Cosmology Should Not Be Viewed as Mere Spectacle

Cosmology as spectacle?

The universe is filled with countless cosmic wonders, from the breathtaking sights of nebulae and sprawling galaxies to the intricate details captured by observatories such as those operated by NASA and the European Space Agency, including the James Webb Space Telescope. These celestial phenomena serve as reminders of the vastness and beauty that exist beyond our planet.

One of the most profound aspects of exploring the cosmos is the sense of humility it imparts to us, here on Earth. The sheer scale of the observable universe, which cosmology estimates to be approximately 93 billion light-years in diameter, puts into perspective the relative smallness of human achievements. For example, when humanity reached the moon, we traveled only about 1.28 light seconds away from Earth—a minuscule distance compared to the enormity of the universe itself.

The Scientific Foundations of Cosmology and the Challenge of Spectacle

Cosmology is the scientific study of the universe’s origin, evolution, structure, and ultimate fate. It traces the universe’s development from the first particles to stars, galaxies, and cosmic structures, and explains how Earth formed from debris around the sun about 4.5 billion years ago.

However, in recent years, public presentations of cosmological findings have increasingly emphasized the spectacular and awe-inspiring aspects of the cosmos. This trend, which can be characterized as "performative science," seeks to capture the imagination of lay audiences by highlighting the wonder and grandeur of cosmic phenomena. While the intent behind such presentations is commendable, making complex science accessible and engaging—they risk simplifying cosmology in a way that can undermine both its methods and its discoveries.

When the limits of human cognition are framed primarily as unfathomable mysteries, there is a danger that science is transformed from a process of understanding into a form of entertainment. This shift can detract from the empirical rigor and explanatory power that define cosmology as a scientific discipline.

Cosmology as “Spectacle”

While cosmologists develop theoretical models grounded in physical laws and rigorously test these models against data collected from telescopes and other scientific instruments, there has been a shift in recent years toward what some refer to as “Cosmology as spectacle.” This approach emphasizes cosmic events—such as solar eclipses or planetary alignments—not only as scientific phenomena but also as awe-inspiring moments designed to evoke a sense of wonder in audiences.

In the world of art, the concept of cosmology as spectacle extends beyond scientific observation and serves as a powerful metaphor. Artists use the vastness and drama of cosmic history to draw connections with contemporary human challenges, such as the climate crisis. By framing the immense timeline of the cosmos alongside the relatively brief and rapid transformations of the Anthropocene, art can help audiences reflect on the relationship between humanity and the planet.

A notable example is Louise Beer’s ongoing project, Earth: A Cosmic Spectacle. As the current artist in residence at the Institute of Astronomy at the University of Cambridge, Beer’s work is supported by a British Council-funded grant. She is leading a 2025 art exhibition in Halifax, England, that delves into the concept of deep time, highlighting the contrast between Earth’s slow geological evolution and the accelerated pace of environmental change in the present era. Through a combination of photography, sound, and public discussion, Beer’s exhibition seeks to foster an emotional connection between audiences and Earth’s history, with a particular focus on the climate crisis.

Cosmology as “Performative” Science

British physicist, Brian Cox, the Royal Society’s Professor for Public Engagement in Science, is perhaps the most prominent example of a performative communicator in cosmology. Through his acclaimed television programs and live events, Cox effectively evokes the awe-inspiring wonder of the universe, often presenting the cosmos as a spectacle designed to captivate and entertain audiences.

A recurring criticism of Cox’s approach is his tendency to emphasize wonder at the expense of critical inquiry. His rhetorical style is largely celebratory or epideictic, focusing on the grandeur and mysteries of the universe. While this mode of communication is effective in generating excitement, it can unintentionally downplay the empirical foundations of scientific investigation. The result is that the quantitative, pro-and-con nature of scientific discourse is overshadowed by a focus on the unexplained and mysterious aspects of cosmology.

From the perspective of public understanding, this approach risks obscuring the scientific process itself—specifically, what cosmologists have discovered through rigorous explanation and empirical validation. In essence, Cox’s style highlights the “what” of cosmic phenomena but often neglects the “how” behind these discoveries.

Although Cox is undeniably a skilled communicator who inspires his audiences, the celebratory focus of his presentations may fall short in educating the public about scientific methodology. Without a clear understanding of how science operates, audiences may be left with the impression that scientific knowledge is merely another form of opinion, rather than the outcome of systematic investigation and evidence-based reasoning.

