Steven Weinberg’s Explanation of the World and a Discussion of the True Story of Modern Cosmology

Should working physicists ever write books about the history of physics? Some historians say definitely not since, according to them, physic researchers do not usually provide an objective version of historical issues. However, it will be argued here that the specialists' view and analysis of the past is absolutely essential to complement that of historians in their own terms. To wit, even such a high-ranking figure as the last Steven Weinberg could not escape criticism from historians. Weinberg received strong criticism after the publication of his book “Explaining the World: The Discovery of Modern Science”, which he devoted to the history of physics from the ancient Greeks to the present day. He was accused of judging the past exclusively from the point of view of the present, that is, from what we now know with great certainty. The aim of the present article is to show, with the help of this example and another one, how is it possible to find a healthy balance between these two confronting attitudes. In particular, it will be sustained that most of the scientists about whom history books are written, were considerably more intelligent than many of us, the present-day scientists, in spite that they often said all kinds of nonsense—if we judge them from a current perspective, with all the knowledge we now have accumulated. The main thesis of the paper will be that great care should be taken in order to try to balance as much as possible these two diametrically opposed approaches, and moreover to show how this can be achieved, in practice. All this will be explained in detail, with the help of several important, specific situations. The main results obtained and an analysis of the practical implications of the outcome of the research carried out here will be given in the closing section.