Why Cosmology Is Not Science

About | Information | History | Online | Facts | Discovery

1. Don't cosmological theories make falsifiable predictions though. The big bang predicted the existence and location of cosmological background radiation. It also predicted the composition of the universe (25% Hydrogen, 12% Helium, etc.)
2. Hi, could you please answer the following question?
   If our local group of galaxies was the center of the universe, would the observable universe still look omogeneous and isotropic to a terrestrial observer?
   In other words: is the cosmological principle compatible with the existence of a center
   of the universe, in the case that we are at the center of the universe? and what is the empirical evidence that proves that our local group of galaxies in not at rest?
   thanks
3. Cosmology is a science. Undebatable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmology
4. My argument in favor of the cosmological principle is pragmatics. Unlike astrology, cosmology seems to work. Ultimately we have to make assumptions to understand anything, not everything can have a logical justification, so we assume things that allow us to make practical decisions. The cosmological principle should merely be taken with an extra grain of salt than most.
5. A better thing to ponder is, if religious people didn't use the cosmological principle as proof for God, would atheists still be using it?
6. Have you ever thought about making a play list for those like myself that are super layman ,in which you divide your videos in to which the playlists are divided by how difficult the concept is. Sometimes im right there with you, and able to keep up, and then i try another video and im more out of my league more then a Sye Ten Bruggencate in a discussion with Matt Dillahunty.
7. What's the difference between the practice of cosmology and the practice of metaphysics?
8. +Carneades.org 
   
   Two criticisms I came across when sharing this video with a scientists and a budding scientists. the first was if we classify Cosmology as a pseudoscience in this way, then we must classify Geology also as a pseudoscience as it also assumes uninformity in the same way cosmology does (with the only difference being the length and time-scale such uniformity is assumed). the same individual claimed that "Karl popper's falsification principle only applies to hypothesis in science, not assumptions made in models." This does seem to be important because many scientific models make assumptions  they cannot at the moment prove (from my understanding... to some extent you can even say the Standard model of Physics makes assumptions, as does Quantum Theory)
   
   Secondly, can you elaborate on why the uniformity of the universe is not in theory falsifiable in the future? it seems that if we in theory had infinite time to explore at least the observable universe (which is finite) karl solution
   
   admittedly, In context of "cosmic fine tuning" your point that such assumptions should not be regarded as fact with regard to developing supernatural claims (which I think is the point you are trying to make). but I have a suspicion that your claims about cosmology as independant of this may be too strong for reasons mentioned above
9. You seem to have this idea that science tells us what is absolutely true, but it does not, nor has it ever.  Science tells us what is most likely to be true, given the current information available to us, and is always subject to re-evaluation when we get new information.  This is the self correcting mechanism of science, and works very well.
   
   Your video reminds me of creationists who try to discredit evolution with the idea that you weren't there millions of years ago, and unless you observe dogs turning into cats, evolution is science.
10. The is an endless loop. To falsify a statement imply using a certain established rules or "logic", where if the statement contradict these sets of rules, the statement is false. Then you might argue that the ''logic'' itself is not falsifiable, which is a sort of  pseudoscience. No system is complete as Godel told us, so there are axioms we need to accept if we want to explore further, which in the case of cosmology is "The law of physics applies in the observed universe".  The nature of science contains a degree of instrumentalism and if basic assumption such as the universality of the law of physics, which satisfy our observation to the best of our knowledge, is not a strong enough principle, most of science can be called pseudoscience then,
    Theories of cosmology can be falsified by observational evidence and astronomical observation is treated as the "experiment" of these theory. If one agree with  the integrity of physics' law, the astronomical surveys are equally strong experiments as those which are done of earth. Even if we observes something disobeying our underlying assumption, cosmologist will then adapt new theory to account for these evidences (as we can see with the discovery of hubble's flow).
11. +Sean Carroll wrote an interesting blog post in line with what is mentioned here: 
    http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/07/03/what-is-science/
12. Why is skepticism not actually a positive stance? Isn't every negation an assertion itself? Can I doubt skepticism? Here is a brute fact: There is a PC in front of me and I am typing on it. Therefore any argument that tries to deny this brute fact must be false.
13. What is your take on Feyerabend's epistemolgical anarchism?
14. Aren't there more problems with astrology than just underdetermination though? It doesn't really explain anything that we observe, its predictions are often wrong or so vague that they could apply to anyone, etc. 
15. Awesome sauce!
16. Interesting philosophical perspective on cosmology
17. My totally unscientific prediction is that this last video will give you a lot of flak.
    I guess that's the sign and burden of a true skeptic.
    
    Well done, sir
18. I have loved your series up to this video. It was very well reasoned. This video however was something else. By denying that principle you are not only denying cosmology, but you are throwing all of a science in the trash as well. Uniformity in nature is a fundamental scientific axiom. Without it how can you expect to get anywhere empirically? You might as well throw away all of geography beneath the earth's crust, because we haven't been there. Throw away any idea of evolution, because it relies of dating methods that assume uniformity throughout time. Every scientific idea relies on this axiom in one form or another.
    If you are going to throw away science, than what do you have left as far as knowledge about the outside world? How do you avoid nihilism? 
19. Cosmology is not falsifiable? No more scientific than Astrology? Have you actually studied the subject or did you just read about the cosmological principle on Wikipedia and thought it stupid? I mean I am by no means an expert but stuff like the uniform helium density in the universe, the spectral lines of heavenly bodies which pretty much adhere to the physics that was discovered here on earth, the adherence to general relativity (gravitational lensing), or the simple fact that the heavens do not behave any more strangely than they do are examples for the cosmological principle failing to be falsified and should at least give pause to anybody that wants to reject it outright like one would astrology.
    
    I am not saying that the cosmological principle isn't problematic, or that you are totally wrong. Neither am I  familiar with the evidence you claim exists against the cosmological principle (though I doubt it is as damning as you make it seem) or even here to debate at all (as I said i am no expert on the subject) but your analogies, oversimplification and general rethoric really make it seem like you have a less than rudimentary understanding of a subject that to my knowledge is at least as scientific as most of the "softer sciences". If I am not wrong in that assumption (in which case sorry for the rant, move along) you should probably talk to somebody who has actually studied cosmology (once again not me!) and make up your mind on the whole thing afterwards.
20. No scientist would take this argument seriously since Popper hardly is the last word on what is or isn't science. It also isn't clear that the cosmological principle isn't falsifiable, in the island example it was at least in principle possible to test the assumption that the laws of physics are the same on other lands. For example they could create objects looking like the object which fell from the tree and see if any of them behave in a similar fashion as the object they saw. Your argument can't just be limited to the cosmological principle since it also can be applied to the uniformity of nature (indeed they are very closely related) on which all the natural sciences rely. Therefore to be consistent, you would have to say that virtually all science, currently, is pseudoscience.