Cosmology Is in Crisis

TheTrisagion

Hoplitarches
Joined
Nov 9, 2012
Messages
17,829
Reaction score
13
Points
38
Age
41
Location
PA, USA
But the dark energy problem is not the one that threatens to undermine cosmological experiments. In cognitive science, confirmation bias is the effect where people tend to unconsciously interpret information in a manner that leads to a selection of data that confirms their current beliefs. For cosmologists, this means the unconscious (or conscious) tuning of results such that the final cosmological interpretation tends to confirm what they already believe. This is particularly pernicious in cosmology because unlike laboratory-based experiments we cannot rerun our experiment many times to investigate statistical anomalies — we only have one universe.
http://singularityhub.com/2016/01/09/cosmology-is-in-crisis-but-not-for-the-reason-you-may-think/

I'm not interested in ragging on scientists, but this article brings up an interesting point on how difficult it is to explore alternate theories in cosmology.
 

LenInSebastopol

Protokentarchos
Joined
Mar 25, 2013
Messages
3,596
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Galileo Was Wrong The Church was Right can end such misgivings or at least pose a real alternative argument. :D
As with all cosmology they are simply models, as was Ptolemy's, however with his the math gets difficult quickly, but can still work, or so I am told and believe, as my skills have long since passed.
Plus it erases ALL the Western approaches to Man's Place in The Universe and God's Creation, where we truly belong!
But folks have been "taught' to "think" we all are minus-the-size of cosmic flotsam in a "sea of billions and billions of galaxies", and thus leading to Nothing of a Conclusion.
May be more coffee would help?
 

Volnutt

Hoplitarches
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
15,089
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Age
34
LenInSebastopol said:
Galileo Was Wrong The Church was Right can end such misgivings or at least pose a real alternative argument. :D
Except the Church flipflopped and started agreeing with him after about a generation.

Sorry to make Ken Ham cry, but problems within current areas of science do not by themselves overturn centuries of consensus. You've got a long way to go if you want to sow that kind of discord.

LenInSebastopol said:
As with all cosmology they are simply models, as was Ptolemy's, however with his the math gets difficult quickly, but can still work, or so I am told and believe, as my skills have long since passed.
Plus it erases ALL the Western approaches to Man's Place in The Universe and God's Creation, where we truly belong!
But folks have been "taught' to "think" we all are minus-the-size of cosmic flotsam in a "sea of billions and billions of galaxies", and thus leading to Nothing of a Conclusion.
May be more coffee would help?
Depends on how you look at it. It could also be said that the vastness of the cosmos is a vindication of Psalm 8:3-4:

When I consider your heavens,
    the work of your fingers,
the moon and the stars,
    which you have set in place,

what is mankind that you are mindful of them,
    human beings that you care for them?

You have made them a little lower than the angels
    and crowned them with glory and honor.
I would also add that when consciousness (the universe looking back in on itself, as Carl Sagan put it) is brought into the mix, sapient beings like us and whatever aliens may or not exist are still the most important parts of the universe. Without an observer to contemplate it, the grandeur of creation is meaningless.
 

LenInSebastopol

Protokentarchos
Joined
Mar 25, 2013
Messages
3,596
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Volnutt said:
LenInSebastopol said:
Galileo Was Wrong The Church was Right can end such misgivings or at least pose a real alternative argument. :D
Except the Church flipflopped and started agreeing with him after about a generation.
Sorry to make Ken Ham cry, but problems within current areas of science do not by themselves overturn centuries of consensus. You've got a long way to go if you want to sow that kind of discord.

LenInSebastopol said:
As with all cosmology they are simply models, as was Ptolemy's, however with his the math gets difficult quickly, but can still work, or so I am told and believe, as my skills have long since passed.
Plus it erases ALL the Western approaches to Man's Place in The Universe and God's Creation, where we truly belong!
But folks have been "taught' to "think" we all are minus-the-size of cosmic flotsam in a "sea of billions and billions of galaxies", and thus leading to Nothing of a Conclusion.
May be more coffee would help?
Depends on how you look at it. It could also be said that the vastness of the cosmos is a vindication of Psalm 8:3-4:

When I consider your heavens,
    the work of your fingers,
the moon and the stars,
    which you have set in place,

what is mankind that you are mindful of them,
    human beings that you care for them?

