It’s exhausting, truly exhausting. I am a person who really likes science (not to be confused with Scientologist), I celebrate its advances and I try to stay reasonably informed about it. And I am quite happy to see what seems to be a growing interest on the part of society towards it. To this, undoubtedly, it contributes that many mass media echo milestonesas is the recent case of the James Webb.
I am, however, very aware of my limitations and, even more, of the responsibility of each one of the letters that I write in what I publish. A custom that I am lucky enough to share with all the colleagues in this house and that I see in many other communication professionals. In many, but not all, and this refers both to professionals in particular and to certain media in general. In those cases, clickbait and even incorrect but striking information are usually protagonists..
And these days we are seeing one more case of such unfortunate and habitual behaviour, given that a good number of media outlets they are claiming that the images captured by the James Webb contradict the Big Bang theory, that is, the most widespread and accepted of the theories that would explain the origin of the Universe. This, if true, would be more than relevant news, as it would force us to rethink the investigation into its origin. If it were true, of course. The problem is that it is not.
The theories (and in many cases calling them theories is generous, since they do not even reach conjecture) that try to discredit the Big Bang have been common for decades, I remember reading the first one back in the mid-eighties, and in general it is positive that they are raised, as long as it is rigorous. The problem comes when without the slightest basis, but to draw attention, random elements are taken, not related to each other, and from them conclusions are reached that are not actually supported based on the argued data.
As I said before, in recent days we have been able to see multiple publications that indicate that some images captured by the James Webb deny the Big Bang. But this is not true at all. What some images have done is question certain conclusions about the effects of the Big Bang on the formation of the Universe. Something that not only is not strange, but was actually more than imaginable.
Let’s look at it in reverse to understand it better. Throughout its history, human beings have deepened their knowledge of the human body and its interactions with other forms of life. Due to the technical limitations of each moment, the evolution of said knowledge has been taking place progressively. Girolamo Fracastoro theorized, in 1530, about a kind of “invisible seeds” that caused the spread of some diseases. And it wasn’t until more than a century later, in 1659, that Athanasius Kircher was able to observe bacteria for the first time. And it took another 15 years for Anthony Van Leeuwenhoek to confirm the discovery, back in 1674.
Advances in the means used are a key element in the evolution of science and, most likely, its use will lead to corrections on the original theory. Kircher was able to unravel what those invisible seeds pointed out by Fracastoro were. He did not amend the previous theory, he updated it, and that is something that has been repeated many times over the years. Until the mid-1980s, it was unknown that there was a bacterium (Helicobacter pylori) capable of surviving the extreme conditions found in the human stomach.
Images taken by the James Webb they tell us that there are a much higher number of ancient galaxies than previously predicted, but instead of understanding that this is questioning the theory about the effects of the Big Bang and the initial formation of the Universe, they have decided that it is much more striking to affirm that this new data does not fit with the Big Bang theory. Why? Well, as is often said among the youngest, because potatoes. Or because clickbait, actually.
With information from Cnet
