João Carneiro Barbosa

Some important and decisive observations allowed a widespread and almost unquestionable acceptance of the big bang cosmology, but we can admit and search other factors that have contributed and continue to contribute to the enormous acceptance and great popularity of this cosmological conception, not only inside but also outside of cosmology and even in numerous no scientific contexts. To find some of those factors, a case study was undertaken based on thematic analysis, an analytical tool which is based on the idea that the scientific activity, in addition to a theoretical and an experimental dimensions, has a third dimension with psychological and cultural elements called themata that strongly influence the construction of scientific theories and also their acceptance or rejection. This case study focused on the most important founding texts of big bang cosmology, namely articles and books of Alexandre Friedmann, Georges Lemaître, and George Gamow, covering three decades of important developments (1922–1952), and the founding texts of its great rival, the steady-state cosmology. This article presents a summary of the main results of this case study, which allowed to identify several themata with a very important role in the big bang cosmology: differentiation and unification (methodological themata); unity, creation, change, evolution, constancy (of mass/energy), simplicity, life cycle, circularity, and disorder (conceptual themata). All these themata form a methodological and conceptual matrix—with a triple dimension: historical, transversal/cultural, and psychological—that can help explain the acceptance and popularity of the big bang cosmology within and beyond its disciplinary boundaries.

The big bang idea is not only a dominant idea in cosmology but also a very successfully idea out of cosmology. Although sometimes just in metaphorical sense, the big bang idea is present, since some decades, in a variety of domains such as natural sciences, humanities, social sciences, arts, and it also has a great acceptance by the general public. Furthermore, the term Big Bang has become increasingly popular and currently it is often used with very different purposes, including commercial purposes, in contexts that have nothing to do with science, such as music, television, cinema, circus, house decoration, food, and other unexpected domains. Proposed by Gerald Holton, thematic analysis is a useful tool for studying cases like this, because it identifies and describes elements that cross and connect all areas of knowledge and culture in general (the themata) and thus can help to understand the reception, appropriation and use of certain ideas in different but contemporary disciplinary and cultural contexts, which may be involved in intellectual fashions and in styles of thought of one particular time.

This article focuses on the multifaceted and thematic nature expressed by the concept of creation in 20th-century cosmology, namely in the construction of the big bang cosmology and its rival, the steadystate cosmology. Regarding the approaches of three of the main founders of big bang cosmology, we can find, in an explicit or implicit way, two different forms of creation – creation from nothing or creation from shapeless matter. On the opposite side, suggested by the proponents of steady-state cosmology, we can find another form of creation – the continuous creation of matter. It is proposed that the multifaceted concept of creation, due to the wide interest it aroused and the intensity of cosmological debates it provoked, as well as its historical longevity and its disciplinary and cultural transversality, may be recognized as a thema.

The successive versions of the anthropic cosmological principle reintroduced teleology in cosmology, articulating it with two forms of mechanical causality – probabilism and determinism. According to the thematic analysis of science proposed by Gerald Holton, we can say that teleology is the opposing thema of mechanical causality. A return of teleology easily creates suspicions because mechanical causality dominates contemporary science, and teleology is widely considered an obsolete kind of scientific reasoning. Furthermore, in the anthropic cosmological principle, teleology has a deep anthropocentric feature. From the thematic point of view, the teleology of the anthropic cosmological principle is in counter-cycle. However, the cyclical functioning of themata suggests that perhaps teleology is not forever condemned to the past or to a marginal presence in scientific thought.

Despite some important observations and after decades of widespread consensus around the big bang cosmology, Fred Hoyle, one of the proponents of the steady-state cosmology, continued to fight the big bang idea throughout his life. We can try to understand this persistent attitude of Hoyle through a Holtonian thematic approach, by admitting that personal preferences and choices of scientists are conditioned by themata. Thematic analysis shows that big bang cosmology is mainly based on a set of themata consisting of evolution, finitude, life cycle (which has a beginning), and change; the steady-state cosmology is based on opposite themata: steady-state, infinity, continuous existence, and constancy. Personal preferences seem to have been important in the strong and passionate dispute between big bang and steady-state ideas, and Hoyle is a very illustrative example of a personal commitment remarkably long-lived to some themata, in this case to the opposite themata of the big bang cosmology. In his personal and persistent struggle against the big bang idea, Hoyle always refused the way how some experimental observations were considered decisive in favor of this cosmology. This is a typical thematic attitude: letting some personal thematic preferences influence the acceptance or rejection of scientific evidence. In this case, that corresponds to the existence of selection effects and biases regarding important cosmological observations, in order to sustain a persistent rejection of the big bang idea.

