The Sociology of Cosmology

[CraigS]

Here we go .. a paper by a mainstream scientist who seems to have spent a career dancing around, (& legitimately researching), the controversial topic of possible non-cosmological origins of Redshift.
This paper, (see attachment), analyses the 'ins and outs' of taking the path of non-standard cosmology thinking (as opposed to the mainstream current):

"Sociology of Modern Cosmology"
Martin Lopez-Corredoira. Submitted on 2 Dec 2008 (v1), last revised 18 May 2009 (this version, v2).
http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.0537
Some great stuff in here. A sample follows:

Introduction:
"Certain results of observational cosmology cast critical doubt on the foundations of standard cosmology but leave most cosmologists untroubled. Alternative cosmological models that differ from the Big Bang have been published and defended by heterodox scientists; however, most cosmologists do not heed these. This may be because standard theory is correct and all other ideas and criticisms are incorrect, but it is also to a great extent due to sociological phenomena such as the "snowball effect" or "groupthink". We might wonder whether cosmology, the study of the Universe as a whole, is a science like other branches of physics or just a dominant ideology."
....
"There are two main psychological profiles of cosmologists, with gradations of grey between them:

Heterodox: possessed by the complex of unappreciated genius, too much “ego”, normally working alone/individually or in very small groups, creative, intelligent, non-conformist." His/her (mostly males) dream is to create a new paradigm in science which completely changes our view of the Universe. Many of them try to demonstrate that Einstein was wrong, maybe because he is the symbol of genius and defeating his theory would mean that they are geniuses above Einstein. Most of them are crackpots.

Orthodox: dominated by the groupthink, following a leader’s opinion as in the “Naked king” tale, good workers performing monotonous tasks without ideas in large groups, specialists in a small field which they know very well, conformist, domestic. His/her dream is getting a permanent position at an university or research center, to be leader of a project, to do astropolitics (see Lpez-Corredoira 2008). Most of them are like sheep (or geese), some of them with vocation of shepherds too."

Which type are YOU ?

Have fun !
Cheers
PS: Oh yes ... even addresses ... "Plasma Cosmology (Lerner 1991)". The author has been known to associate with Lerner !!

[higginsdj]

Orthodox. I have my favourite 'kings'

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by higginsdj

Orthodox. I have my favourite 'kings'

Are they big spuds floating out there in space ?


Cheers & Rgds

[CraigS]

This is great !! A juicy bit for everyone !! ...

"Methodology of Science:

Basically, there are two different methodologies to study Nature, both inherited from different ways of thinking in ancient Greece:

The mathematical deductive method: This is the method thought by Pythagoras and Plato. The pure relations of numbers in Arithmetic and Geometry are the immutable reality behind changing appearances in the world of the senses. We cannot reach the truth through observation with the senses, but only through pure reason ...

The empirical inductive method: This is the method thought by Anaxagoras of how to know Nature. Aristotle uses both inductive and deductive methods, and he says that “the mathematical method is not the method of the physicists, because Nature, perhaps all, involves matter” (Meta- physics, book II). Matter and not numbers or mathematics. Nature should be known through observations and extrapolations of them."


Hehe ... hehe ....

Cheers

[CraigS]

The final bit about assimilating knowledge of the past ...

"Do we live in a fortunate golden age of Cosmology that allows us, thanks to our technical advances and our trained researchers, to answer questions on eternity, finiteness of the Universe, etc.? We could reply as the XIXth century German philosopher Schopenhauer did with the Know-alls of his time:

"Every 30 years, a new generation of talkative candid persons, ignorant of everything, want to devour summarily and hastily the results of human knowledge accumulated over centuries, and immediately they think themselves more skillful than the whole past.”"

Hmmm .. a bit of an axe to grind there, methinks !!

I don't mind devouring the knowledge of the past ... but that's only a tiny slice of what there is gain in the present .. and take into the future. And perhaps what we do with that knowledge enables us to define our own personal 'wisdom'? (see Bert's comments on the EU thread).

