A meeting at London’s Royal Society will scrutinise the basic model first formulated in 1922 that the universe is a vast, even expanse with no …
World’s top cosmologists convene to question conventional view of the universe
—— I’m not sure why this posted three times. Maybe it’s because it’s a very good post! 😄
I felt strange reading this article. Even as I try to explain why, I find the issue is indeed related to posts of mine from years ago:
The issue is not things that we come across, as though we are discovering new facets of the empirical universe, but what words to use to describe the situation.
In reading the linked post, it appears to me that the people are confounded because they are caught within a particular paradigm of how to understand things. It seems to me kind of silly that they needed to find proof which questions the assumption, but then also that they were called to question it in such a way tells me that the interpretation of their data is strangely myopic. It is an odd sort of experience to read about these scientists process.
Let me see if I can describe what I am talking about.
The issue the post/scientists question at the Royal Society is whether the universe is the same everywhere we will look, what is known as “The Standard Model”. It appears that the recent data questions this basic astronomical assumption.
I admit, I have not read the whole article, but for my point, I do not believe it is necessary.
My question is much more thorough, for, it does not assume a standard knowledge.
My question is:
If they way I know things is based upon a single instrument, could I know of things that this instrument cannot measure?
It seems to me scientific empiricism is an instrument. However, I am not questioning that this instrument is incorrect or produces or measures invalid or incorrect data.
I am bringin to notice that the instrument is merely one instrument. It seems to me the knowledge that the scientists are involved with are coming across things that their instrument can’t measure, such that the knowledge they struggle with is due to their knowledge being oriented within the instrument. The assumption is that the data it measures is measuring the only data that can be possible to exist.
Its kind of funny to me. For sure, I think what they are coming across is interesting, and indeed the knowledge they develop and use works to fulfill real endeavors and efforts. However, I feel they are not really serving us in the sense of promoting a particular kind of knowledge, especially when their data analysis is presenting a new and fantastic feature of the universe “newly discovered”.
It seems that they are really asserting that the “same everywhere” universe must exist at all times, and are merely resetting their model to account for the “not same” in their scientific context of “same” without recognizing that their instrument yields for us a “same” universe everywhere we will look.
Its like a promoted myopia.
But they dont notice it.
Its kind of weird when you think about it.