Listen to this PodcastMore 60-Second Science
“How do you know the moon is not made of green cheese?”
Theoretical physicist Sean Carroll at the ScienceWriters2011 conference in Flagstaff on October 17th.
“Well, we know the mass of the moon, the density and so forth, but don’t think that you fully understand the properties of lunar green cheese, this is very dense cheese. How do you know it’s not made of green cheese?
“The answer is that it’s absurd to think the moon is made of green cheese.
“And the formalization of that absurdity is that we are allowed to use other things we know about the universe when judging the plausibility of a hypothesis…we have a theoretical understanding of how the solar system works and how planets are formed that precludes the possibility that the moon is made of green cheese….
“This is not a proof, there is no metaphysical proof, like you can proof a statement in logic or math that the moon is not made of green cheese. But science nevertheless passes judgments on claims based on how well they fit in with the rest of our theoretical understanding.”
—Steve Mirsky
[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]
See what we're tweeting about
18 Comments
Add CommentSo we didn't get any rock samples when the 12 men landed on the moon?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd absorbtion spectra does not work with the moon? Seems to work with other planets, stars, and interstellar gases.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNOT made of cheese? Well that's a great relief.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow if we can just get America to start seeing evolution as science (and stop seeing religion as science), perhaps the public discourse on science can stop being about ridiculously stupid crapola (like how the moon isn't made of cheese and how "But I can't figure out how this could possibly have evolved!" does not constitute a scientific argument) and we can start talking about more important science topics - like how demanding "tangible benefits" of pure science before funding it is stupidly myopic and slows down innovation.
You mean beside the 841.5 pounds returned by the Apollo program?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, it's absorption, but anyway, absorption spectroscopy is done by shining a radiation source THROUGH a sample and analyzing what wavelengths are not transmitted. Shining anything other than a beam of neutrinos through the Moon would be tough.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thissame way we know the Earth wasn't created in 7 days! We also have a "theoretical understanding" of how life evolves over time, which precludes their sudden creation!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell this is gouda to know.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this(incidentally for those dicussing the astronauts bringing back samples, do you not get the point of the article?)
What the hell is/was the point of this story? What a waste of a web page. :( I want this two minutes of my life back please!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis could be a philosophy hypothesis--whether the world we live in is real or not.....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBecause if it were, people would be up there mining it like crazy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDuh.
Who cares. It would be stale by now anyway.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is a ridiculous argument, and it really makes me question the use of the word "Scientific" in "Scientific American".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDeciding what is worthy of testing before discounting a theory, based solely on the "other things we know" is the same sort of demented logic that led to the very firm belief that OF COURSE heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones, and why would ever even need to TEST that theory, you heretic?
If you haven't done the experiment, you can't state it as fact. Period. Full-stop.
That's science.
Hey, this is not a ridiculous argument, it is perfectly valid and highlights (in a simplified manner) one aspect of the scientific method. Maybe we have to question the scientific literacy of some of the commenters here ...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPugsley wrote: "Who cares. It would be stale by now anyway."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReally? At least it's stored in vacuum.
I wasn't aware that any part of the scientific method included "ahhh, that can't possibly be the case, so we'll just accept this condition as fact."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBoth my high school and college science instructors must've skipped that part of the curriculum. :-)
We can still debate the craters. Are they mostly magma bubbles or rock collision.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell...what can be called a proof is a question, ..?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm allergic to cheese...(seriously my lactose intolerance borders on lethal,anyway...), who's to say that a moon made of cheese is ludicrous, an advanced race of dairy farmers could have made one to leave behind as a gift for those that might follow...who aren't allergic to cheese, or if they were hostile they might have built it as a weapon...(and i have gone insane!) of course the density of the internal structure could transform cheese into a new substance...(mad ramble ends...)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this