Cheers

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

This is great !! A juicy bit for everyone !! ...

"Methodology of Science:

Basically, there are two different methodologies to study Nature, both inherited from different ways of thinking in ancient Greece:

The mathematical deductive method: This is the method thought by Pythagoras and Plato. The pure relations of numbers in Arithmetic and Geometry are the immutable reality behind changing appearances in the world of the senses. We cannot reach the truth through observation with the senses, but only through pure reason ...

The empirical inductive method: This is the method thought by Anaxagoras of how to know Nature. Aristotle uses both inductive and deductive methods, and he says that “the mathematical method is not the method of the physicists, because Nature, perhaps all, involves matter” (Meta- physics, book II). Matter and not numbers or mathematics. Nature should be known through observations and extrapolations of them."


Hehe ... hehe ....

Cheers

And here's the clincher....you can't do science without either of them....you need both.

Corredoira fancies himself as some kind of philosopher, when he should stick to doing science.

He most certainly has an axe to grind....a rather large one to be precise. Corredoira has had a number of papers rejected, not because the subjects were controversial but because the science wasn't sound enough. Like Arp and some others, he's been known to jump the gun on certain topics.

He's only a young guy (only had his PhD for 13 years), still needs some seasoning

Being Spaniard...maybe a dash of tabasco and a few chillies

[CraigS]

Yes. I mentioned in my opening thread that this guy has been known to collaborate with known "Heterodoxes" (?). He definitely is one himself.

I thought it would be fair to have a look into these guys' worlds to get where they're (really) coming from.

He organised a workshop in 2006 called "International Workshop on Redshift Mechanisms in Astrophysics and Cosmology". The minutes of that workshop were published in 2007. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0701061

The presenters were:
Observational facts were presented by Tom Van Flandern (the guy who believes in the Face of Cydonia - Meta Research, Sequim, WA, U.S.A.), Chris Fulton (James Cook University, Australia; in collaboration with Halton Arp, MPIA, Germany), William M. Napier (University of Cardiff, U. K.) and myself (Mart ́ın L ́opez-Corredoira, IAC, Tenerife, Spain, in collaboration with Carlos M. Guti ́errez of the same institute).

Others were in attendance and they presented their alternative theories on Redshift, some of which sound pretty reasonable to me (that's not saying that much, I guess).

There is a valid point in all of this (from the thread paper):

"In my opinion, alternative models are not rejected because they are not potentially competitive but because they have great difficulties in advancing in their research against the mainstream. A small number of scientists cannot compete with the huge mass of cosmologists dedicated to polishing and refining the standard theory".

Putting myself into their position, I'm not sure I could see how a reasonably valid alternative theory could go forward, given the system they're working in.

This is a difficult topic for professionals (& budding ones) to engage in. I'm nothing more than an Amateur trying to learn stuff and hence, I'm not bound by funding requirements or the need to 'toe the line'.

Cheers.
PS: It'll be interesting to see whether there are any more posts to this thread after that clanger !!

[renormalised (Carl)]

The reason why their work doesn't get the sounding board they think it deserves is because for the most part it their theories don't match the empirical data. They make assumptions which aren't supported by the evidence or only have circumstantial proof. You can't expect everyone to just drop their bundles and go follow the "pied piper" just because he plays a merry tune. Look at Einstein...when he first brought out SR and then GR, there were only 5 or so physicists in the world that could even come close to understanding it. But, fortunately, those physicists were the guys who forged modern physics....Bohr, Dirac etc. It wasn't long before most of the others saw through the complexities and then Einstein became the buzzword for "mad scientist" And uber famous. But that's what it takes....you need to be really on your ball if you're going to propose something radical and even then you won't get 100% support. You never do. But, you need to have dotted all the "i's" and crossed all you "t's" before you can expect to be accepted. That's what most of these guys haven't done, and very few of them (if any) are in the same calibre as Einstein, or even Witten, Susskind, Hawking, Guth etc. They are good scientist (Tom van Flandern is an electrical engineer), but they haven't come up with anything startling, despite what may have been written in that article....which devolved into some rather flowery metaphors and nostalgic "yesteryear" nonsense on more than one occasion.

