tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5944248932558389199.post4510431915649852176..comments2024-02-15T19:40:29.872-08:00Comments on neopolitan's philosophical blog: A Finely Tuned Critique of Fine Tunersneopolitanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02501854905476808648noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5944248932558389199.post-6635816300896241302016-01-04T18:33:16.285-08:002016-01-04T18:33:16.285-08:00I'm not suggesting a grand conspiracy theory. ...I'm not suggesting a grand conspiracy theory. Just a small one. :)<br /><br />String theory is purely mathematical and have no testable claims at the moment, therefore it is not falsifiable. By Popper's (and mainstream science today) string theory is not science. "Theoretical physics" brushes with varying degrees with bona fide experimentally proven science. That's not to diminish the importance of "theoretical" work. It simply remains important and useful to separate out true science from other pursuits. <br /><br />There is a difference between theories like General Relativity and germ theory compared to string theory and multiverse. The former makes GPS satellites work and informs doctors how to treat pneumonia whereas the latter can only enchant a disenchanted population (a role once reserved for religion) and be used to solve the fine tuning problem. Do you see the difference? It's not just real world applications. It's experimental verification -- meaning verified theories are concepts of the mind that truly connect with material reality. That's why, when people try to elevate string theory or multiverse to the level of germ theory (etc.), we need to call this out as pseudoscience. Pseudoscience is not meant to be derogatory, but to call out masqueraders. I.e., you may choose to get "audited" by a scientologist, but don't tell me it's true science. <br /><br />FT may trouble some physicists and a handful of naturalists, but if it disappeared overnight, I doubt we would see mass deconversion. Most theists, even those well-aware of the God debate don't live their lives by arguments. It makes no sense to rehearse the fine tuning argument before praying, for example. Religious faith is provisional in a lifelong pursuit of truth, but at some point making the changes that a faith requires itself requires a commitment to seriously believe in God. Arguments serve to open the door. They can also close the door. But, no one actually counts off syllogisms before living their faith.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5944248932558389199.post-80276483068992597302016-01-03T23:07:12.312-08:002016-01-03T23:07:12.312-08:00>Karl Popper is considered an important figure ...>Karl Popper is considered an important figure in the philosophy of science. Philosophers of science have long wanted rational means to separate science from pseudoscience. How can we distinguish, say, astrology from astronomy and water divining from seismology?<br /><br />Efficacy and accuracy of the claims. Astrology and water diving can be tested and found critically wanting. But yes, falsifiability is good too :)<br /><br />However, the theories that you list are in quite different categories, multiverses arise out of string theory and string theory is falsifiable, if any claim it makes is found to be false, the theory gets either binned or revised, depending on the seriousness of the flaw.<br /><br />I think you go far too far by suggesting that ID and string theory are in the same league. It would seem (to me) that you are suggesting a grand conspiracy on the part of scientists and naturalists to cover up evidence for god. I don't think that is true at all, if your god left more hard evidence in support of its existence, then it would be part of science. The trouble is that the advance of science appears to be at the cost of claims on the part of god. Troubling for theists, but for atheists ... not so much.<br /><br />You go on to suggest that FT will "continue to haunt naturalists for years to come" - again, not true, I doubt that anyone who is a naturalist, including the vast majority of atheists, including strong atheists, would - if your god actually existed - to know that your god existed. The only thing that "haunts" us, perhaps, is that grossly ridiculous arguments are thought by some people to be supported by the limits of our scientific understanding in the area of what is labelled as "fine tuning".<br /><br />But then again, at the end of the day, it doesn't matter much really because even completely sincere and justifiable belief by some (how ever many or few of them there are) will not make their god into a reality.<br /><br />---<br /><br />Just to let you know, multiverses are "theoretical science". The challenge to some is to move it into evidentiary science, which we have been extraordinarily successful with some earlier hypotheses, but there's no guarantee that we'll ever be successful with multiverses and even if we do, it won't put theistic rumblings to bed, because theist will merely claim multiverses as yet more evidence of the supreme power of their god. It's happened before after all.neopolitanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02501854905476808648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5944248932558389199.post-34917327948691230992016-01-03T16:56:23.060-08:002016-01-03T16:56:23.060-08:00Dear Neopolitan,
