Cosmology and Convention

TL;DR

The paper argues that key elements of modern cosmology, like dark matter and dark energy, are conventionalist hypotheses that respond to anomalies, indicating a degenerating research program according to Lakatos' philosophy.

Contribution

It applies Popper's conventionalist framework and Lakatos' degenerating problemshift to analyze the epistemic status of dark matter and dark energy in cosmology.

Findings

Dark matter and dark energy are auxiliary hypotheses responding to anomalies.

Cosmology exhibits signs of a degenerating research program.

The current paradigm's convergence argument is weaker than historical scientific successes.

Abstract

I argue that some important elements of the current cosmological model are "conventionalist" in the sense defined by Karl Popper. These elements include dark matter and dark energy; both are auxiliary hypotheses that were invoked in response to observations that falsified the standard model as it existed at the time. The use of conventionalist stratagems in response to unexpected observations implies that the field of cosmology is in a state of "degenerating problemshift" in the language of Imre Lakatos. I show that the "concordance" argument, often put forward by cosmologists in support of the current paradigm, is weaker than the convergence arguments that were made in the past in support of the atomic theory of matter or the quantization of energy.