[lisper]

> why don't you please present me with both?

If you are not a YEC, then the first thing I'm going to do is ask you why you think that cosmology and physics are different?

If you are a YEC then I don't need to ask you that question because I already know the answer. (It's because you have accepted the truth of the Bible as a foundational assumption. From this, the idea that modern cosmology is not science is a logically valid conclusion.) Instead, the first thing I'm going to do at this point is to ask you why you are trying to conceal it.

Also, if you are a YEC, I would be interested to know if you were surprised that I was able to correctly guess this.

[User23]

If I were not a YEC, then I'd think cosmology and physics are different because physics is a laboratory science where depending on our budget we can do anything from roll balls down inclines to produce quarks while with cosmology we have absolutely no control over conditions and can only make believe we do by sampling in a way that necessarily is corrupted by our biases. And the amount of data to sample from is plenty ample for unconscious bias to have a significant effect.

If I weren't a YEC, I would focus more on issues with radiocarbon dating and the assumption and not the observation that carbon isotope ratios are constant over the history of the Earth and ignore cosmology entirely. In fact I'm not clear on what YEC has to do with cosmology at all, it strikes me as being outside the scope of the arguments I've seen on the subject.

[lisper]

> physics is a laboratory science

That would come as news to most theoretical physicists, who rarely set foot in a laboratory.

> we can ... produce quarks

How do you know we can produce quarks?

Also, where does astronomy fit into your taxonomy? Was Newton doing science or phenomenology when he came up with the inverse square law? Plate tectonics? What about (drum roll, please) biology?

[User23]

> That would come as news to most theoretical physicists, who rarely set foot in a laboratory.

I agree that it's fair to describe cosmologists as a species of theoretical physicist, given the long standing connection between the observation of heavily bodies and the birth of the modern physical sciences. Still the relation is rather remote.

> How do you know we can produce quarks?

I personally don't. I'm relying on hearsay from a buddy with a PhD in particle physics who worked at Los Alamos. I don't think he's a liar so I'll take him at his word about what's possible in particle physics labs.

> Also, where does astronomy fit into your taxonomy? Was Newton doing science or phenomenology when he came up with the inverse square law? Plate tectonics? What about (drum roll, please) biology?

Astronomy is a phenomenology on account of nobody has a lab big enough to create stars in, or run any other astronomical scale experiments. Newton was doing natural philosophy, which in his case had elements of both what we now call science and phenomenology. Plate tectonics would strictly speaking be a phenomenology. Biology is a bloody wet mess that's mostly phenomenology, but there are disciplines in it which are mature science to the point of being engineering, like breeding domesticated plant and animal species.

[cygx]

I agree that it's fair to describe cosmologists as a species of theoretical physicist, given the long standing connection between the observation of heavily bodies and the birth of the modern physical sciences. Still the relation is rather remote.

This is such a weird statement to make.

Let's not forget how we got where we are:

There are two forces active on macroscopic scales, electromagnetism and gravity. At the turn of the previous century, there were some inconsistencies in the way how electromagnetism fit into the rest of physics, which were resolved by the theory of Special Relativity. That shifted the problem to gravity, leading to the theory of General Relativity.

Friedmann then calculated what solutions General Relativity permitted under the assumption of spatial symmetry, the Friedmann models, which form the foundation of the cosmological standard model.

Most of the things I described so far happened before we even had confirmation that other galaxies existed (Friedmann published his 2nd paper in 1924, while Hubble resolved the 'Greate Debate' in 1923 by discovering Cepheids in the 'Andromeda Nebula', nowadays 'Andromeda Galaxy'). That shifted the focus on trying to figure out the model parameters that made Friedmann's model fit reality, and we've been at it ever since.

[lisper]

> Astronomy is a phenomenology

OK, again this would come as a surprise to most astronomers. Are you aware that we have sent spacecraft to other planets, and that humans have walked on the moon?

[User23]

I think you might want to review the site guidelines[1]: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[lisper]

Except that you have given me evidence that you are not dealing in good faith. You have chosen to be cagey about your beliefs, so I am making as few assumptions about them as possible. I don't know if you're a YEC, a flat-earther, or a lunar landing denialist. People exist who subscribe to all of these positions, so unless you tell me otherwise, I'm perfectly justified in considering the possibility that you might be any of these things.

[Panoramix]

I'm sorry to say your understanding of physics is pretty wrong.

For both, we control almost nothing, we observe. To that end we build tools to observe. We want to observe to reject hypotheses or to get new insight on how nature behaves. In particle physics these are detectors, like the Super Kamiokande [1], which is just sitting there waiting for neutrinos to arrive from space. In the case of cosmology these are telescopes, radio telescopes and the like, waiting for photons, gravitational wave chirps to arrive from space.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super-Kamiokande

[User23]

You don’t need to apologize for your discomfort at my choosing to understand things in a way I personally find sensible. This has never bothered me because in the areas where it pragmatically matters I’ve achieved success and in the areas where it’s academic I’ve at least somewhat satisfied my curiosity.

Collecting a catalog of phenomenological observations is the defining characteristic of a phenomenology. One may feign hypotheses as one likes to fit that data, but that activity, valuable though it may be, is qualitatively distinct from the proper science of predicting the phenomena before they are observed. Of course phenomenologies can provide the necessary insight for predictive science. Like all human endeavors boundaries can blur.

Sadly much so called science is just computer aided trunk wiggling[1].

[1] https://quotefancy.com/quote/1342664/John-von-Neumann-With-f...