I hope you don’t mind if I unpac...Dear Neopolitan,<br /><br />I hope you don’t mind if I unpack this some. Regarding multiverses, the best case scenario looks like this:<br />1. Inflation took place in cosmic history. This is supported by the uniformity of the cosmic microwave background and is considered a successful theory.<br />2. Inflation produced an infinite or very large number of bubble universes. Zero observational support. Some physicists say the laws of physics prohibit these observations.<br />3. Bubble universes have variable physical constants. Zero observational support. Some argue that string theory (which also has zero observation support) having 10^500 some odd solutions suggests the physical constants can vary by this order.<br /><br />Karl Popper is considered an important figure in the philosophy of science. Philosophers of science have long wanted rational means to separate science from pseudoscience. How can we distinguish, say, astrology from astronomy and water divining from seismology? The line between science and pseudoscience is called demarcation, and the problem of separating them is the demarcation problem. Popper’s solution to this problem is the criterion of falsifiability. A theory that is not falsifiable cannot be science. Therefore, according to Popper’s criterion, astrology, water divining, fortune cookies, psychoanalysis, and so on are on equal ground with string theory and multiverse theory because they are all equally unfalsifiable. <br /><br />It is arguable that ID is also pseudoscience because there does not seem to be a way to umambiguously falsify the existence of an Intelligent Designer. ID relies heavily on classical design arguments: it gives a strong appearance of design, therefore it was designed. But, how is this much different from: it looks like physical constants could be different, therefore the physical constants can be different.<br /><br />We could go on our happy way at this point, but apparently the fine tuning problem bothers some physicists. They have a new answer to the problem: multiverse. Do you doubt me? Listen to this:<br />“If you change [physical constants] by relatively small amounts, you end up with a universe that is not fit for life. This seems to suggest that the constants were fine-tuned by the Creator. . . The multiverse picture offers a different explanation. . . Intelligent observers exist only in those rare bubbles in which, by pure chance, the constants happen to be just right for life to evolve.” – Alexander Vilenkin in publication on Arxiv (http://arxiv.org/pdf/1108.4990v1.pdf)<br />Vilenkin is considered a premiere physicist, and this is published in a science journal, not a philosophy journal. In fact, your pal, William Lane Craig cites the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem as support for the cosmological argument for God. (Side note: Alan Guth was a major architect of inflation theory. Just goes to show that these are heavy weights). <br /><br />Again, we could all go our happy way, but the fine tuning problem bothers some naturalists even more. It’s no longer enough to refute the FT argument for God. It’s no longer enough to bring up multiverse as a potential remedy. Some naturalists want to loosen the standards of the philosophy of science to promote multiverse as bona fide science! (i.e., https://edge.org/response-detail/25322).<br /><br />So, fine tuning does not seem to me to be a gap waiting to be filled. Rather it seems to be a legitimate inflection point in the observable, testable universe just like the Big Bang, and self-consciousness that we must make use of in adopting a worldview. And, it will continue to haunt naturalists for years to come.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5944248932558389199.post-24809915408230030442016-01-01T18:16:54.431-08:002016-01-01T18:16:54.431-08:00Hi ANT,
I do understand your concerns. It does s...Hi ANT,<br /><br />I do understand your concerns. It does seem like some scientists are bound by an orthodoxy, but this is a perspective from the outside. All ideas are up for criticism, but this criticism has to be managed so that only the best, most well-informed criticism is responded to. It's a bit pointless to respond reflexively to vaguely worded criticism from the uninformed, even if this upsets the uninformed. (I know this because I have been guilty of such criticism myself - see the all the posts on the Reverse Monty Hall Problem - that was me being uninformed criticising those who were better informed and wasting everyone's time. Perhaps my delving into the Bertrand Paradox is more of the same.)<br /><br />What you do err in is your characterisation of multiverse theory. Multiverses just happen to fall out of string theory. They aren't raised to counter theistic fine-tuning. And some scientists claim to have some evidence in support of them, but I think we should be highly skeptical of such claims - particularly since the bulk of scientists are skeptical.<br /><br />In any event, FT isn't a problem. It's a puzzle to be solved. When (and if) it is solved, god will simply have retreated one more step into the gaps :) neopolitanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02501854905476808648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5944248932558389199.post-72414335923624760522016-01-01T15:09:09.554-08:002016-01-01T15:09:09.554-08:00The reason biologists are not interested in ID has...The reason biologists are not interested in ID has to do with orthodoxy and power. The new priests say that life exists by dumb luck, and this dogma raises huge issues, like what exactly does luck or accident really mean? How can we adjudicate this with reason? But, never mind those questions. In fact, forget about them. Just bow down and kiss the ring. The consequences of noncompliance or heresy are ostracism, career suicide, inability to get jobs or funding, and public smear campaigns.<br /><br />Personally, I find ID to be irrelevant. If the goal is defending theism, ID is a sideshow. It is the result of an establishment cornering fundamentalists and forcing them to think of newfangled ideas. Theisms stronger defenders are found in the theistic evolution camp. Or, theisms defenders don’t even need to reference the specifics of human origin, i.e. arguments for classical theism.<br /><br />On the other hand, FT truly is a problem to naturalists. Enough people are concerning that fine tuning points to an intentional universe to warrant summoning into existence something magical and enchanting, the multiverse. It’s also good for marketing magazines and TV shows because it literally does enchant the general public who find a spiritless universe drab and empty. When brave thinkers pointed out multiverse is pseudoscience, some naturalists responded by arguing we should simply redefine the boundaries of science to include it (more formally, to change the criteria of the demarcation problem in the philosophy of science). This is so curious. Just like fundamentalists were cornered, the staunch naturalists felt cornered by the FT problem. Feel cornered? Just invent a new idea or add new criteria to get the desired result. Anything but move towards a more agnostic position.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com