#i love astronomy history and so reading such a deep dive of it was greatttt

[oflgtfol]

The Human Cosmos is a book that has overall made me very conflicted. The first half or so was mainly just discussing the intersection of astronomy and human history, a really engaging mix of anthropology, religion, politics, history, and astronomy. But as the central thesis of the book began to uncover itself to me, the more conflicted I got.

In the final chapter of the book, Marchant herself clearly states what the thesis is: "This book has followed how, in the Western world at least, we have inexorably removed personal experience from our understanding of the universe." And I think that's an engaging idea of its own right, and in simple terms I do agree as well. There is absolutely something lost when we remove the tangible aspects of astronomy, the actual senses of our own bodies as we stargaze and navigate the world around us, and rely solely on instruments and data. But like, we still need those instruments and data to learn more beyond the limitations of our bodies. And Marchant does make sure to include that qualification, but she seems more like she's conceding rather than actually believing in both things being true. And so something about it just doesn't sit entirely right with me.

The final few chapters in particular she seems to bring up the idea of credulity vs. skepticism (which is so funny since the last book I read was Sagan's The Demon Haunted World which was basically entirely about credulity vs. skepticism, those exact words even), or sometimes phrased as subjectivity vs. objectivity. But she seems to give like, way too much faith in credulity/subjectivity? Something about the tone seems to act like skepticism and objectivity are like, boring, as it takes away the magic of navigating the cosmos through our minds and bodies; or that skepticism is like, mean, because actual scientists believe life exists on Mars but oh these skeptics keep coming up with alternate explanations (which is so. ??? to me. life on Mars is such a bold claim you need steadfast proof to hold up to scrutiny and skepticism, if your evidence can be explained through nonbiological means, then that's not skeptical scientists being mean or anything, it's just being rigorous and diligent?) And one chapter in particular just gave a lot of credence to certain ideas that could lead into actual pseudoscience, which also made me a bit uncomfortable; ie, the idea of the Moon being able to actually affect human beings in significant ways. This idea is one I don't have strong opinions about, as I believe ultimately it's a question for biology and not astronomy, since there are soooo many factors behind the Moon that could potentially cause biophysical effects (are we talking gravity, tides, 30-day cycles, phases, just brightness in general?), but the way Marchant was wording the proponents in Moon-affecting-humans vs. skeptics, just felt like it could veer very well into like, astrology, especially because at one point in a single sentence she said something about how if the Sun, Moon, and the Earth's magnetic field, all can affect life on Earth, then why not the stars (I'm paraphrasing). And whatever, yes, she absolutely is correct in citing all these scientific studies of those celestial bodies and phenomena very much actually affecting biorhythms in multiple species including human beings, but like, there is a huge difference between the things that are huge and visible in our sky and are actually located inside of our solar system, vs. pinpricks of light in the sky that are located trillions upon trillions upon trillions of miles away from us. And to her credit, she doesn't follow through on that line of thought beyond just that one single sentence, but it just dealt a heavy heavy blow of doubt to my ability to give her the benefit of doubt, and it became easier for me to disagree with her about everything else that wasn't sitting entirely right with me this whole time.

I know a part of me being baffled by this is how I just came from The Demon-Haunted world which took such a strong stand against credulity and which I had pretty much zero disagreements with at any point throughout the book (pretty much the entire experience was just staring at each page and shouting "yes! you get it!") so I am trying to keep an open mind and accept other viewpoints to this as well, but also I am just really stuck on the weird tone to these last few chapters.

And now, here in the final chapter, Marchant moves away from the credulity vs. skepticism concept again and moves back into the main thesis, the removal of personal experience from scientific missions. Which again, I agree with that, that there's something lost in doing so, but also again, something in her tone made me uncomfortable with fully agreeing with her, and it finally set off the alarm with this passage:

"Until a few years ago, scientists ignored [the] more human side of stargazing, preferring to leave such musings for artists and poets to explore. Now, though, they are fasting realizing that far from being merely aesthetic, direct contact with the cosmos can have profound, practical effects for our mental health, and how we choose to live."

It just does not sit right with me that she is presenting science as this cold, sterile, inhuman and unlively thing that we indulge in our quest for Cold Hard Knowledge, and how she presents it almost as the opposite of emotions and human connection! The idea of advances in technology having led to modern science, particularly astronomy, becoming estranged from the lived human experience due to the reliance on instruments, tools, and institutions to do research, rather than your own hands, eyes, and backyard - that is an intriguing idea, and one that I definitely agree with and love to ponder! It's something that I grappled with as well in my own life and my own path in astronomy, how I fell in love with a certain idea of astronomy which conflicted with my experience as a college student.

But god damn if astronomers don't also love the work they do? I find it kind of insulting to insist otherwise?! As if astronomers themselves aren't the ones hosting dark sky parties for lay people to look through their giant telescopes, because astronomers themselves know the human importance of seeing these celestial objects with your human eye? "Scientists ignored the more human side of stargazing" as if stargazing, in and of itself, no matter what side of it you look at, isn't intrinsically human? As if astronomers aren't the absolute nerds we are and constantly trying to get lay people to stargaze with us? As if astronomers aren't the people championing for an annual dark sky night despite the insistence of everyone else that oh we can't possibly shut our fucking lights off at night. Every time I get home from work after sunset, my mom asks me why it took so long for me to get to the front door after she heard the sound of my car door closing, and it's always because I had glanced up at the sky and gotten stuck there for five minutes just looking up at the stars. The last time I was outside at night with my parents with me I pointed out the Summer Triangle to them and was explaining the three star names and the constellations they're inside of.

Sorry I'm just utterly baffled at the idea of astronomers being uncaring over the loss of dark skies across the world, of astronomers just shrugging their shoulders and saying "ugh, whatever, we got other telescopes we can use instead, who cares" (in my experience, the only people who act like that are the "space nerds" on the internet who are not actually involved in the field in any official capacity). And I'm baffled at the idea of scientists not being utterly enamored with the night sky and the very subject we dedicate our lives to, that like what, with the modern development of advanced technology and instrumentation that also alienates us from the night sky, that also means we ourselves become increasingly sterile, cold, uncaring, boring, on a personal level? That there's some sort of fundamental contrast between science and humanity, as if science isn't an intrinsically human endeavor in and of itself?

Yes, there's something to be said about this alienation that comes about with the reliance on machines and institutions, rather than your own personal senses and experiences, and I personally believe (as well as like, any sane astronomer otherwise) that science, and astronomy in particular, needs to have a balance of both to hit the sweet spot (personal experience, to feel the true passion and heart behind why we do what we do, to really fall in love with what you study; instrumentation, to learn of the things that exist beyond our limited, human senses), but to try to pin the blame on the scientists themselves is just a bit mean-spirited, and well, honestly, bad faith to me, as well, considering the earlier credulity vs. skepticism and subjective vs. objective arguments brought up earlier in the book. Skepticism and objectivity is necessary in science and I really don't give a fuck what you think, and no, that does not make science cold, sterile, inhuman - that makes science science, and it's what helps us separate the truth from misconceptions, and giving any sort of lenience to credulity and subjectivity beyond just the idea of "emotions can and should go hand in hand with logic and reason, because the two are not mutually exclusive, because human beings contain multitudes" honestly also gives lenience to pseudoscientific ideas like astrology, or "UFOlogy" or whatever else. And in an increasingly anti-intellectual, anti-science world, I'm finding that I have less and less tolerance for this kind of indulgence, which is why I'm annoyed enough to be sitting here writing an entire essay about this lol