August 20, 2007
A FALSE DILEMMA (via Ed):
Modern Cosmology: Science or Folktale?: Current cosmological theory rests on a disturbingly small number of independent observations (Michael J. Disney, 8/20/07, American Scientist)
It is true that the modern study of cosmology has taken a turn for the better, if only because astronomers can now build relevant instruments rather than waiting for serendipitous evidence to turn up. On the other hand, to explain some surprising observations, theoreticians have had to create heroic and yet insubstantial notions such as "dark matter" and "dark energy," which supposedly overwhelm, by a hundred to one, the stuff of the universe we can directly detect. Outsiders are bound to ask whether they should be more impressed by the new observations or more dismayed by the theoretical jinnis that have been conjured up to account for them.My limited aim here is to discuss this dilemma by looking at the development of cosmology over the past century and to compare the growing number of independent relevant observations with the number of (also growing) separate hypotheses or "free parameters" that have had to be introduced to explain them. Without having to understand the complex astrophysics, one can still ask, at an epistemological level, whether the number of relevant independent measurements has overtaken and comfortably surpassed the number of free parameters needed to fit them—as one would expect of a maturing science. This approach should be appealing to nonspecialists, who otherwise would have little option but to believe experts who may be far too committed to supply objective advice. What one finds, in my view, is that modern cosmology has at best very flimsy observational support.
Science is never more than the prevailing folktale among the intellectual class. Posted by Orrin Judd at August 20, 2007 3:21 PM
Why then do we have artificial hearts and the '65 GTO with the tri-power engine?
Posted by: Benny at August 20, 2007 3:47 PMYou're confusing technology with science.
Posted by: oj at August 20, 2007 5:28 PMoj: Technology is applied science.
Posted by: Bartman at August 20, 2007 5:42 PMBartman: Ask a mathematician whether "Applied Math" really is math or not. Also, ask "scientists" and engineers what they think of the other.
This article isn't all that coherent, but he's basically trying to make the valid point that in many ways cosmology isn't that well constrained. When you aren't very constrained observationally, many theories can fit equally well (or equally poorly, of course). The choice that is then made, whether due to "consensus" (i.e., peer pressure) or "Occam's Razor"-type arguments, fundamentally boils down to Faith.
Posted by: b at August 20, 2007 5:59 PMTechnology is tinkering it neither requires nor is generally supported by science.
Posted by: oj at August 20, 2007 7:53 PMSorry to interrupt this intramural dispute, but are dark matter and dark energy the constituents of the ether? Paging Dr. Michelson . . . Dr. Morley . . .
Posted by: Ed Bush at August 20, 2007 9:19 PMEd: Nah, you need to go a bit farther back. They're modern versions of epicycles.
Posted by: b at August 21, 2007 11:47 AMNo way, OJ. Maxwell's Theory of Heat led directly to mechanical/technological advances.
Posted by: Benny at August 21, 2007 1:00 PMLet's not forget Boyle's Law and Charles' Law and their importance for any type of technology that utilizes pressure/heat in order to operate.
Posted by: Bartman at August 21, 2007 2:18 PMThe theories don't matter. Man figured out the use of fire without understanding why stuff burns.
Posted by: oj at August 21, 2007 3:10 PMSo, the atomic bomb was the result of tinkering and Max Planck and Bohr and Heisenberg were were superfluous egg-heads?
I suppose Tesla's discovery of transmission of energy over a distance was due to his just digging in with a wrench and some metal and seeing what happened?
Posted by: Benny at August 21, 2007 5:10 PMUnless we are playing a definitional game and defining "science" as all that is unnecessary for a given technological advance... If that is the case, then I agree with OJ..
Posted by: Benny at August 21, 2007 5:12 PM