Most of their work would sound reasonable, it has to otherwise they'd just be complete crackpots and not scientists. However, because it sounds ok doesn't make it right. No does everything that "mainstream" says is correct. It's not about who's right or wrong, it's about theory matching observation and making sense in both. Or, in some cases, observation matching a previously proposed theory (or not). If the theory doesn't match the observations, no matter which way they're interpreted, it doesn't matter how "pretty" the theory is....it's wrong!!!. You either go back and play around with it or discard it. If it does match, then you can say that given what we know, the theory is correct.

People get the misguided idea that because these guys come up with a better sounding idea or whatever, they must be right and everyone else is wrong...and/or they've discovered something different no one else knows about. It's not that at all. A careful look at their theories and the observations will show quite clearly that all they have done is reinterpret the data that's already at hand....nothing more or less, and added some of their own ideas to this. Most of them don't work because their is, at the very best, only circumstantial evidence for their interpretations. They also bring up previously discredited ideas or processes/procedures in order to justify their ideas....or invent new ones. That's OK, however it doesn't mean they get a tick for being right again...things get discarded for a reason, procedures/processes don't always apply to every situation or have fallibilities which are well known.

It can be hard to get past the consensus of the general scientific community with new ideas, but it's not impossible. If those new ideas make sense and can be verified.

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

Originally Posted by renormalised

They are good scientist (Tom van Flandern is an electrical engineer), but they haven't come up with anything startling, despite what may have been written in that article....which devolved into some rather flowery metaphors and nostalgic "yesteryear" nonsense on more than one occasion.

News to me there....

• B.S. in Mathematics, June 1962, from Xavier University, Cincinnati, OH. Attended onGeneral Motors scholarship, 1958-1962.
• Graduate work in astronomy for one year at Georgetown University, Washington, DC1962-1963, on a teaching fellowship.
• Ph.D. in Astronomy from Yale University, New Haven, CT, June 1969, specializing in Celestial Mechanics. Dissertation: "A discussion of 1950-1968 occultations of stars by the Moon". Adviser: G.M. Clemence.

Feb. 1963 - Dec. 1983: Research Astronomer, Nautical Almanac Office, U.S. Naval Observatory, Washington, DC. Title: Chief, Celestial Mechanics Branch
(yes that's 20 years as a professional research astronomer with USNaval)

Jan. - Apr. 1971: Consultant, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA.

Oct. 1997 - Oct. 1998: Contractor for Army Research Laboratory in Adelphi, MD on Global Positioning System (GPS) receiver performance and the inclusion of relativity in the GPS.

Carl you continue to grossly misrepresent both the science and these men. You show you haven't the foggiest of Flandern's work.

Again this is another advertisement to read for yourselves.

"the guy who believes in the Face of Cydonia"

Again... if you actually knew the history, Tom was a skeptic who designed tests to falsify the Mars theory.... if the Mars idea upsets you, that is ok.... but the method and reasoning used can be found from the Horses Mouth: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkXsQbaDg5g

Unfortunately this is just an easy thing to "fling" at someone, for those who seek to dismiss a career. Quite sad really & relevant to some of the insulating points you raise in this thread Craig.

[KenGee (Kenith Gee)]

Another observation is the heavy use of youtube to prove their points... Anyway Alex I will be interested in how your going to spin this...http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20...iles/proof.asp

[avandonk]

I vaguely remember a story told to me about Einstein. One of his very keen students got him alone and boldly stated there were only three people in the world that understood quantum mechanics and one of them was in the room they were in. Eistein dryly replied 'apart from you who are the other two?'.

Bert

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by avandonk

I vaguely remember a story told to me about Einstein. One of his very keen students got him alone and boldly stated there were only three people in the world that understood quantum mechanics and one of them was in the room they were in. Eistein dryly replied 'apart from you who are the other two?'.

