Controversial Cosmologist Fred Hoyle Dies At 86

MikeCamel writes: "The BBC announced today that Fred Hoyle, astronomer, science populariser and science fiction writer, died yesterday, aged 86. He is best known for having coined the phrase 'Big Bang,' though he was actually an opponent of the idea, and advocated the 'steady state' theory. He also believed that life didn't start on Earth, but that we were 'seeded' from outer space."

farrellj adds: "Hoyle was famous for a number of things, inventing the term 'Big Bang,' figuring out how stars create the heavier elements, and his most controversial, the idea that the seeds of life on earth came from space. He was also a noted Science Fiction writer, with many books, sometimes co-authored with his son, Geoffrey. We have lost one of the more original thinkers in the field of Astrophysics. You can read more at the NY Times site. (free reg. required, yadda yadda)"

Comments

Science needs people like Fred

[Rupert]

We need good scientists who refuse to accept the commonly accepted explanations. The scientific method is good at testing theories, but we need people who can create alternative theories so they can be tested.

Of course, when you're talking about universe formation, the repeatability part is kind of awkward.

Re:Science needs people like Fred

[Robert Link]

Ok, sure, why not? But you should be aware that in the case of Steady State cosmology, that's not how it happened. Steady State cosmology was proposed by Hoyle and others (who arrived at the same mathematical solution from following different reasoning) in 1948. Steady State was attractive for theoretical reasons, and at that time it was consistent with all extant observations. As time went on observational evidence mounted, and it became harder and harder to reconcile Steady State with that evidence. Eventually most astrophysicists concluded that the theory was just unworkable. The cosmic microwave background measurements were widely regarded as the final nail in the coffin of Steady State; there isn't any good (i.e. not contrived) way to produce the observed thermal spectrum without having the universe in a hot, dense state at some point in its history, and that is incosistent with the Perfect Cosmological Principle that underlies Steady State cosmology.

Science needs skeptics; no doubt about that. But being a skeptic is not the same thing as being a contrarian. When the commonly accepted explanation has the weight of evidence behind it, a person who refuses to accept it is not by any stretch of the imagination a "good scientist," and he is not doing science any favors by continuing to rail against the accepted theory.

In this "enlightened" age of après-truth, it is not fashionable to talk of right and wrong answers; people prefer, rather, to talk about "different points of view." Nevertheless, nature is what it is, without regard to what point of view we might have on the matter. Any theory that disagrees with what nature reveals about itself through experiment and observation is simply an untruth, and clinging to such a theory in spite of the evidence is simply unscientific.

-rpl

Hoyle's SF

[grayhaired]

I loved "The Black Cloud"; read it repeatedly once I found it. Too bad this grand old man has passed away.

Gray.

Re:Neatly intresting

[Phanatic1a]

It wouldn't even be interesting if it did happen. Ideas and theories stand and fall on their own merits, not on the opinions of their originators. If Einstein in his later years recanted, and took to hanging out in airports wearing saffron robes and handing out daffodils, it wouldn't make relativity any less accurate.

A Gentleman and a Scholar

[ec_hack]

I met Fred Hoyle while getting my BA in Physics & Astronomy at Rice in the mid-70s. He came to speak on Newton and give some smaller talks to student, IIRC. After his speech (which was open to the public), there was a reception and Q&A session. Two things at the Q&A stick in my mind: the first was when an adult asked Prof. Hoyle about the whole "Chariots of the Gods" thing, which was very hot at the time. (This was a book that asserted that aliens had visited the earth in the past and were responsible for the pyramids in Egypt & MesoAmerica, among other things.) I could tell that the questioner was a true believer type. A quick cloud of annoyance passed over Hoyle's face, as he was undoubtedly getting asked about this all the time. He quickly and politely dismissed VonDaniken's book as "rubbish". A few questions later, a 10 to 12 year old boy asked him about Stonehenge: was it an alien landing site or something? This time there was no annoyance, and the teacher aspect of his personality came to the fore. He patiently explained to the child what was known about Stonehenge, how the seasons were very important to ancient farmers, and how we shouldn't assume that the people back then were stupid because they didn't have our technology, etc. At this point the Q&A was ended and Prof. Hoyle made sure to talk to the boy and encourage him to think about the world and to keep asking questions. Good advice to all of us. He'll be missed.

Re:Science needs people like Fred - troll? wtf?

[vena]

this is not a troll. trigger happy idiots.

Re:Neatly intresting

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait wait wait...

I love the fact this gets a "4" for a statement of "it never happened" and a link to a web page that says "someone says it never happened".

So, what you're saying is that you are basing the "it never happened" argument on the words of his daughter? How is this more proof than the words of this Lady Hope person? How can you say, for sure, that the other person's account isn't true? After all, it's word against word, right?

Are there any other accounts? Doctors? Other family members? Ministers? (which would be ironic, wouldn't it, Mr. Father of "Humans Are Nothing But Evolution" having a spiritual man there to give last rites?) Is there any other evidence to support one side or the other?

Re:Neatly intresting

[Anonymous Coward]

You'll never see someone go to greater lengths in a lie than when that someone is protecting his religious beliefs.

Except maybe for someone protecting his scientific ones.

Personally, I agree that if it happened (and I'm not willing to say it didn't just because his daughter said so. Both of them have motive to lie here, so neither is more credible than the other in my view) it's irrelevant to the discussion of the validity of his theory. It proves nothing. But it irritates me when people act like "religous people" are any more stubborn about defending their views, even to the point of twisting truth, than "scientific" people. Not to mention my irritation that the terms are used like they are somehow mutually exclusive.

yes, I know that scientists can't really fudge much, since if their results can't be duplicated it's fairly obvious something is up. But in the case of theory in regards to the creation of the universe it's awfully hard to duplicate. Regardless, most of the truth twisting/etc doesn't come from the scientists themselves, but rather the people who follow it blindly and think they need to make stuff up to defend their position. "Religous people" don't have a corner on that market you know.