Keywords
Hubble Tension
How to Cite
Abstract
The paper examines how conceptual disunity in robustness analysis (RA) can generate contradictory interpretations of the Hubble tension, the discrepancy between independent measurements of the universe’s expansion rate. I will consider different philosophical accounts of robustness and how they apply to cosmological practice. I then demonstrate how each framework validates conflicting conclusions. More specifically, I show how Levins’ model comparison, Woodward’s measurement invariance, and Weisberg’s representational accounts each justify different interpretations of whether systematic errors or new physics explain the tension.
References
Di Valentino, Said, et al. (2025: Addressing observational tensions in cosmology with systematics and fundamental physics, Physics of the Dark Universe, 1-416).
Liddle (2015: An introduction to modern cosmology, John Wiley & Sons).
Agahim, Akrami, et al. (2020: Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 641, A6).
Riess, Yuan, et al. (2022: A comprehensive measurement of the local value of the Hubble constant with 1 km s−1Mpc−1 uncertainty from the Hubble Space Telescope and the SH0ES Team, The Astrophysical Journal, 934(1), L7).
Wong, Suyu, et al. (2019: H0LiCOW XIII. A 2.4% measurement of H0 from lensed quasars: 5.3σ tension between early and late-Universe probes, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 498(1), 1420-1439).
Pesce, Braatz, et al. (2020: The Megamaser Cosmology Project. VIII. A geometric distance to NGC 5765b, The Astrophysical Journal, 891(1), L1).
Cuceu, Farr et al. (2019: Baryon acoustic oscillation and the Hubble constant: past, present and future. Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2019(10), 044).
Levins (1966: The strategy of model building in population biology, American Scientist, 54(4), 421-431).
Woodward (2006: Sensitive and robust scientific inference, Philosophy of Science, 13(2), 219-240).
Riess, Scolnic, et al., (2024: JWST Validates HST Distance Measurements: Selection of Supernova Subsample Explains Differences in JWST Estimates of Local H0. The Astrophysical Journal, 977(1), 120).
Weisberg and Reisman (2008: Robustness analysis, philosophy of science, 75(1), 106-131).
Orzack and Sober (1993: How to be a successful error theorist: the case of Levins' model of robustness, Philosophy of Science, 60(4), 531-550).
Wimsatt (1981: Robustness, reliability, and overdetermination, in: Characterizing the robustness of science: After the practice turn in philosophy of science (2012), 61-87, Springer).
Freedman, Madore, et al. (2019: The Carnegie-Chicago Hubble Program. VIII. An independent determination of the Hubble constant based on the tip of the red giant branch, The Astrophysical Journal, 882(1), 34).
Gardner, Mather, et al. (2023: The James Webb Space Telescope Mission, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 135(1048), 068001).
Matarese, McCoy (2024: When "replicability" is more than just "reliability": The Hubble constant controversy, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 107, 1-10).
Riess, Anand, et al. (2024: JWST observations reject unrecognized crowding of cepheid photometry as an explanation for the hubble tension at 8σ confidence, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 962(1), L17).
Freedman, Madore, et al. (2024: Status report on the Chicago-Carnegie Hubble Program (CCHP): Three independent astrophysical determinations of the Hubble constant using the James Webb Space Telescope, The Astrophysical Journal, 985(2), 203).
Perivolaropoulos (2024: Hubble tension or distance ladder crisis?, Physical Review D, 110(12), 123518).
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2025 Marco Forgione