Post of the Month Re: Astronomy as an 'unprovable' science

Nominated, and I cannot figure out why it escaped nomination up to
now.

Chris


On Jan 20, 5:30 pm, Cygnus X-1 <cygnu...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/

Comments welcome.

Astronomy is predominantly an observational science. We only know
about objects when some effect from them arrives at the Earth (or near
the Earth and detected by satellites). I've had some creationists
claim that this makes astronomical knowledge 'unprovable' and therefore
not worth considering as 'real' science.

First of all, science doesn't 'prove' anything. Those who like to use
this term try to use it in a 'absolutist' way, such as with
mathematical proofs, when their actual model is the much weaker
standard of 'proof' used in the legal system. The weakness of legal
'proof' is demonstrated by the fact that the legal system usually has a
system of appeals, except perhaps in totalitarian states. Those who
distort the definition of 'proof' often like to mangle the definitions
of scientific 'theory' in much the same way. To avoid diverging too
much on this side issue, those interested should read:
<ul>
<li><a
href="http://physics.ucr.edu/%7Ewudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node5.html";>The
Scientific Method</a>, part of Jose Wudka's class notes for his
Relativity, Space-Time &amp; Cosmology class;</li>
<li><a
href="http://library.thinkquest.org/C0114565/content.php?id=5";>Truth
and Proof in Science</a> @ Relativity Online;</li>

<li><a href="http://www.astronomynotes.com/scimethd/s4.htm";>The Problem
of Induction</a> @ <a href="http://www.astronomynotes.com/";>Astronomy
Notes</a>; </li>

<li><a
href="http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/gen06/gen06642.htm";>Hypothes
is and Proof in Science</a> @ Argonne National Laboratories.</li>
</ul>

Back to Astronomy...

We learn about the distant cosmos by two primary methods:

1) photons which arrive from distant objects.
2) high-energy particles (cosmic rays) which arrive from distant
objects

For both of these methods, the information we measure includes their
flux (number of particles per second per unit area), their energy
(wavelength or frequency), direction and sometimes polarization.

Our ability to interpret what is going on 'out there' depends on one
basic assumption: that it is physically consistent.

One characteristic of this physical consistency is our ability to
predict some characteristic(s) of the system's behavior based on
physical principles that can be expressed in mathematical form. That
this mathematical process works as well as it does has been the subject
of ongoing philosophical debates, such as described in <a
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unreasonable_Effectiveness_of_Mat
hematics_in_the_Natural_Sciences">³The Unreasonable Effectiveness of
Mathematics in the Natural Sciences²</a>.

How do we test this physical consistency? The primary method is that
the objects we observe behave the way we predict. For example, we can
predict the locations of planets in the solar system with excellent
precision, decades in advance. This capability is used in everything
from eclipse prediction to interplanetary probes.

Occasionally, we encounter situations where our predictions appear to
break down. To maintain physical consistency, there are three
possibilities scientists generally consider:

a) some approximation(s) used in the mathematical calculation are
outside their range of validity and introducing larger errors in the
calculation. Solutions to these problems may require increased
computational resources which may or may not be available;
b) there is some additional known physics, not included in the original
calculations, that should be included;
c) the most exciting possibility of all - new physics is being
detected.

The history of science is loaded with examples of 'great problems'
where the solutions were found through this method. Sometimes, finding
these solutions takes a few years, but the process has been known to
take decades. Notice that 'supernatural intervention' is not on the
list. To illustrate this process, I will focus on two historical
examples:

<span style="font-weight: bold;">Solar Neutrinos</span>
Initial measurements of solar neutrinos were one-third the expected
fluxes based on nuclear reactions required to produce the observed
luminosity of the Sun. Some creationists tried to claim that this was
evidence that the Sun was not powered by fusion and could therefore not
be billions of years old (see <a
href="http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&I
D=405">Evidence for a Young Sun</a>, by Keith Davies). It would take
over three decades, but real scientists would continue perusing the
'naturalistic' solutions, examining possibilities (a), (b), and (c). A
number of refinements were made pursuing possiblities (a) and (b) but
they did not improve the agreement in a significant way. Eventually,
theories and experiments began to favor option (c), culminating in
some experiments to actually test the hypothesis of neutrino
oscillations, where the neutrinos oscillate between different 'flavors'
when traveling through matter. Eventually experiments detected the mu-
and tau- neutrinos from the Sun, which were created by oscillations of
the electron-neutrinos created in solar fusion reactions. This was
achieved by the <a href="http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/";>Sudbury
Neutrino Observatory</a>. An Earth-based experiment measured neutrino
oscillations more directly by passing neutrinos through the Earth to a
detector (<a href="http://neutrino.kek.jp/";>K2K Long-baseline Neutrino
Oscillation Experiment Official Homepage</a>). Also check out the <a
href="http://cupp.oulu.fi/neutrino/";>Ultimate Neutrino Page</a>.

