What kind of science is cosmology

[Zeuzzz]

Currently cosmology has greatly advanced in terms of theory and observation. Some of the parameters of the concordance or LCDM cosmological model are stated with a near absolute precision. But over 96% of the universe is constituted of "matter" of an unknown nature (the term matter is a misnomer from the get go, we can not even be sure it is matter in any sense of how we define it).

So where is cosmologies place amongst the (exact) natural sciences? Due to its epistemic and methodical attributes, as a mathematized historical science, cosmology occupies a vague place.

The universe and nature is awesome, and science is how we explain it. Maths is the code of nature, but not a constituent of it. There's so little we know yet.

Surely, knowledge provided by cosmological modeling cannot be as explicative and secure as knowledge gained by laboratory physics or analytical chemistry.

Knowledge attained by virtue of cosmological inferences based purely on EM data can not rival laboratory physics and other Earth bound natural sciences in its veracity and predictive power.

Agree/Disagree?

Thanks.

 

[MG1962]

But over 96% of the universe is constituted of "matter" of an unknown nature (the term matter is a misnomer from the get go, we can not even be sure it is matter in any sense of how we define it).

Where did you get this information?

 

[Zeuzzz]

Where did you get this information?

Fairly common knowledge, I thought. To account for galactic rotation curve discrepancies that gravity can not explain Dark Matter has to be evoked.

What's 96 Percent of the Universe Made Of? Astronomers Don't Know

NEW YORK — All the stars, planets and galaxies that can be seen today make up just 4 percent of the universe. The other 96 percent is made of stuff astronomers can't see, detect or even comprehend.

 

[MG1962]

Fairly common knowledge, I thought. To account for galactic rotation curve discrepancies that gravity can not explain Dark Matter has to be evoked.

What's 96 Percent of the Universe Made Of? Astronomers Don't Know

I think you will agree that is a very different statement to the one you made. 96% of the universe is missing, does not default to 96% of the universe is matter of an unknown nature. Because the 100% they are talking about is the matter component of the universe, not the total amount of the universe

 

[edd]

Surely, knowledge provided by cosmological modeling cannot be as explicative and secure as knowledge gained by laboratory physics or analytical chemistry.

This seems confused. The modelling provides the information on what the theory predicts that is then compared to data. Laboratory physics and analytical chemistry also have some element of modelling in order to compare them to data.
If you'd said "Surely, knowledge provided by astronomical observation cannot be as explicative..." it might be a better starting point for discussion.

Knowledge attained by virtue of cosmological inferences based purely on EM data can not rival laboratory physics and other Earth bound natural sciences in its veracity and predictive power.

This isn't generally true. Cosmology provides the best current bounds on neutrino masses, better than laboratory physics. It's also pretty much the only way to examine the questions it asks, and if you're not comparing the ability to answer the same questions how do you evaluate it?

Broadly though, my feelings are 'so what if cosmology is not currently as precise as certain other kinds of physics?'

 

[MG1962]

Broadly though, my feelings are 'so what if cosmology is not currently as precise as certain other kinds of physics?'

That can also be an artifact that the observational elements are producing data at a higher rate than the theoretical astrophysics can process it

 

[quarky]

We may be on the collective verge of finally knowing how much we don't know.

 

[MG1962]

We may be on the collective verge of finally knowing how much we don't know.

QFT

 

[Zeuzzz]

We may be on the collective verge of finally knowing how much we don't know.

A lot of people are going to get annoyed when their pet theories start to be challenged. Like very annoyed, either when new theories start to explain things better in a totally different way, or their theory is shown to be predicted on faulty assumptions and axioms, as beautifully internally self consistent an elegant as it may be.

The proper scientists are going to be fascinated and excited, however.

For a science as broad and far reaching, philosophically and epidemically, in terms of its profundity in nature to us and the universe as a whole, different approaches to cosmology and brand new theories based on epistemically different approaches need to be created, and the few that exist need to be given more consideration, funding and recognition than they are now.

http://cosmologystatement.org/
An Open Letter to the Scientific Community
cosmologystatement.org
(Published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004)

 

[Craig B]

We may be on the collective verge of finally knowing how much we don't know.

I think that's very optimistic. Let us examine the wisdom of a great thinker.

[T]here are known knowns; there are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns; that is to say there are things that, we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns – there are things we do not know, we don't know.—United States Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld

These unknown unknowns will still exist, and their extent will still be an unknown, albeit a known unknown.

 

[Zeuzzz]

These unknown unknowns will still exist, and their extent will still be an unknown, albeit a known unknown.

I really hope you quoted Donald Rumsfeld there as a joke in some way, because when you realise the context in which he said that he was basically trying to confuse people by using multitudes of double negatives and logically unsupportable arguments to cover the fact hundreds of thousands of people were likely just about to be killed based on made up things. Things that were unknown.

Back on topic, cosmology is not a science. It's a misapplication of precise sciences which gives rise to what people erroneously assume is a "precise cosmology".

EDIT: Just read the 'great thinker' bit. Obviously was a joke, though your reason for bringing it up is still a total mystery to me.

 

[knowthecosmos]

Back on topic, cosmology is not a science. It's a misapplication of precise sciences which gives rise to what people erroneously assume is a "precise cosmology".

I personally don't know of any professional scientists who view cosmology in "precise" terms. Cosmology is but our understanding of the fundamental structure and evolution of the universe based on our observation.

Many people have very different interpretation of what the "true" nature of the universe is, but that's where the scientific method comes in.