Bert

Yeah ... you're right Bert.
If I'm gunna put on my Heterodox hat on, I should take more time out to learn up on the Cydonia face thingy.

Cheers
()

[CraigS]

By the way ...

Here's another one I'm having difficulty with ..
Does anyone (incl Alex) know the origin of, and hence the validity of this:

http://cosmologystatement.org/

??

Should we accept the signatures on it as support for the statement ?

Cheers

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

Yeah ... you're right Bert.
If I'm gunna put on my Heterodox hat on, I should take more time out to learn up on the Cydonia face thingy.

Cheers
()

I wouldn't worry about it...it doesn't have much to do with science, at least not as the story of that object unfolded. More to do with conspiracy theories and such. But, still, it is a fascinating story and object.

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

By the way ...

Here's another one I'm having difficulty with ..
Does anyone (incl Alex) know the origin of, and hence the validity of this:

http://cosmologystatement.org/

??

Should we accept the signatures on it as support for the statement ?

Cheers

Craig that statement was published in New Scientist with the signatures.

The scientists who published that statement (including Halton Arp, why not email him again?) continue to investigate alternative models. You will notice most of the "cosmology quest" documentary interviewee's are on that signature list, and many other scientists with links to their university pages.

http://www.cosmology.info/

But hey, that's only if you like to read stuff for yourself...

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

Originally Posted by KenGee

Another observation is the heavy use of youtube to prove their points... Anyway Alex I will be interested in how your going to spin this...http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20...iles/proof.asp

I don't believe in the face of mars.

I understand tom's reasoning though (and have actually read his books), and i can't disagree with the reasoning, but maintain a skepticism.

I am however able to separate this very small part of Tom's work and actually learn something from him about celestial mechanics, for which he is a well respected expert.

This was my only point. The irrelevant "crack pot" jibes just advertise *how* you approach your readings.

It's called *pseudo-skepticism*.... an example of this is to go read the book reviews on Amazon for Halton Arps "Seeing Red"... the ONLY negative reviews are from people who acknowledge they did NOT read the book.

but of course they "know all about this crack pot"

As we have now seen the Halton Arp V Plasma Cosmo V EU argument implode (Carl might not know but Thornhill presented together with Arp at University College in London). You've also (maybe) now seen the documentary produced by him, and the conference papers where he continues to publish, and the New Scientist published letter.

How did we? well just buy reading for yourself, from the horses mouth.

The mis-information from establishment can at times be rather disappointing. In my brief experience, this is not uncommon.

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by CraigS

By the way ...

Here's another one I'm having difficulty with ..
Does anyone (incl Alex) know the origin of, and hence the validity of this:

http://cosmologystatement.org/

??

Should we accept the signatures on it as support for the statement ?

Cheers

.....But the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors......

The signers of the document should take a crash course in basic physics and how mathematics is applied.

Regards

Steven

[renormalised (Carl)]

I'd be very wary of that statement. There's no way to verify it unless you're a subscriber....although Alex will say it's genuine and look at all the signatories.

Just checked their archives....there are a few articles on the Big Bang, one by Lerner (that maybe it...it's dated 22 May 2004). That being the case, I wouldn't be too worried about it. It's just an article preaching to the converted and in any case, New Scientist isn't the paragon of scientific virtue or probity, it's just a popular magazine. What's more, when were most of these signatures entered...unless you went deliberately looking for it, you'd be unaware of its existence, so I'd say most of these were written around the time of the article.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by sjastro

The signers of the document should take a crash course in basic physics and how mathematics is applied.

Regards

Steven

In any case, the BB was already in existence, in its basic form, long before any of these so called "fudge factors" existed, so what's the problem. None of their competing theories can adequately explain the observations made (especially the Horizon problem and the flatness of spacetime, for a start), so where's their great answers.

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

It's a conspiracy!!!

Why not email Arp again, ask him if he signed it?

Email Narlikar to take a basic physics course & math too.... maybe he could start by buying one of his own texts

hahah... man you guys are funny....