Wikipedia:
Hoyle died in 2001 never accepting the Big Bang theory.[25] "How, in the big-bang cosmology, is the microwave background explained? Despite what supporters of big-bang cosmology claim, it is not explained. The supposed explanation is nothing but an entry in the gardener’s catalogue of hypothesis that constitutes the theory. Had observation given 27 Kelvins instead of 2.7 Kelvins for the temperature, then 27 kelvins would have been entered in the catalogue. Or 0.27 Kelvins. Or anything at all." — Hoyle, 1994[26]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle#Rejection_of_the_Bi...