Editorial Type:
Article Category: Research Article
| Online Publication Date: 05 Nov 2007
Geological Time Versus Astronomical Time: Are Scientific Theories Falsifiable?
Geological Time Versus Astronomical Time: Are Scientific Theories Falsifiable?
Page Range: 167 – 169
During the 1930s when a relativistic, expanding, homogeneous model of the universe lead to an age for the universe embarrassingly less than the geological age of the earth, the astronomer Edwin Hubble, influenced by philosophical values, persisted in his support for a theory in conflict with observation and prediction. Notwithstanding well attested and unrefutable evidence of geological time, and various astronomical observations as well, the theory of a homogeneous, expanding universe of general relativity proved, in practice, not falsifiable.
Brush, S. G., 1974, Should the History of Science be Rated X? Science, vol. 183, no. 4130: 1164-1172.
Brush, S. G., 1989a, The Age of the Earth in the 20th Century. Earth Sciences History, vol. 8 (this issue).
Brush, S. G., 1989b, Prediction and the evaluation of theories by scientists: The case of Gravitational Light Bending: Science, (preprint).
Hetherington, N. S., 1982, Philosophical Values and Observation in Edwin Hubble's Choice of a Model of the Universe. Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, vol. 13, no. 1: 41-67.
Hubble, E. P., 1934, Red-shifts in the Spectra of Nebulae. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 17 p.
Hubble, E. P., 1936, The Realm of the Nebulae. Yale University Press, New Haven, 210 p.
Hubble, E. P., 1937, The Observational Approach to Cosmology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 68 p.
Hubble, E. P., 1942, The Problem of the Expanding Universe. American Scientist, vol. 30: 99-115. [Reprinted in 1943 in The Scientific Monthly, vol. 56: 15-30; and in Smithsonian Institution Annual Report for 1942: 119-132, as Smithsonian Institution Publications, no. 3707.]