The Cosmos according to Disney
Not really time for a proper post today but I’m grateful to one of my PhD students for coming to the rescue by pointing out this clip in which our own Professor Mike Disney tell us everything he knows about cosmology. The video lasts 2 minutes and 48 seconds.
In the Dark 
May 25, 2011 at 1:24 pm
I could comment, but it might be better if I did not.
May 25, 2011 at 1:29 pm
Since you’ve obviously pressed the “post comment” button then, technically speaking, you have commented.
May 25, 2011 at 2:18 pm
If you want to hear other astronomers along this line – take a look at;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yTfRy0LTD0&playnext=1&list=PLBFD45343D34C18C2
It’s interesting to hear Hoyle speak (although I have heard him in real life).
I am not condoning what they are saying, but were they really more independent thinkers back in Hoyle and Burbidge’s day?
May 25, 2011 at 2:55 pm
I should say that I do not believe Mike Disney is doing what Hoyle and Burbidge did. Mike is being provocative. He is criticising the confidence of many cosmologists given the available observational constraints. (However, I do not agree with Mike, as usual … as always.)
I feel that Hoyle and Burbidge initially chose to devise and support an alternative cosmological model very reasonably, but continued to back that model even when observational evidence mounted that was inconsistent with that model. They seemed later to be in denial about the failings of their chosen model.
May 25, 2011 at 7:37 pm
The big difference here between profs. Disney and Peebles is that Disney was sounding off on a popular television programme while Peebles wrote serious research papers criticising particular standard opinions.
May 26, 2011 at 10:09 am
What’s frustrating is the argument from the general to the particular. Disney is of course correct that history teaches us that the illusion of knowledge is an obstacle to progress. It doesn’t follow that this is an example. Usually the majority view is correct.
In many cases people who argue that everything we know is wrong are taking a very long bet. The possibility is not zero but its tiny tiny tiny. In other cases, things are a real mess and a cracking and re-shaping of our understanding is very likely.
Cosmology is unnusual because its not quite either case. There is lots of cross-confirming evidence and it gets better every year. It doesn’t look ike a fantasy. But dark matter and dark energy leave niggling doubts. I guess the way I’d put it is there is maybe a 5% chance we’ve got something badly wrong and it will all change. Not enough to advise new students to go in a Disney’esque direcion, but enough that one should stay alert.
May 26, 2011 at 10:51 am
I’d say the case for dark matter is considerably more secure for dark energy. I agree that there is pretty strong evidence for both, but there’s more scope for misinterpretation in the latter case than in the former. It is of course important for the scientific process to challenge standard theories – and, to be honest, I think we need more of that in cosmology – but it is difficult to come up with alternatives that satisfy the observational constraints and involve sound physical ideas. I still maintain, however, that the case for dark energy is far from proven, not because I doubt the observations, but because I think there’s a good chance we’re thinking about it the wrong way.
May 26, 2011 at 11:35 am
I’m not sure what an “observational hypothesis” is!
What I mean is that the theoretical interpretation might be wrong – possibilities departures from FRW, non-Einstein gravity, something to do with how light propagates, etc etc…
July 11, 2017 at 11:15 am
I know this post is a bit dated (2011). But, I thought you might want to have a look at Disney’s recent anti-scientific, pro-superstitious nonsense. He’s talking to a notorious internet crackpot about cosmology.
It seems to me that Disney’ motive is not scientific at all. Rather, he is a religious nutcase who loves the “mysterious” ignorance.
Regarding your comment about non-Einstein gravity, have you heard about RTG proposed by Logunov et al.?
July 11, 2017 at 11:03 pm
Whatever Mike Disney may or may not be, he is not religious in any way. Religion is not his motivation.
July 12, 2017 at 1:31 pm
Watch the clip and you’ll see what I mean. He often talks about “god” (which presumably means Yahweh, not Apollo, Osiris, etc.) in his interviews.
Like most people, he has not been disabused from anthropocentrism and egocentrism. Most people, including Disney, are unable to come to term with the fact that they are upright-walking apes with comparatively large brains who are born and die, like all other animals.
Disney thinks that there might be (a) supersized ape(s) who “created” the “universe”. LOL.
I guess this atavistic/animistic mode of thought is prevalent among old/senile people, which could make it excusable.