You have made them a little lower than the angels
    and crowned them with glory and honor.
I would also add that when consciousness (the universe looking back in on itself, as Carl Sagan put it) is brought into the mix, sapient beings like us and whatever aliens may or not exist are still the most important parts of the universe. Without an observer to contemplate it, the grandeur of creation is meaningless.
The Church did concede to some of Galileo's observations and as such built observatories, however alternative models may still be used, just not with Ockhams' Razor.
The Ether notion was still existent, as I recall, when Alan Shepard (first US astronaut) went into space, one of first comments was regarding same. I recall smiling, even though he denied seeing it; silly man, one cannot 'see' the Ether as with God's Grace or the wind.
As to overturning centuries of consensus, I was not aware of The Truth being democratic, especially in light of science being mostly statistical.

The most salient part:
I would also add that when consciousness (the universe looking back in on itself, as Carl Sagan put it) is brought into the mix, sapient beings like us and whatever aliens may or not exist are still the most important parts of the universe. Without an observer to contemplate it, the grandeur of creation is meaningless.
So it is the case that WE give the cosmos meaning? Or your posit that we, as His Creation, give it meaning and are the only ones that do so?
Similar to the tree falling in the forest, no one there, so no sound, eh?
The notion of the Universe looking back on itself is more than this solipsist can handle!  ;D
But thanks for the response!


 

Volnutt

Hoplitarches
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
15,089
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Age
34
LenInSebastopol said:
Volnutt said:
LenInSebastopol said:
Galileo Was Wrong The Church was Right can end such misgivings or at least pose a real alternative argument. :D
Except the Church flipflopped and started agreeing with him after about a generation.
Sorry to make Ken Ham cry, but problems within current areas of science do not by themselves overturn centuries of consensus. You've got a long way to go if you want to sow that kind of discord.

LenInSebastopol said:
As with all cosmology they are simply models, as was Ptolemy's, however with his the math gets difficult quickly, but can still work, or so I am told and believe, as my skills have long since passed.
Plus it erases ALL the Western approaches to Man's Place in The Universe and God's Creation, where we truly belong!
But folks have been "taught' to "think" we all are minus-the-size of cosmic flotsam in a "sea of billions and billions of galaxies", and thus leading to Nothing of a Conclusion.
May be more coffee would help?
Depends on how you look at it. It could also be said that the vastness of the cosmos is a vindication of Psalm 8:3-4:

When I consider your heavens,
    the work of your fingers,
the moon and the stars,
    which you have set in place,

what is mankind that you are mindful of them,
    human beings that you care for them?

You have made them a little lower than the angels
    and crowned them with glory and honor.
I would also add that when consciousness (the universe looking back in on itself, as Carl Sagan put it) is brought into the mix, sapient beings like us and whatever aliens may or not exist are still the most important parts of the universe. Without an observer to contemplate it, the grandeur of creation is meaningless.
The Church did concede to some of Galileo's observations and as such built observatories, however alternative models may still be used, just not with Ockhams' Razor.
The Ether notion was still existent, as I recall, when Alan Shepard (first US astronaut) went into space, one of first comments was regarding same. I recall smiling, even though he denied seeing it; silly man, one cannot 'see' the Ether as with God's Grace or the wind.
As to overturning centuries of consensus, I was not aware of The Truth being democratic, especially in light of science being mostly statistical.
I am talking about probabilities. Is it possible that 99.9999% of professional scientists are wrong and that we actually live in a Geocentric universe with Ether? Sure it is. Anything's possible. It's just highly unlikely.

LenInSebastopol said:
The most salient part:
I would also add that when consciousness (the universe looking back in on itself, as Carl Sagan put it) is brought into the mix, sapient beings like us and whatever aliens may or not exist are still the most important parts of the universe. Without an observer to contemplate it, the grandeur of creation is meaningless.
So it is the case that WE give the cosmos meaning? Or your posit that we, as His Creation, give it meaning and are the only ones that do so?
Similar to the tree falling in the forest, no one there, so no sound, eh?
The notion of the Universe looking back on itself is more than this solipsist can handle!  ;D
But thanks for the response!
It isn't solipsism because I believe in other minds than my own. It's more like intersubjectivity/collective delusion. Though, since I believe that when we wonder at the universe we share in the mind of God, it seems kind of odd to call it subjective. I just don't know what it would mean for a lifeless object to possess "meaning" outside of an observer- meaning is something that pertains to ethics and beauty and a nebula doesn't know it's beautiful. So call me a Berkeleyan in that sense.
 
Top