I dedicate this letter to the hard-working WMAP team for doing their part to bring cosmology out of the realm of metaphysics. Unfortunately, there are still those who would like to see the study of the large-scale structure and evolution of our Universe as a branch of philosophy.

Although most of the newspaper headlines regarding the recent WMAP results arguably exaggerated the importance of the new results, I think there is another school of thought regarding recent advances in cosmology which is equally if not more frustrating to witness. This is the “cosmology will never be a science” or “anti-Big Bang” school of thought. These people criticize the fact that many cosmologists are calling the standard 6-parameter cosmological model simple. They reason that a model with 6-parameters is complicated and unaesthetic. However, they fail to mention that there are other cosmological models which have dozens of parameters. They say that cosmology will never be a science but then, in a self-contradictory manner, offer scientific evidence for their own cosmology theories!

I think alternatives should be explored and I certainly think peer review and skepticism of new results are crucial aspects of the scientific process; however, I don’t know why some people seem so unwilling to accept the notion that we may actually be getting somewhere in terms of understanding the sweep of cosmic evolution. I don’t think cosmology is solved, but I would like to believe (and I think the currrent evidence is bearing this out) that we are finally at the point where we can claim to have a good understanding of cosmic evolution even if we don’t know all of the details. Just because something is big doesn’t necessarily mean that it will automatically be harder to understand; often small things like cells and organic molecules can be harder to model and understand than galaxy clustering and the universe's expansion. Morever, unlike archeologists, cosmologists and astronomers can directly observe past objects of study.

Well said. We are getting somewhere, and this is an amazing time of rapid progress. The scope of what we hope to eventually understand is huge, but we are making significant progress.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

Here is a perfect example of what I am talking about. Jerry Jensen said:

"I am speaking primarily of Inflation, Dark Matter and Dark Energy, which are either, untestable; or are the replacement conclusion of failed hypothesis - or both."

What if, however, dark matter detectors find these elusive still hypothetical particles some time during the next decade or so? Would you still consider dark matter as untestable? If these particles don't show up within the next decade or so when the detectors reach the sensitivity required to make definitive statements about their existence or lack thereof, then we should not yet say that dark matter is untestable. Let's wait and see. Perhaps CDM will have to be abandoned if no particles turn by 2020 or so. However, a discovery of these particles would, beyond a reasonable doubt, establish the validity of the CDM theory. We would be just as sure that these particles exist as we are sure that hydrogen and other elements exist. I am all for testing theories and being skeptical of the mainstream (not just in science but also in politics), but it would be a great achievement of humanity if CDM was definitively detected. It would mean that we would know what is 25% of the mass-energy budget of the universe. My point is that there is much we still don't know, but that does not mean we should fail to recognize that there may be things that can be established beyond a reasonable doubt. Perhaps in contrast to Jerry, I would like to believe that we making significant progress in terms of understanding cosmic evolution even though we may never be able to fully understand much about the universe. Why does Jerry seem so unwilling to accept the idea that we are progressing in terms of understanding cosmic evolution? Jerry, is it because you theories were excluded by the mainstream, if so, let's talk about it?

However, I would agree with Jerry with respect to dark matter if no particles are discovered and proponents say something like: well, perhaps the particles, like the hypothetical gravitino, interact with the rest of the universe gravitationally therefore they are probably there even though we'll never be able to detect them. This would seem epicyclical and ad hoc. But let's just wait and see and not jump to the conclusion that dark matter is untestable.

Also, Jerry, inflation is being tested. The "axis of evil" anomalies, which you often mention, are just as strong in WMAP III as in WMAP I and are presenting major problems for inflation.

Good question.

__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

Many of those who seem unwilling to accept the notion that we may actually be getting somewhere in terms of understanding the sweep of cosmic evolution are part of the “cosmology will never be a science” or “anti-Big Bang” clique. However, I get the feeling that these people would be unwilling to accept any progress in terms of understanding the large-scale structure and evolution of the universe. Call it Big-Bang or something else, as it not so much the individual theories that bother them. What bothers them is the idea that cosmology is progressing. They challenge all new results in cosmology. They refuse to believe anything has been established in the field. This would be okay, and, in fact, this is what science, to a certain extent, should be like. However, these people have a habit of never putting forth their own ideas to be tested. Why? Because they believe that cosmology is not a science. What is the point of putting forth new ideas about the universe when all ideas about cosmic evolution are “untestable”, according to these anti-cosmologists?

