Meta-Empirical Theory Assessment in the cosmic controversy

Meta-Empirical theory Assessment (MEA) argues that the way in which contemporary physical theories are evaluated has changed due to the progressive distancing of theory from observation. Richard Dawid proposed three methodological arguments as a means of capturing this "new" way of meta-empirically assessing theories of fundamental physics. Inflationary cosmology exemplifies a case where empirical evidence is scarce. In this field, Dawid claims that the synergy of his three arguments can justify relying on the limited empirical evidence to support the theory's viability. Based on the debate that arose from different interpretations of the Planck2013 satellite results, in this paper I examine what the "cosmic controversy" shows about MEA and vice versa. My central thesis is that MEA plays a legitimate role in theory confirmation within the early universe scenario. However, I argue that the inflation debate arose from methodological preconceptions - framed as a tension between empiricism and likelihoodism - to which MEA is not immune.