Please note I am not defending Disney’s paper or attempting to holistically attack the standard cosmological model. It is an interesting theory.
Does this article defend “cosmology”? It could be a mistake to compare cosmology to string theory. String theory is not a theory.
http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/08/co...ttack-too.html
Quote:
Elegance of the theory
Is the current cosmological model elegant? Well, it depends how you measure it and what you compare it with. It is pretty cool but it is not infinitely elegant. Surely, many of its aspects came as a surprise. But if something is surprising, it is not necessarily inelegant.
|
Quote:
|
Another thing that Disney criticizes is the fact that the existing cosmological model had to be edited and re-adjusted to agree with new observations. Indeed, it is the case. And indeed, it is plausible that more editing will be done and will have to be done in the future. Well, this is how science works.
|
Quote:
|
That's a very different situation from global warming where virtually all data may be treated as "noise" and one is free to cherry-pick aspects of this noise that can be interpreted as an additional "signal" and to propose somewhat arbitrary explanations for such a "signal". The higher signal-to-noise ratio you have, the more seriously you must treat experimental data and the more certain you may become that a theory is right or wrong.
|
Quote:
|
And there will also be people who won't appreciate how much information is actually stored in different kinds of data and who will be writing similarly insane texts as likes of Peter Woit and Michael Disney write today.
|
P.S. Peter Woit is a physicist who has a blog “Not Even Wrong” that is a critic of String Theory. I do not understand why Peter Woit’s critic of “String Theory” is insane. Disney’s criticism of the “standard cosmological model” may lack teeth, is it “insane”?
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=385