Science-based Cosmology is getting better with age. The more data that is acquired and processed, the more we're able to understand the universe.

To imply that the use of the word Cosmology is a "misapplication of precise sciences" seems to be quite foolhardy, in my opinion. It seems like you're inferring that astrophysicists and astronomers are just making arbitrary statements about the universe which they hope to be true. That's not the case.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Science-based Cosmology is getting better with age. The more data that is acquired and processed, the more we're able to understand the universe.

Its accruing larger and larger fudge factors ontop of ever more abstract mathematical hypostatizations to the detriment of other interpretations of the data that could prove just as fruitful and explanatory than the one single theory and approach that has become the only 'correct' way to interpret the data.

 

[edd]

For a science as broad and far reaching, philosophically and epidemically, in terms of its profundity in nature to us and the universe as a whole, different approaches to cosmology and brand new theories based on epistemically different approaches need to be created, and the few that exist need to be given more consideration, funding and recognition than they are now.

http://cosmologystatement.org/
An Open Letter to the Scientific Community
cosmologystatement.org
(Published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004)

This just isn't true. Plenty of pretty wacky ideas get researched in theoretical cosmology. The unfortunate fact for some who won't let go of their favourite ideas though is that those ideas are clearly no longer in the running. Plasma cosmology and steady state ideas just can't even make remotely competitive predictions anymore.

In addition what you refer to as 'fudge factors' in a later post are not getting larger and larger - they're getting ever better constrained and the multiple theoretical ideas we currently have (none of which are tremendously satisfactory I'll grant you - but as said theoreticians are trying to come up with better ideas) are getting gradually narrowed down by the accumulating evidence.

 

[DazzaD]

Its accruing larger and larger fudge factors ontop of ever more abstract mathematical hypostatizations to the detriment of other interpretations of the data that could prove just as fruitful and explanatory than the one single theory and approach that has become the only 'correct' way to interpret the data.

When I was doing cosmology research during my PhD the shelves in the library were stacked full of journals that had a tremendous variation of theories from the mainstream to the truly radical, over the course of over 50 years...

The simple fact is that mainstream just means the ones that are working the best.. over than that there is real preference for the explanations put forward...just which ones work the best.

In my short time doing that research the mainline on several issues changed at least 4 times...

Better and better data was being collected at an ever increasing rate as new technology, engineering and computing power was being ramped up massively...

 

[Farsight]

Cosmology is metaphysics. See wikipedia:

"A person who studies metaphysics is called a metaphysicist[4] or a metaphysician.[5] The metaphysician attempts to clarify the fundamental notions by which people understand the world, e.g., existence, objects and their properties, space and time, cause and effect, and possibility. A central branch of metaphysics is ontology, the investigation into the basic categories of being and how they relate to each other. Another central branch of metaphysics is cosmology, the study of the totality of all phenomena within the universe".

 

[edd]

I don't think that's correct. Some parts of what you might consider cosmology are metaphysics, but not all cosmology is metaphysics.

That claim incidentally could be backed up by following the first 'cosmology' link in the wikipedia article you give.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Currently cosmology has greatly advanced in terms of theory and observation. Some of the parameters of the concordance or LCDM cosmological model are stated with a near absolute precision. But over 96% of the universe is constituted of "matter" of an unknown nature (the term matter is a misnomer from the get go, we can not even be sure it is matter in any sense of how we define it).

So where is cosmologies place amongst the (exact) natural sciences? Due to its epistemic and methodical attributes, as a mathematized historical science, cosmology occupies a vague place.

The universe and nature is awesome, and science is how we explain it. Maths is the code of nature, but not a constituent of it. There's so little we know yet.

Surely, knowledge provided by cosmological modeling cannot be as explicative and secure as knowledge gained by laboratory physics or analytical chemistry.

Knowledge attained by virtue of cosmological inferences based purely on EM data can not rival laboratory physics and other Earth bound natural sciences in its veracity and predictive power.

Agree/Disagree?

Thanks.

A similar argument could be made about the evolution of life.
What's the point? Cosmology is our best attempt to understand the nature of the universe and its origins using all of our accumulated scientific knowledge. There is no area of science that is not subject to revision as new information is attained; that's part of what what defines science. Because of its remoteness and vastness in both space and time, the universe is a unique challenge for the scientific method, so from time to time we see failed theories (Hoyle's steady state hypothesis, etc.) and much remains unknown. But cosmology is unambiguously a science, since its theories and speculations are subject to all the methods and scrutiny that we apply to all science.

 

[MG1962]

Its accruing larger and larger fudge factors ontop of ever more abstract mathematical hypostatizations to the detriment of other interpretations of the data that could prove just as fruitful and explanatory than the one single theory and approach that has become the only 'correct' way to interpret the data.

Wrong. In 1998 some research was released that turned a lot of cosmology and how we thought the universe worked on its head

In 2011 that research team won a noble prize

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_universe

According to your position that could not happen. Remember also people are still trying to figure out what those observations really mean. A lot of the talk about dark energy, matter and flow is basically trying to nail jello to a fence. Keep throwing ideas and see what eventually sticks

 

[Zeuzzz]

Lack of evidence for your personal thesis of cosmology is noted.

Theory as described by BBT proponents as they see it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_cosmology

Theory as described by one of the main proponents: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plasma_cosmology&oldid=88919194

Once again im the one thats actually linked to material of substance first, BBT advocates rarely state their case first except for commenting on the incorrectness of the alternate theory

*Queues reality checks bullet point list arguing against this, with no actual references to the data in support of BBT*