Some important and decisive observations allowed a widespread and almost unquestionable acceptance of the big bang cosmology, but we can admit and search other factors that have contributed and continue to contribute to the enormous acceptance and great popularity of this cosmological conception, not only inside but also outside of cosmology and even in numerous no scientific contexts. To find some of those factors, a case study was undertaken based on thematic analysis, an analytical tool which is based on the idea that the scientific activity, in addition to a theoretical and an experimental dimensions, has a third dimension with psychological and cultural elements called themata that strongly influence the construction of scientific theories and also their acceptance or rejection. This case study focused on the most important founding texts of big bang cosmology, namely articles and books of Alexandre Friedmann, Georges Lemaître, and George Gamow, covering three decades of important developments, and the founding texts of its great rival, the steady-state cosmology. This article presents a summary of the main results of this case study, which allowed to identify several themata with a very important role in the big bang cosmology: differentiation and unification ; unity, creation, change, evolution, constancy, simplicity, life cycle, circularity, and disorder. All these themata form a methodological and conceptual matrix—with a triple dimension: historical, transversal/cultural, and psychological—that can help explain the acceptance and popularity of the big bang cosmology within and beyond its disciplinary boundaries.

Este artigo apresenta uma análise comparativa de dois conceitos propostos e desenvolvidos em duas áreas muito distintas: o conceito de themata, proposto por Gerald Holton na área de história da ciência para dar conta dos processos de produção e difusão do conhecimento científico, e o conceito de Pathosformeln, proposto por Aby Warburg na área de história da arte para dar conta de importantes continuidades históricas e epocais da produção artística. Apesar dos contextos disciplinares tão distintos em que foram propostos, e apesar das especificidades que naturalmente asseguram a identidade própria de cada um dos conceitos, mostra-se neste artigo como themata e Pathosformeln têm inegáveis e importantes afinidades. De facto, ambos correspondem a entidades dotadas de longa persistência histórica, natureza cíclica e grande transversalidade disciplinar, cultural e epocal, em conjugação com uma grande capacidade de assumir formas específicas numa determinada época e num determinado contexto. Apesar de terem raízes em áreas muito distintas, as afinidades são suficientemente fortes para reconhecer aos themata e às Pathosformeln a pertença a uma mesma rede conceptual com grande potencialidade para a compreensão, não apenas da ciência e da arte, mas também das dinâmicas históricas e transdisciplinares da cultura em geral.

RESUMOA climatologia está no centro de um dos debates mais polarizados da atualidade, apresentado como confronto entre os defensores da existência de um aquecimento global antropogênico e aqueles que rejeitam sua existência. A instituição chave para esse tema é o Painel Intergovernamental sobre Mudanças Climáticas, um corpo simultaneamente científico e político. O debate surge aí mesclado com a discussão política sobre as respostas adequadas ao aquecimento global. Mas, rechaçados nesse terreno, os negacionistas transpõem o debate para a mídia, onde mobilizam a pseudociência para deslegitimar as conclusões das disciplinas científicas ligadas ao entendimento do clima. Temos, assim, uma produção consciente da ignorância em larga escala sobre o tema do aquecimento global, demandando o uso da agnotologia para desvendar o mecanismo de produção da ignorância. A climatologia revela-se, então, um campo exemplar para o estudo da inserção histórico-social do conhecimento científico e das tensões e trajetórias conflitivas no seu interior, dos dilemas éticos que coloca e das possibilidades universalistas do conhecimento científico na era da tecnociência. ABSTRACTClimatology is at the center of one of the most polarized debates of today. It is presented as a confrontation between supporters of the existence of anthropogenic global warming and those who deny its existence. The key institution for this theme is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which is both a scientific and political body. In this context, the debate arises merged with the political discussion on appropriate responses to global warming. However, contested on this ground, the deniers transfer the debate to the media, mobilizing pseudo-science to delegitimize the conclusions of the scientific disciplines related to climate understanding. Therefore, we have a deliberate production of large-scale ignorance on this subject, which requires the use of agnotology to unravel it. Thus, climatology reveals itself an exemplary space to study the historical and social roots of scientific knowledge and the tensions and conflicting trajectories inside it, the ethical dilemmas posed and the universalist possibilities of scientific knowledge in the age of technoscience.