by Avi Loeb
March 09, 2025
from AviLoeb Website

VIDEO - Names Don't Constitute Knowledge

The physicist Richard Feynman

 did not care about the names of things.

Names do not constitute knowledge...!

However, some scientists enjoy the illusion that they know 'something' about things by giving them names that reflect a particular interpretation.

It is surprising that I get paid as an astronomer, given our current level of ignorance about the cosmos.

Astronomers do not know the nature of 85% of the matter in the universe, and they refer to it by the name "dark matter".

 

They do not know the nature of the energy that powers the accelerated cosmic expansion, and they call it by the name "dark energy".

If gravity happened to be modified on cosmic scales, these anomalies might be signatures of a different behavior of gravity rather than forms of matter or energy.

Until we figure out the nature of these anomalies, the names we call them introduce prejudice and bias into the conversation.

Similarly, astronomers do not know the origin of near-Earth objects (NEOs) which display non-gravitational acceleration but no visible cometary tail.

As of a few months ago, experts call them "dark comets".

From the perspective of more knowledgeable scientists, the naming of these "dark" unknowns might be a trademark of the dark age of science...!

If alien scientists figured out the nature of dark matter, dark energy and dark comets, they might have used this knowledge for better propulsion schemes.

An invisible fuel composed of dark matter, a fuel-free engine based on the repulsive gravity of dark energy, or a rocket which releases an invisible gas through its exhaust in the spirit of dark comets, could all lead to NEOs that maneuver in anomalous ways.

When astronomers spot anomalous NEOs, they tend to classify them as rocks of a type that they had never seen before, in the spirit of the hydrogen or nitrogen iceberg scenarios for 'Oumuamua.

Some NEOs are currently classified as Empty Trash Bags Objects (ETBOs), like the object A10bAMz - which exhibits strange zig-zag motion around Earth.

When SETI astronomers argue that there is no credible evidence for Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAPs) in our sky, they ignore objects like 'Oumuamua or A10bAMz.

If A10bAMz is a broken piece of a human-made object pushed by sunlight - as experts suggest, then why couldn't 'Oumuamua be a broken piece of an extraterrestrial technological object pushed by sunlight?

 

Alternatively, if 'Oumuamua is a hydrogen or a nitrogen iceberg, then why couldn't A10bAMz be the same?

Experts should be consistent in allowing for the possibility that both 'Oumuamua and A10bAMz have the same nature, as I suggested in my 2018 paper (Could Solar Radiation Pressure explain 'Oumuamua's peculiar Acceleration?) with Shmuel Bialy.

That interpretation was fiercely disputed by SETI astronomers, even though they are supposed to be engaged with the search for extraterrestrial technological signatures in the sky.

Our ignorance about the 'known unknowns', namely recognized anomalies in scientific data, might be supplemented by 'unknown unknowns', namely additional anomalies that we do not notice in existing data.

Given this backdrop, a perspective of humility and curiosity would be far more appropriate than skepticism.

Labeling technological space objects as,

"dark comets with an invisible tail" is as inappropriate as naming koalas as "monkeys without a tail"...!

Calling a new animal by the name of another animal does not constitute new knowledge.

If the emperor has no clothes, we better admit it and not pretend to be the adults in the room by claiming that the clothes are invisible.

Why is common sense so controversial in academia?

Some of the academic behavior can be explained by the tendency to avoid extraordinary claims.

This argues for treating 'Oumuamua as a hydrogen or nitrogen iceberg and A10bAMz as an empty trash bag object until we have extraordinary evidence to justify a more consequential interpretation.

Unfortunately, the act of naming these objects as if they were familiar or less consequential, encourages other scientists to ignore them.

When consequential interpretations are treated as risky, most scientists choose not to deviate from the beaten path. Without investing time, effort and funds in collecting new data on unknown interstellar objects, we would never know their nature.

This is why it was essential to collect and analyze materials from the fireball site of the interstellar meteor, IM1.

Despite pushback, my research team published two extensive papers on these materials (here and here), and is currently engaged in isotope analysis work.

Academic tenure was established to provide job security for those scientists who are willing to take the risk of exploring the unknown.

However, most tenured scientists dance to the tunes of promotion and federal-funding committees, which are dominated by traditional echo chambers.

 

The current academic structure suppresses the efficiency of the curiosity-driven engine of scientific discovery.

As I argued in my first opinion essay (The Right Kind of Risk), published in Nature magazine in 2010, funding agencies should allocate a fraction of our resources to the support of risky research projects.

Optimistically, I believe that the future of science can be better than its past. In order to gain respect as an intelligent species, we must figure things out rather than give them names of familiar things.

As the physicist Richard Feynman observed:

"See that bird?

 

It's a brown-throated thrush, but in Germany it's called a Halzenfugel, and in Chinese they call it a Chung Ling and even if you know all those names for it, you still know nothing about the bird.

 

You only know something about people: what they call the bird."

Once we figure out the nature of dark things in the sky, we will end the dark age of science.

At that time, SETI astronomers might finally detect a radio signal stating:

"Welcome to the club of intelligent scientific civilizations...!"

The silence which triggered Fermi's paradox "Where is Everybody?", will be explained by our inability to properly interpret the ample evidence for what surrounds us.

Lonely people are those who do not recognize that their potential partners are standing right in front of them.