Can we rely on our cosmological picture of the universe, or might we have got it all wrong? Although complicated math seems to support theories like dark matter and dark energy, we should be ready to interrogate the reasoning behind them, writes Bjørn Ekeberg. 

"It is not anti-scientific to question established beliefs, but central to science itself. At the creative heart of science is a spirit of open-minded inquiry," writes Rupert Sheldrake in The Science Delusion.

It's hard to imagine a scientific subject matter that would call for more open-mindedness than the ambitious project of understanding the entire cosmos from our own extremely limited standpoint within it.

SUGGESTED READING Cutting edge science at HowTheLightGetsIn Global By And yet few scientific fields are more established in their core beliefs than cosmology. Since the late 1960s, most scientists have settled on a 'standard cosmology' as the only serious and viable research program in astrophysics. Its fundamentals are considered facts and rarely, if ever, questioned in public. The Big Bang story is entrenched as the most scientific world-picture we have.

Its proponents may be tempted to take this remarkable conformity as proof the theory rests on a solid foundation. But there are many reasons to be skeptical both of this claim, and the conviction with which it is often posited.

When the problem is particularly hard, people tend to follow the crowd and not to question authority.

In the spirit of scientific self-questioning, I'd like to briefly outline 8 potential problem areas for the credibility of the ruling theory.

Think of it as a guide to a 'stress test' of cosmology: these are dimensions where the theory looks particularly weak or unconvincing from a critical perspective and where it could easily face more serious scrutiny than from a lonesome philosopher of science.

My role is not to pass judgment, to propose alternative theories, or to attack science as such - quite the contrary. Like Sheldrake, I believe good science comes from properly understanding the limitations of our knowledge. And while it is remarkable what we can know about the universe, it is perhaps even more remarkable how little we actually do know.

1. Conformity Dynamics

Like any science, cosmology happens in a social context. The scientific ideal, of course, is that private beliefs do not matter, scientists only work with knowledge.

But there are many obvious ways in which beliefs, assumptions and non-empirical preferences shape the scientific picture. In cosmology, this includes a belief in universal mathematical laws of nature (Ekeberg, 2019), or a distinct preference for theories that are beautiful, elegant and based on simplicity of laws (Hossenfelder, 2018).

In a more general sense, science involves belief in the credibility of others, other scientists, institutions, authority and tradition - and the importance of this kind of belief becomes more apparent at a collective level.

Behavioral economist Cass Sunstein shows how the tendency to conformity in large groups can harden an emerging consensus on a problem into a dogma (Sunstein, 2019).

Social experiments in a multitude of contexts, he writes, demonstrate that when we are faced with difficult questions and limited knowledge, we tend to defer to those we perceive as authorities on the matter. Typically these are recognized experts in the field.

But experts, as Sunstein demonstrates, can be led astray and this can happen at a collective level despite the rational intention of every single one of its actors. When the problem is particularly hard, people tend to follow the crowd and not to question authority.

Is there any problem harder than the nature and extent of the entire universe?