Abstract

According to the standard model of cosmology, Lambda CDM, the mass-energy budget of the current stage of the universe is not dominated by the luminous matter that we are familiar with, but instead by some form of dark matter (and dark energy). It is thus tempting to adopt scientific realism about dark matter. However, there are barely any constraints on the myriad of possible properties of this entity—it is not even certain that it is a form of matter. In light of this underdetermination I advocate caution: we should not (yet) be dark matter realists. The “not(-yet)-realism” that I have in mind is different from Hacking’s (Philos Sci 56 (4), 555–581, 1989) anti-realism, in that it is semantic rather than epistemological. It also differs from the semantic anti-realism of logical empiricism, in that it is naturalistic, such that it may only be temporary and does not automatically apply to all other unobservables (or even just to all other astronomical unobservables, as with Hacking’s anti-realism). The argument is illustrated with the analogy of the much longer history of the concept of a gene, as the current state of the concept of dark matter resembles in some relevant ways that of the early concept of genes.

Highlights

  • Open almost any modern textbook on cosmology or astrophysics/astronomy, and it will proclaim the standard model of cosmology, ΛCDM, according to which the mass-energy budget of the current stage of the universe is not fully accounted for by the luminous matter that we know and love

  • Can one even be a realist about x, can one say that x exists, without knowing what x is? How does scientific realism about these dark ingredients of the universe avoid vacuousness? In this paper we will focus on realism about dark matter,5 but it should be noted that most arguments carry over to dark energy

  • According to the standard model of cosmology, ΛCDM, the mass-energy budget of the current stage of the universe is not dominated by the luminous matter that we are familiar with, but instead by dark matter

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Open almost any modern textbook on cosmology or astrophysics/astronomy, and it will proclaim the standard model of cosmology, ΛCDM, according to which the mass-energy budget of the current stage of the universe is not fully accounted for by the luminous matter that we know and love. luminous matter is, at current times, not even dominant. Given this received view (bracketing for the minority alternative, modified gravity), one may well be forgiven for making the seemingly small further step of being a (scientific) realist about dark matter and dark energy.3 This near-consensus on ΛCDM and some form of its dominant, titular components stands in stark contrast with the disagreement over the exact nature of these components, i.e. both the type of ‘stuff’ it is supposed to be (i.e. its ontology) and its properties (i.e. its ideology).. This situation is strikingly similar to the early concept of genes—before they were even called by that name

Dark Matter
16 Page 4 of 19
16 Page 6 of 19
The Semantic Dimension of Scientific Realism
16 Page 8 of 19
16 Page 10 of 19
16 Page 12 of 19
16 Page 14 of 19
16 Page 16 of 19
Conclusion
Findings
16 Page 18 of 19
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call