A Researcher Says the Expansion of the Universe Is Just a Mirage. He Might Be Right.
I am far from an expert on cosmological matters, but I’ve always had a suspicion that our grand models about the universe are missing something important. For example, I think it’s not wise to put your trust in a theory that says we’re missing 80% of the mass in the universe (or whatever the number is) and then to have to theorize about where all that mass is hiding. The idea that the theory is missing something really important seems a lot more likely.
The article above says the assumption that the universe is expanding at an increasingly rapid pace might be an illusion. I have no idea if he’s right, but that’s precisely the sort of “you forgot something here” explanation that I’ve been expecting.
But cosmology doesn’t particularly interest me. What came into my twisted mind as I read that article was to wonder how many people bought into the idea that “science proves” that the universe had a beginning, that the beginning had to have a cause, and that cause was God.
The problem goes something like this. Proposition A leads to Belief B. Then Proposition A becomes dubious, but Belief B remains. (The problem is not unique to religion.)
You could see it as “undermining the foundation,” or “sawing off the branch you’re sitting on.” People have an amazing ability to believe one set of things that undermine some other set of things they believe, and not be particularly bothered by it.
The problem with beliefs that got a kick in the pants by some big “Proposition A” scenario is more complicated than that.
What actually happens is something like this. Proposition A has enough force to disrupt the person’s current view. He then goes through all the pieces and tries to create a new vision that incorporates Proposition A.
You can’t think of Proposition A as the bottom row of Jenga blocks, or anything like that — as if a belief system depends on one foundation stone. It’s more of a hub in a web-like matrix. Even if one hub is destroyed, the matrix can keep its basic shape.
If enough hubs are destroyed, the matrix will collapse, and the person will have to build a new one.
This way of looking at beliefs makes sense of confirmation bias. A person believes he has a tidy little matrix of beliefs that all work and play well together. Contrary data is like a little stone thrown against a fortress.
If something big comes along and knocks gaping holes in the fortress, that’s another matter. Then, suddenly, all those little stones the person had previously swatted aside with ease take on a different character, and some of them become parts of the new structure.