Talk:Great Debate (astronomy)

It is now known that ...

"It is now known that the Milky Way is only one of hundreds of billions of galaxies in the visible universe, proving Curtis the more accurate party in the debate in that respect."
Statements like this are a bit ironic. When Shapely was arguing, he was arguing from what was 'known' in his time.
Furthermore, nothing in science is 'known' or 'proven'. What we have are theories that to lesser or greater degrees explain the known evidence. Cosmology is the one area in science in which such statements are most mortally dangerous... because it's in worse shape right now than its ever been.
It's a good thing that what Shapely 'knew' didn't stop Hubble from deciding otherwise, right? Let's hope that what we 'know' isn't keeping us in the dark. Twang (talk) 07:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

You are right that there are a great many things in cosmology which are up in the air, and not known in any concrete sense. Among these are the nature of dark energy and dark matter, perhaps their existence at all, although we have compelling evidence for both. However, that the Milky Way is only one of hundreds of billions of galaxies is in no way in doubt. In the 1920s, no one knew whether the Milky Way was one of many island universes or the entire universe - there was evidence for both conjectures. The situation is much different now. -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

"...now known that the nova Shapley referred to..."

How is it known (that it was actually a supernova)? Is it possible to find a supernova remnant in another galaxy? Does the supernova have a designation? I'm not doubting that it was, but the word "known" is used a bit too casually. Why not say, "Evidence supports..." or "Astronomers generally accept that..."?

Coconutporkpie (talk) 05:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

other great debates

In 1995, for the Diamond Jubilee of this debate, Bohdan Paczynski and Donald Lamb debated the distance to Gamma Ray Bursters. It was a marvelous debate between two brilliant minds. I was fortunate to observe it, but, my questions is does it deserve a mention here, or perhaps it's own page?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohdan_Paczy%C5%84ski Bohdan Paczyński and Donald Lamb https://kicp.uchicago.edu/people/profile/donald_lamb.html

https://apod.nasa.gov/diamond_jubilee/debate95.html

--Patbahn (talk) 21:19, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

pinwheel galaxy .. he himself.. which he is he?

in text body it says "Curtis stated that if van Maanen's observation of the Pinwheel Galaxy rotating were correct, he himself would have been wrong about the scale of the universe and that the Milky Way would fully encompass it." Who is the latter he himself, Curtis or the van Maanen? This needs clarification and a citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.20.253.34 (talk) 15:29, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I think it's van Maanen, since it would be odd for Curtis to highlight a weak point in his own argument. But maybe these were gentlemen, and not out for blood like most political debaters. Perhaps an answer can be found in the official transcript, but I'm not seeing anything obvious in there. —Soap— 22:57, 28 August 2019 (UTC)