When studying space phenomena, astronomers think first of all about Earth. This is especially true of studies of other planets in the solar system that allow us to better understand our own cosmic home
It is often argued that science does not give us credible knowledge about the world, that its conclusions seem to be unreliable.
In this connection, we will consider the question of the credibility of those scientific data about the universe, which are one of the most important elements of the modern scientific picture of the world. These data also play a paramount role in shaping the worldview of man: for worldview, as we already know, is the attitude of man to the world, awareness of his place in it.
This example is especially illustrative because, at first glance, from the totality of knowledge that science has, knowledge of space objects and cosmic processes is the least reliable.
In fact, almost all astronomical data are obtained through the study of the various radiation coming to us from space, the analysis and interpretation of the information that nature itself contains. But such indirect research is quite a challenge. There is a chain of many links between the physical process taking place in space and the conclusions of scientists observing this process from Earth. And in the transition from each of them to the next, there are certain mistakes, inaccuracies, and incorrect conclusions.
And to test something directly the way it is done, say, in physics or chemistry, is not possible.
In addition, the astronomer often not only observes the phenomenon itself, but only the change that this distant cosmic phenomenon causes in a device that detects, say, the deflection of an arrow or the blackening of a photographic plate, or a curved line drawn on a tape recorder. And on the basis of these changes, he must be based on a particular model, draw conclusions about the nature of the phenomenon being studied. However, the relationship between the readings of astronomical instruments and the nature of a particular cosmic process may not be straightforward. The same metrics can, in general, be caused by quite different phenomena occurring in the universe.
Therefore, when interpreting the results of particular astronomical observations, it is often possible to have different explanations for the same facts, and therefore different conclusions about their nature.
Does all this mean that the conclusions drawn from astronomical studies cannot be trusted? And the broader question is: Are remote studies generally able to provide credible information about the outside world?
To answer these questions, you must be able to check the data you have obtained. In recent years, due to the rapid development of space rocket technology and the successful development of outer space, this opportunity has finally emerged.
In our eyes, "cosmic astronomy" was born: with the help of spacecraft, measuring and television equipment is delivered directly to the regions of nearby celestial bodies and to their surface. The findings of such research make it possible to compare the knowledge of planets of the solar system, carefully accumulated by many generations of astronomers, with new "space information".
Of course, space exploration methods make it possible to get more additional information than terrestrial astronomy, especially about the details of various phenomena in the world of planets. But as a whole, as it turned out, they not only did not refute the general system of ideas about the solar system, formed on the basis of astronomical research but, on the contrary, confirmed its validity. This is an extremely important fact, the significance of which goes far beyond planetary astronomy. He testifies that, despite the remote nature, astronomical studies give us probable knowledge of the universe.
It should also be noted that there is no fundamental difference between the process of scientific knowledge of space objects and the process of knowledge in other natural sciences, say, in particle physics.
And in physics, there is much inaccessible to our direct intervention - in general, in any science at some stage of its development have their "limits of direct accessibility". But in these sciences, as in astronomy, similar boundaries are successfully overcome.
To be continued in the next part https://zen.yandex.ru/media/id/5d92f1673d873600b11d9f29/the-need-for-astronomical-knowledge-part-2-5d9469c0e6cb9b00b2586620