Huh?

This is one of the most bizarre philosophy-of-science ideas I've seen in a long time. It seems the ESA's Planck satellite is gathering an incredible amount of data on the cosmic background microwave radiation. A group of astronomers at Case are afraid that releasing this metric load of information will actually harm the science of cosmology.

The concern is that the Planck data is so comprehensive, and will be the state of the art for the forseeable future, so there won't be any new information to provide a reality check for any models based on the data. So, the argument goes, the ESA shouldn't release all of it at once, but rather at a slow trickle.

The trouble with this argument are that:  1) it negates the entire purpose of launching the Planck observatory in the first place, and 2) seems to contain a logical fallacy.

1:  The Planck satellite gathered an immense amount of high-quality information about cosmic background radiation; far more than previous instruments could have collected. The concerned trio of cosmologists want to release the Planck information very slowly -- which is to say, as if it was being collected by those older, less sophisticated instruments. Why bother launching Planck at all, then?

2:  The fear about theories not being testable with new data is based on a flawed assumption. If the data comes in over ten years instead of all at once, and each year some cosmologist comes up with a new theory which then gets invalidated by next year's data, then after ten years we've gone through ten revolutions in cosmology, each based on more and better data than before. The final theory (they seem to believe) would be the most robust, as it would be the product of ten iterations of test-and-revise.

Trouble is, the only reason we could tell that final theory is "better" than the first is that it fits the data better. Which means it would be the same as a theory based on the Planck data released in a huge lump. Plus it would save cosmologists the time and effort devising nine theories which aren't as useful at explaining the data.

So:  LET THE DATA FLOW LIKE A BURSTING DAM!

 

Comments

[Brian Rogers]

Doh!

[Alexander Jablokov]

I don't think there's any good reason to restrict the data, but I don't agree with your point #2. One characteristic of an effective theory is successful prediction. You can always come up with an epicycle or correction factor to account for all the data you have in hand. It's only when new data inconsiderately falls on you that you see whether your theoretical house stands up.

You can't unknow something you already know, no matter how hard you pretend.

[Cambias]

The need for testable predictions is certainly a valid point -- although I'm not at all sure that happens much in cosmology. But artificially restricting the data makes this kind of like the Monty Hall Problem hosted by Thomas Kuhn.

[Alexander Jablokov]

"So, you can use the theory you have, with its known explanatory deficiencies, or you can take your chance on the paradigm behind Door Number One!"