<span style="font-weight: bold;">The Theory of Gravity</span>
Newtonian gravity was a great success in predicting orbits of solar
system objects and even discovering the planet Neptune based on
deviations from the predicted orbits. However, the orbital deviations
of the planet Mercury proved harder to explain as many searches for a
perturbing planet met with failure. The solution would eventually be
found by Albert Einstein in 1915, during the development of his <a
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity";>General Theory
of Relativity</a>. General Relativity was tested through a number of
astronomical observations before it was possible to test in Earth-based
laboratories. Today, general relativistic effects must be included
when computing the signal propagation times in the <a
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System";>Global
Positioning System</a>. Also check out <a
href="http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-
1/">Relativity in the Global Positioning System</a> by Neil Ashby which
illustrates the details of how this is done.

I have described a number of similar astronomical discoveries in my
paper, <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.0671";>³The Cosmos in Your
Pocket. How Cosmological Science Became Earth Technology. I²</a>,
available at the Cornell Preprint server.

Also important in scientific testing is the question of
reproducibility, . We cannot 'reproduce' astronomical observations in
the laboratory sense. However, there are other ways to solve the
reproducibility question, such as:
<ol>
<li>We test by observing other similar objects, as in the case of
supernovae and gamma-ray bursts;</li><li>We can make more detailed
observations of same object, perhaps at new wavelengths, with higher
angular and temporal resolutions, accumulate longer baseline datasets,
or examine other observable properties such as polarization of the
photons;</li>
<li>If the idea involves new atomic processes or particles, we can try
to reproduce or detect them in controlled Earth-based experiments (i.e.
Laboratory Astrophysics).</li>
</ol>
All of these provide feedback that can reinforce or invalidate our
interpretation of events distant in time and space.

All knowledge is accumulated indirectly, even when conducted in
laboratory equipment. The constituents of atoms have never been seen,
only inferred from many experiments and observations. We construct
mathematical models of these particles that can reliably reproduce
measurements, both past and future.

I can't prove that we aren't all brains in a vat, providing biochemical
energy for some supercomplex machine, and our 'reality' is just a very
sophisticated VR program, such as in the movie, <a
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Matrix";>The Matrix</a>.

There is no 'proof' of the theory of gravity. There is no 'proof' of
quantum mechanics, nuclear physics, atomic physics, or any other
science. There is only an overwhelming amount of physical evidence
that it works. While they work today, tomorrow, we may have new
experiments that hint at something beyond our 'standard models' of
these phenomena.

Yet we build microelectronic circuits, nuclear reactors, and launch
satellites into space and to other planets, using these 'unproven
theories'. These same 'unproven theories', taken together, give us the
great age (over 13 billion years) of the Universe. In spite of
creationists' denials, these 'unproven theories' have made modern
technologies possible.

So to those who wish to argue with me that astronomy is 'unproven' as a
science, I insist that you provide me with PROOF, not just evidence, of
the reality of electrons, protons, and neutrons. To make things more
interesting, perhaps I should insist on PROOF that these subatomic
particles are not, say, magical pixies that just happen to behave in
ways we observe but which could change their behavior at any time. If
you can't prove this, why are you using any microelectronics
technology?

I'll close with an applicable quote:
<blockquote>Moreover, ³fact³ does not mean ³absolute certainty.³ The
final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated
premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the
empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth,
though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of
argument that they themselves favor). In science, ³fact³ can only mean
³confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold
provisional assent.³ I suppose that apples might start to rise
tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics
classrooms. -- S.J. Gould, <a
href="http://www.harvardsquarelibrary.org/speakout/gould.html";>³Evolutio
n as Fact and Theory²</a>
</blockquote>

.

Relevant Pages

  • Astronomy as an unprovable science
    ... Astronomy is predominantly an observational science. ... there is some additional known physics, ... Initial measurements of solar neutrinos were one-third the expected ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: (mechanical) Gravity
    ... Our differences can be summarized by that whether science must ... no-aether to produce phenomena can both be correct science or not, ... scientifically correct physics. ... belief of scientists, neutrinos are very interactive. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: (mechanical) Gravity
    ... To make modern physics real its spacetime must be replaced ... by the presence of a dense energetic atmosphere of neutrinos in the ... science, Gravity, Other universal forces, Light and universal ... red-shift, Microwave background, Universe, Stars, Planetary motion, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Right on topic
    ... "When comparing science to religion, I tell my students: ... Religion in physics and astronomy class! ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: A very unusual galaxy field in SDSS
    ... Standards are important. ... No other science would be treated this way--like astronomical ... The ugly narrow culture of physics worships at the god of memorization ... Unfortunately I fear that it is dragging astronomy down with it. ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
Loading