The philosophical Pandora box has been opened in order to explain the scientific method being used in our present time. This is the same method which creationists like myself have been very critical about. In Nature, Richard Massey reveals the approach being used by scientists…
“As scientific fashions come and go, the rivalry between the three houses might be more at home on the catwalks of Paris or Milan. The techniques are at different stages of the same product cycle. Initial hype draws a flurry of excitement, but when systematic physical flaws show up, sober reflection brings a sheepish look back at the design. Some methods may be consigned to a dusty drawer. But the stitch or two of alterations by Schmidt and colleagues has ensured that gravitational lensing will still be on the hot list next season.”
“Initial enthusiasm for using supernovae as cosmic distance indicators, and thus as a probe of the Universe’s expansion, garnered vast allocations of time on ground- and space-based telescopes, and triggered the first plans for a dedicated, all-sky successor to the Hubble Space Telescope. Unfortunately, the explosions were later found to depend on the stars’ environment and ingredients, which evolve over cosmic time. Such effects can be parameterized only to a certain precision, and the technique is falling out of fashion.”
Richard Massey is right on target about how scientists use methods that reflects a fashion but gives no answer on how cosmologists are converging on a correct answer. Science is about searching for truth which expands our knowledge about nature and the Universe, it’s not a fashion statement, narrowed to a particular framework (naturalism) because it’s popular.
What I find very strange but very common among those who embrace evolution about this article, Richard Massey begins with a very positive message…
“Since the Big Bang, the Universe’s initial expansion has been gradually slowed by the gravitational pull from the mass it contains. Most of this mass is in the form of invisible and mysterious dark matter. Today, however, the Universe seems to be re-accelerating under the influence of even weirder stuff dubbed dark energy. For astronomy funding purposes, ‘dark’ is the new black. Almost nothing is understood about either dark matter or dark energy – but both are many times more common than visible matter, and their tug of war will shape the fate of the entire cosmos.”
Wouldn’t you think if there is no reliable measuring tool which has been in fashion for many years cast doubt and be in question when it’s collected results are labeled as factual data? If observation is the key component of any science, that critic might also wonder why dark, mysterious unknown stuff which nobody really understands could even become fashionable in the first place!