This book addresses foundational questions raised by observational and theoretical progress in modern cosmology. As the foundational volume of an emerging academic discipline, experts from relevant fields lay out the fundamental problems of contemporary cosmology and explore the routes toward finding possible solutions, for a broad academic audience.

Did the universe originate from a "big bang" as argued by leading astrophysicists and others? Or does some other theory more accurately describe its beginnings? Are there other forms of life in the universe? What about other universes? This volume discusses these and other topics in this hotly debated area where philosophy and science meet.

This book is a collection of contributions examining cosmology from multiple perspectives. It presents articles on traditional Native American and Chinese cosmologies and traces the historical roots of western cosmology from Mesopotamia and pre-Socratic Greece to medieval cosmology.

by Sir Karl Popper This is a great book, and an exciting book. I say so even though I happen to dis agree with the author in many minor points and one or two major points. Some of the minor points are merely terminological, and therefore very minor. I dislike the term 'dialectic', because of its use since Hegel and Marx; and I dislike the term 'gravitism', perhaps without a good reason. Thus I dislike the name which Professor Gal-Or has given to his theory. But the theory seems to me a great and a very beauti ful theory, so far as I can judge. Other minor points of disagreement are connected with Gal-Or's original and remarkable views of the great philosophers, including Spinoza and Kant. A major point of disagreement is that Gal-Or, following Einstein, is a scientific determinist, while I cannot but regard determinism as a modem super stition. Of course, he may be right and I may be completely mistaken. I mention these critical points rather in order to emphasize how strongly I am impressed by Professor Gal-Or's great book. Even in the very unlikely case that, wherever we disagree, he should be in the wrong and I right, even if that should be the case (which is improbable in the extreme), it would remain a great book: readable, worth reading and enlightening; with a most fascinating cosmological story of time, expansion, and gravitation.

This handbook provides both an overview of state-of-the-art scholarship in philosophy of science, as well as a guide to new directions in the discipline. Section I contains broad overviews of the main lines of research and the state of established knowledge in six principal areas of the discipline, including computational, physical, biological, psychological and social sciences, as well as general philosophy of science. Section II covers what are considered to be the traditional topics in the philosophy of science, such as causation, probability, models, ethics and values, and explanation. Section III identifies new areas of investigation that show promise of becoming important areas of research, including the philosophy of astronomy and astrophysics, data, complexity theory, neuroscience, simulations, post-Kuhnian philosophy, post-empiricist epistemology, and emergence. Most chapters are accessible to scientifically educated non-philosophers as well as to professional philosophers, and the contributors - all leading researchers in their field -- bring diverse perspectives from the North American, European, and Australasian research communities. This volume is an essential resource for scholars and students.

Dark matter is a fundamental component of the standard cosmological model, but in spite of four decades of increasingly sensitive searches, no-one has yet detected a single dark-matter particle in the laboratory. An alternative cosmological paradigm exists: MOND (Modified Newtonian Dynamics). Observations explained in the standard model by postulating dark matter are described in MOND by proposing a modification of Newton's laws of motion. Both MOND and the standard model have had successes and failures – but only MOND has repeatedly predicted observational facts in advance of their discovery. In this volume, David Merritt outlines why such predictions are considered by many philosophers of science to be the 'gold standard' when it comes to judging a theory's validity. In a world where the standard model receives most attention, the author applies criteria from the philosophy of science to assess, in a systematic way, the viability of this alternative cosmological paradigm.