Fulfilling the Moral Duty To Disdain
In ars technica’s “Overturning Copernicus, eliminating dark energy,” Matt Ford describes an about-to-be-published paper by three Oxford astrophysicists, Timothy Clifton, Pedro G. Ferreira, and Kate Land, that has as one of its direct implications that our planet is located at or very near the center of the universe.
Twice in his article, Ford reminds us why the Cosmological Principle (that Earth must not be in any special place in the universe, such as its center) is so important:
Unfortunately, [this new proposal] also does away with the notion that we can infer universal properties from local observations.
And later in the article:
Perhaps one of the biggest repercussions of this work, if correct, would be that we could no longer rely on our local measurements to describe the universe as a whole.
Ford, apparently, has been very properly drilled in the CP by his professors. With these two statements, he crystallizes perfectly the one and only scientific-sounding justification for believing in the CP, and for teaching it as virtual fact and/or mandate. His two statements cast a gloomy pall over the future of cosmology, not-so-subtly implying that the human science of cosmology is doomed if the CP cannot be upheld.
But what if the CP is wrong, and not wrong just about whether the Earth is positioned in a special place in the universe (its center), but also wrong about the idea that science is ruined if the Earth is in such a location? How could three Oxford scientists observe our night sky and draw a scientific conclusion that implies the Earth is at the center of the universe, if cosmology doesn’t work without the CP? They shouldn’t have been able to do any cosmologic science — yet they did. Maybe cosmology doesn’t rely on the CP after all. Maybe science relies only on finding evidence to support theories, finding no evidence that significantly contradicts those theories, and eliminating redundant theories via Occam’s Razor. Where is the CP required in that process? I suggest that it isn’t.
Now — if the Earth is at (or very near) the center of the universe, what does that mean? As I stated in Mechanism (pp. 48-49):
Why would our designers plant their life at the center of the universe? In pre-Copernican times, the reason would have been to crudely signify humanity’s supreme importance in the universe. But other, more mundane reasons are easily hypothesized: Perhaps we have been placed at the center of the universe to most expediently facilitate our expansion throughout the universe (when our technology is sufficient to permit such expansion). Or, perhaps the phenomena of Lorentz contraction and time dilation are absolute, not relative as Einstein believed, and so the central area of the universe is the only area in which chemical reactions (and all other local events) are not markedly slowed down. Further, it should be noted: If we are in the approximate center of the universe, that doesn’t even necessarily correlate with humanity’s supreme importance — the approximate center of the universe is itself a rather big place, and our designers may have planted intelligent life on several other, relatively nearby planets.
In other words, discovering that the Earth is at the center of the universe doesn’t mean a return to pre-Copernican ideas (e.g. Sol goes around Earth!) except in the very limited sense that we, and our planet, were probably designed. But of course, that’s what the CP was trying to avoid all along. Big science has been dominated by people who just don’t want to be designed, or who view ideas of design as a threat to their profession. Witness Ford’s own reaction to this discovery as he wraps up his article — wouldn’t that be a fine time to say, “Hey, maybe those Intelligent Design people are on to something?” No, instead Ford manages to torture Clifton’s, Ferreira’s, and Land’s impending publication into a blow for ID:
In addition to the concepts put forth, this paper illustrates nicely how science works. Pseudoscience often argues that controversial or contrarian papers and ideas never get published, suggesting that the “establishment” won’t listen to new ideas. But this paper puts forth a completely novel idea, and in the process overturns a long held philosophical pillar of astronomy, and yet it is set to be published in one of the top-tier physics journals.
Oh, and when you take a swipe at ID theory, be sure not to specifically mention it. Talk obfuscational circles around it; refer to ID people vaguely as ”pseudoscience.” Those ID people have to be ignored, to avoid giving them credibility.
OK, Ford didn’t actually manage to ignore them. But at least he showed sufficient disdain by refusing to directly say who he was talking about. He fulfilled his moral duty to do at least that, since actually ignoring them was too difficult.
Update 2009.01.01 — More interesting ideas about the possible failure of the CP.
© 2010 Darel Rex Finley | design by