These people are eternal skeptics; they believe that everything is subject to doubt. Sure, I’ll grant them that everything is subject to doubt: this means, however, based on their own logic, that the notion that everything is subject to doubt is itself subject to doubt! It is easy to be skeptical of everything. After all, everything (the universe being a synonym for everything), according to them, is unknowable, what you believe about the universe is all a matter of personal choice and everybody else who spends lots of time and effort thinking about these matters is automatically wrong. Occasionally these anti-cosmologists will slip up and contradict themselves, in a frankly laughable way, by offering scientific evidence to debunk new results in cosmology.

The other category of anti-cosmologists is analogous to a group which upholds a certain out-of-fashion idea about our planet. This category is much like the Flat Earth Society except they believe certain out-of-fashion ideas about the universe. Since I am not an expert I won’t get bogged down in technical specifics about the claims and counter-claims. The FES is, for those of you who don’t know, a group that adamantly refuses to believe that the earth is round even in the face of overwhelming evidence that it is. They come up with all kinds of elaborate arguments to support their view. When one tells them that there are many lines of evidence against the flat Earth idea and most geologists and astronomers do not believe this view is correct, they give the typical response. They say you are committing to the fallacy of appealing to authority. Of course, they are right to a certain extent—lots of smart people have believed things that have turned out to be incorrect many times throughout history. However, one should note use the fallacy of appealing to authority as reason for believing their view and not the view of the mainstream in place of hard evidence and reasoning. Also, one must note the self-contradictory nature of this position. This FES-like category of anti-cosmologists is all for dumping on the views of others, but they won’t dare accept tests which refute their own ideas. Let’s first admit cosmology is not a science before we admit our cosmology is wrong. Weird stuff.

We should cautiously celebrate over the recent discoveries about stars and galaxies and test them until they seem to be established beyond a reasonable doubt. If dark matter particles are eventually detected, then let’s be sure we really detected them and celebrate once we are sure. If we don’t detect them, then let’s abandon the idea instead of stubbornly clinging to it. But let’s not say from the get go, as Jerry does, that the idea is untestable—it is being tested as we speak, underground.

To sum up, here are two categories of anti-cosmologists:

1. Our cosmology is unquestionably right; every test that refutes it must be wrong.
2. Cosmology is not a science since the universe is inherently unknowable.

It is interesting to note how human psychology has a habit of morphing category 1 into category 2. This brand of desperation is completely analogous to the guy or gal who says, well, if I can’t have my boyfriend or girlfriend then nobody can.

Cosmologist, disgruntled cosmologist, Anti-cosmologist/radical skeptic, you get the idea of the progression….

I didn't have theories. I had questions, specifically about the data reduction techniques used by WMAP and supernova researchers.

The WMAP toolbox includes a major asterisk: We do not know if we can correctly subtract out galactic and other contaminations, and there is no way to check our work. We can only compare the WMAP results with other data sets and look for agreement or spurious trends, such as the axis of evil, that may indicate systemic bias, but it is all a guess, and I can live with that.

Supernova studies are a different matter. I have been waving my arms for years about how supernova research teams change the methodology with every new crop of supernovae, normalize data about midpoints, and ignoring startling trends in the data; (such as shorter rise-times with increasing supernova distances). I am willing to argue these are not valid data reduction techniques, and they are biasing the data in a way that masks selection bias and other errors. Ultimately, this leads to a poor model of the universe.

It was out of one of these very heated discussions that I was told, "Well this is the only solution that works, and unless and until you have a better one don't bother us."

So I threw out everything and started over. I have many reasons to believe I am on a valid track, and I have made startling predictions about gravity and the masses of moons and planets. Since these predictions can and will be tested, I don't feel a compelling need to keep screaming something is wrong. From my prospective, it is time to watch and see what happens. If these predictions come true, I might have a solution that is closer to the 'truth' than the standard model.

The best, nearest test, is Cassini's pass within 950km of Titan on or about July 20th (this year!). Specifically, I am predicting that on closest approach, Cassini will experience the equivalent of passing over a very high, dense mountain peak where there is not one, and it will be all-but impossible to classify the event as an atmospheric or sub-surface gravity effect.

If I am wrong, at least I am trying: Good scientific studies should include absurd tests, such as Rutherford and Marsden's experiment to see if bullets ever bounce off of plume pudding. Occassionally they did, and the nature of the atom was redefined...again and again.

__________________
jwj

It's ok not to know. We should try harder to find out.