Abstract

Cosmology is a field riddled with controversy. With regard to cosmology itself, there are several different schools of thought. Some think that there is basically no such thing as scientific cosmology, and that cosmology is just a pseudoscience. Or as the French physicist Brillouin put it, cosmology is "pure fantasy." A second school says that the value of cosmology is undeniable. Astronomical observations and measurements have already encountered large-scale problems, and these problems have an objective existence; they are not fabricated. This school holds, however, that because at present observational results are still scant, we should therefore emphasize the accumulation of observations and the organization of data and speculate less about theories or models of the universe. Some observational astronomers hold this view. And then there are still other people who believe that we want not only to emphasize observational facts, but also to make a serious effort to analyze the underlying mechanisms. We should look not only at the universe of the present, but also explore cosmic evolution, developing our cosmology based on the mutual interplay of theory and observation.