Is this the history of astronomy exhibition “From Babylon to Einstein”?
But it’s an empty building!
Originally we had a lot of exhibits but then the sceptic thought police came round!
They said you’re a science museum and a “Science Museum is meant to be about science (the clue is in the name), not about social or cultural history. It’s fine to include the history of science, of course, but in a way that is not contrary to science.”1
But where is the science? The Babylonians founded scientific astronomy so where are they?
They only made all of those astronomical observations and calculations to practice their omen astrology and that’s not science it’s Ju Ju so they had to go.
And the Greeks where are Hipparchos and Ptolemaeos?
Well Hipparchos got all his stuff from those superstitious Babylonians so he had to go and Ptolemaeos, well he’s one of the worst. Not only did he propagate geocentrism, which is obviously ridiculously anti-scientific he even claimed that astrology was a science on a par with astronomy! No chance, he had to go.
What about the Islamic astronomers didn’t they criticise Ptolemaeos?
All the same not only a bunch of astrologers but their whole astronomy was based on the correct determination of the times to pray! Religion has got nothing to do with science so they went.
And what’s with the Renaissance astronomers who laid the foundations of modern astronomy?
A bunch of superstitious idiots who just wanted to save their ridiculous astrology; couldn’t have any of them in a science exhibition.
Copernicus? He at least threw out geocentrism.
First of all he wanted to save the Platonic axiom a completely unjustified and unscientific a priori assumption defending circular orbits when everybody knows that they are ellipses. Then he justifies his heliocentrism with a quote from Hermes Trismegistus a nonexistent propagator of more woo than you pack into an articulated truck. He had to go.
Do me a favour! The Sun is God the fixed stars are Jesus and the space in between is the Holy Ghost the man wasn’t a scientist but a religious fanatic.
And his three laws?
They’re not scientific as he forgot to take mass into consideration.
Newton. Newton had mass and mathematical laws and scientific method and… You could at least have Newton here.
Well to have Newton we would have had to include his three laws and he took the third one from an alchemy book, not very scientific that.
Einstein, you can’t have any problems with Einstein. Relativity is pure science.
Well first there was the problem with the cosmological constant. You can’t just add factors to your theories to make them fit your assumptions, very unscientific that. Then there was Eddington, fudged the results of his solar eclipse observations in order to confirm Einstein’s theory. You can’t get more unscientific than that so Einstein had to go as well.
But there’s nothing left it’s just an empty building.
I know but at least the exhibition is thoroughly scientific. Enjoy the show.
1) The sceptical thought police statement is a slightly modified comment (I removed the typing mistakes) quoted by Rebekah Higgitts in her post What are science museums for? at Whewell’s Ghost about the latest intertubes’ pseudo-science brouhaha.