The Danger of Equating Facts with Opinions

A powerful illustration of the challenges posed by treating cosmology as spectacle comes from the observations of British comedian Ricky Gervais. Often, when discussing topics related to Earth's deep time, Gervais highlights a fundamental error in public discourse: the tendency for some individuals to dismiss established facts as if they were simply opinions. He succinctly points out that “opinions don’t affect facts—you can have your own opinions but you can’t have your own facts.” This distinction is essential. When scientific findings are presented as mere spectacle, it can lead audiences to believe that cosmological facts are open to debate, subject to the same treatment as personal viewpoints. This, in turn, creates the false impression that there are two legitimate sides to discussions where the scientific evidence is, in fact, clear and settled.

A prominent example of this phenomenon is the debate between evolution and creationism. As American science writer Bob Krauss notes, engaging with creationist arguments can be unrewarding for scientists and science communicators—not because these arguments are scientifically robust, but because addressing them as if they are valid alternatives may give the appearance that both sides are logically equivalent. This is misleading and undermines public understanding of scientific consensus.

Creationists and other fundamentalists usually adopt a biblical worldview, claiming that the Earth is only a few thousand years old, in stark contrast to the billions of years established through scientific investigation. Some creationists go further, suggesting that dinosaurs lived just thousands of years ago and were wiped out by a Biblical flood, rather than millions of years ago as supported by the scientific record.

The scientific consensus on the age of the Earth is based on radiometric dating of meteorites and the oldest rocks from both Earth and the moon. These methods consistently indicate an age of about 4.54 billion years. Radiometric dating relies on the predictable decay of radioactive isotopes; by measuring the ratio of parent to daughter isotopes in a sample and knowing the isotopes’ half-lives, scientists can accurately determine the sample’s age. The half-lives of these isotopes are well understood, and using multiple isotopes within a single sample allows for cross-checking the results, further strengthening the reliability of these findings.

Nevertheless, creationists reject this robust and well-tested scientific method, labeling it as mere conjecture or opinion. They argue that the half-lives of isotopes may have changed over time, suggesting a much younger Earth. Despite these objections, the scientific evidence remains consistent and compelling. The multitude of independent and corroborating results from radiometric dating confirm that the age of the Earth is well established and not a matter of opinion.

Facts, Theories, and Ideological Commitments in Science

In my own field of language science, there are instances where even well-respected researchers allow ideological commitments to overshadow empirical facts. One prominent example is Noam Chomsky, who has been the most influential linguist over the past seventy years.

Chomsky introduced the idea in the 1960s that humans possess an innate, genetically determined blueprint for language, termed Universal Grammar. At the time, when there was limited understanding of how infants acquire language and genetics was still in its early stages, this hypothesis appeared plausible.

However, as research in several disciplines has progressed—including studies on the vast cross-linguistic variation found in the world's languages, investigations into how children acquire their mother tongue, advancements in cognitive science, and the growth of fields such as genetics and neuroscience—it has become clear that Chomsky's original Universal Grammar hypothesis cannot be sustained. In response to accumulating evidence, Chomsky has revised and amended his original theory multiple times.

Despite these developments, Chomsky continues to maintain his core belief that the fundamental, universal aspects of all languages are innate. He justifies this stance by appealing to what he calls a “Galilean” approach to science. According to Chomsky, this approach allows one to disregard facts that seem problematic for a favored theory, with the justification that the theory must be correct and that these conflicting facts may eventually be explained. As Chomsky himself explains: “[Galileo] dismissed a lot of data; he was willing to say: ‘Look, if the data refute the theory, the data are probably wrong.’” He elaborates further, asserting that “the Galilean style . . . is the recognition that . . . it often makes good sense to disregard phenomena and search for principles” by “discarding recalcitrant phenomena.”

Scientific Integrity and Public Responsibility

Circling back to the broader issue, adopting an approach to scientific inquiry that dismisses inconvenient facts is fundamentally dishonest. This mirrors the criticisms some have directed at Brian Cox, suggesting that his tendency to present cosmology primarily as entertainment can also be misleading. Scientists bear a crucial responsibility: they must adhere strictly to the scientific method, ensuring that their work is guided by evidence and transparent reasoning.

In addition to their research responsibilities, scientists have an important obligation in public discourse. They are tasked not only with sharing their findings, but also with educating the public about the scientific process itself. This includes clearly communicating the difference between facts and opinions—a distinction that is essential for fostering genuine understanding of science.

While presenting cosmology as a spectacle may captivate audiences and generate interest, it also carries risks. If entertainment overshadows substance, there is a danger that the rich body of established cosmological knowledge is trivialized, reduced to little more than a circus act. Such an approach ultimately undermines respect for science and the critical distinction between well-supported scientific facts and mere personal viewpoints.