Is the inflation concept a form of pseudoscience? An early proponent thinks so.

[Michael]

https://blogs.scientificamerican.co...ular-theory-of-cosmic-creation-pseudoscience/

inflationary cosmology, as we currently understand it, cannot be evaluated using the scientific method. As we have discussed, the expected outcome of inflation can easily change if we vary the initial conditions, change the shape of the inflationary energy density curve, or simply note that it leads to eternal inflation and a multimess. Individually and collectively, these features make inflation so flexible that no experiment can ever disprove it.

Inflation theory is essentially unflasifiable, meaning it's not really even a form of actual "science".

 

[christianforumsuser]

https://blogs.scientificamerican.co...ular-theory-of-cosmic-creation-pseudoscience/



Inflation theory is essentially unflasifiable, meaning it's not really even a form of actual "science".

Inflation as in leaven of the Pharisees....or the leaven of what's heavenly?
Or economics...or psychology...
Maybe they're smarter than me if they have that job and talk fancy
Or is the man pseudo?

 

[Anguspure]

https://blogs.scientificamerican.co...ular-theory-of-cosmic-creation-pseudoscience/



Inflation theory is essentially unflasifiable, meaning it's not really even a form of actual "science".

I like John Horgans parting paragraph: "Almost 40 years after their inception, inflation and string theory are in worse shape than ever. The persistence of these unfalsifiable and hence unscientific theories is an embarrassment that risks damaging science’s reputation at a time when science can ill afford it. Isn’t it time to pull the plug?"

 

[christianforumsuser]

People keep quoting line upon line
And point out oberservable traits...and seek straight for selfish money and status
Then what suffers as a result if individual men and businesses like being money pits ahead of the truth
Is science truth?

 

[Michael]

I like John Horgans parting paragraph: "Almost 40 years after their inception, inflation and string theory are in worse shape than ever. The persistence of these unfalsifiable and hence unscientific theories is an embarrassment that risks damaging science’s reputation at a time when science can ill afford it. Isn’t it time to pull the plug?"

When you consider the fact that there are virtually an infinite number of variations on the same metaphysical theme, it's pretty much unfalsifiable to start with, and it doesn't make unique predictions that cannot be explained another way. After the revelations of hemispheric variations in the Planck data sets, it seems like inflation is just more trouble than it's worth from the standpoint of science.

 

[Michael]

I think the most discouraging aspect of 'Big Bang" theory in general is that none of the metaphysical "add-ons" have the ability to be falsified outright. It's bit like building a theory based primarily upon invisible unicorns, magic expansion, gnome energy, and inflation elves. Even individually one could not ever hope to demonstrate a negative, or "disprove" the existence of such claims, but when you combine them altogether in one big metaphysical pot, it just doesn't even make a lot of sense to start with.

It's good to see that at least inflation is causing some professionals in the field to question the party line dogma, but there's still a lot of unfalsiable dogma that isn't being questioned yet, and for which no falsification mechanism exists.

 

[SelfSim]

i) Inflation models are not unfalsifiable. There are measurable CMB parameters which, if found, could make them very difficult to reconcile.

ii) Mainstream, cosmologically focused astrophysicists are very much aware of the pros and cons of Inflation models and are constantly probing the boundaries (with various measurements).

iii) Alternative models have also been proposed which predict measurable quantities which would lead to preferences of one over the other.

 

[Michael]

i) Inflation models are not unfalsifiable. There are measurable CMB parameters which, if found, could make them very difficult to reconcile.

There's a hemispheric variation in the CMB that Guth didn't predict, and "holes" too that are very difficult to reconcile with your models. The problem is that while it might be possible to falsify *one* or several possible versions of inflation or dark matter, it's impossible to falsify every possible variation of a supernatural claim, just as it would be physically impossible to falsify every possible definition of "God".

We might hope to kill off one or two possible definitions of inflation, but not all of them.

ii) Mainstream, cosmologically focused astrophysicists are very much aware of the pros and cons of Inflation models and are constantly probing the boundaries (with various measurements).

They not only probe the boundaries, they propose a bunch of different metaphysical versions of inflation, just like they propose a bunch of different definitions of "dark matter". It's not possible to falsify an infinite number of potential definitions which can be changed on a whim.

iii) Alternative models have also been proposed which predict measurable quantities which would lead to preferences of one over the other.

Right. You can make as many different brands of inflation as there are different definitions of the term "God". Those hemispheric variations from Planck don't jive Guth's *original* inflation model, but I'm sure you can whip up an "excuse" as to why it failed, and whip up a different brand of inflation to accommodate any observation you want to accommodate. As long as it's a purely metaphysical claim, and all the so called "properties" and initial conditions can change on a whim, it's impossible to falsify an infinite potential number of inflation models, just like it's impossible to falsify the whole concept of "dark matter" just because all your "popular" versions bit the dust at LHC.

You've got *four* different metaphysical entities to play with at will in your model, so no uncontrolled observation could be used to falsify it. You could even blame the hemispheric variations we observe in the CMB on some problem with "dark energy", or some random issue with dark matter if you wish, or just change the initial conditions if you wanted to.

There's no way to completely kill off even *one* of your metaphysical claims, let alone all four of them at once.

Penrose even demonstrated that it's 10 to the 100th power *less* likely that we'd get a flat universe *with* inflation than without it and you still use a flat universe observation as a "justification" for inflation!

Inflation (cosmology) - Wikipedia