TL;DR
Cosmology has made significant progress in measurement precision but faces fundamental epistemological challenges due to its nature as a mathematized historical science, raising questions about its scientific status.
Contribution
The paper critically examines the epistemic and methodological status of cosmology, arguing it differs from laboratory sciences in terms of explanation and certainty.
Findings
Cosmological parameters are measured with high precision.
Most of the universe's matter remains of unknown nature.
Cosmology's knowledge is less explicative than laboratory physics.
Abstract
In recent years, by theory and observation cosmology has advanced substantially. Parameters of the concordance or CDM cosmological model are given with unprecedented precision ("precision cosmology"). On the other side, 95% of the matter content of the universe are of an unknown nature. This awkward situation motivates the present attempt to find cosmology's place among the (exact) natural sciences. Due to its epistemic and methodical particularities, e.g., as a mathematized historical science, cosmology occupies a very special place. After going through some of the highlights of cosmological modeling, the conclusion is reached that knowledge provided by cosmological modeling cannot be as explicative and secure as knowledge gained by laboratory physics.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.