Sarah Scoles at the Smithsonian Magazine on the multiverse:
Astronomers are arguing about whether they can trust this untested—and potentially untestable—idea
Detailing the objections of those who want evidence, she then explains,
Other scientists say that the definitions of “evidence” and “proof” need an upgrade. Richard Dawid of the Munich Center for Mathematical Philosophy believes scientists could support their hypotheses, like the multiverse—without actually finding physical support. He laid out his ideas in a book called String Theory and the Scientific Method. Inside is a kind of rubric, called “Non-Empirical Theory Assessment,” that is like a science-fair judging sheet for professional physicists. If a theory fulfills three criteria, it is probably true.
First, if scientists have tried, and failed, to come up with an alternative theory that explains a phenomenon well, that counts as evidence in favor of the original theory. Second, if a theory keeps seeming like a better idea the more you study it, that’s another plus-one. And if a line of thought produced a theory that evidence later supported, chances are it will again.
Radin Dardashti, also of the Munich Center for Mathematical Philosophy, thinks Dawid is straddling the right track. “The most basic idea undergirding all of this is that if we have a theory that seems like it works, and we have come up with nothing that works better, chances are our idea is right,” he says.
But, historically, that undergirding has often collapsed, and scientists haven’t been able to see the obvious alternatives to dogmatic ideas. For example, the Sun, in its rising and setting, seems to go around Earth. People, therefore, long thought that our star orbited the Earth. More.
With so many people rethinking evolution, the Darwinians could use a theory that doesn’t require physical support too. And as for being on the wrong track, they should know as well as anyone that if they can clamp down hard enough on dissent, evidence-based support is superfluous.
See also: How and why there is a demand for a multiverse (its existence is optional).
and
The war on falsifiability
Follow UD News at Twitter!
You’re just setting yourself up for snarky comments from those of us on the other side of the debate, aren’t you?
as to:
Only when the competing theory, which explains the data much better, is unfairly kept from any consideration at all can they possibly imagine that there ‘nothing that works better’.
And if theism is rightly given a fair consideration in modern science instead of just being unfairly ruled out prior to consideration, i.e. methodological naturalism, then it is easy to see that Theism is the much better explanation for not only the fine tuning of the universe but also for many other foundational facets of the universe.
Methodological naturalism, the axiom of Materialism/Naturalism as it is applied to modern science, i.e. only materialistic/naturalistic answers are ever allowed, is the primary method of science taught in American universities. Yet, Materialism/Naturalism is not itself a finding of modern science but is a merely a unproven philosophy that is a-priorily imposed onto science. A completely unproven philosophy which makes the dogmatic assertion that only blind material processes generated the universe and everything in it, including ourselves.
Materialism is thus in direct opposition to Theism which holds that God purposely created this universe and everything in it, including holding that God created us in His image.
This dogmatic imposition of the philosophy of materialism, i.e. methodological naturalism, onto modern science is especially interesting since materialism had little to nothing to with the founding of modern science, but instead modern science was born out of the medieval Christian cultures of Europe by men who were by and large devoutly Christian in their beliefs.
Moreover science, or more particularly the scientific method, in reality, only cares to relentlessly pursue the truth and could care less if the answer turns out to be a materialistic one or not. Ironically, since truth itself is a transcendent entity which is not reducible to purely material/natural explanations then Methodological Naturalism actually precludes ‘the truth’ from ever being reached by science!
Imposing materialistic answers onto the scientific method beforehand, methodological naturalism, is especially problematic in these questions of origins, since we are indeed questioning the materialistic philosophy itself. i.e. We are asking the scientific method to answer this very specific question, “Did God create the universe and us or did blind material processes create the universe and us?” When we realize that this is the actual question we are seeking an answer to within the scientific method, then of course it is readily apparent we cannot impose strict materialistic answers onto the scientific method prior to investigation.
When looking at the evidence from modern science in this light we find out many interesting things which scientists, who have been blinded by the philosophy of materialism, miss.
This is because the materialistic and Theistic philosophy make, and have made, several natural contradictory predictions about what type of science evidence we will find.
These contradictory predictions, and the evidence we have found by modern science, can be tested against one another to see if either materialism or Theism is true.
Here are a few comparisons:
As you can see when we remove the artificial imposition of the materialistic philosophy (methodological naturalism), from the scientific method, and look carefully at the predictions of both the materialistic philosophy and the Theistic philosophy, side by side, we find the scientific method is very good at pointing us in the direction of Theism as the true explanation. – In fact science is even very good at pointing us to Christianity as the solution to the much sought after ‘theory of everything’
I love these criteria:
a) failed alternatives
b) ages well
c) fruitful analogy
Let’s see how this works. The existence of God certainly works better than atheism. It’s been around for 1000’s of years. It works well in forensics, law, medicine.. Yup, looks like God’s a winner.
What about the devil? Yup, it certainly works better than the alternatives (bad upbringing, bad chemicals). It’s been around 1000’s of years. Worked in forensics, law, medicine.. Another winner.
How about angels? …
Looks like the Enlightenment was just a bad dream after all.
Bob O’H: You’re just setting yourself up for snarky comments from those of us on the other side of the debate, aren’t you?
But you’re not really a Darwinist. You can admit it here.
What evidence/proof is should be reworked.
As in evolution it is apparent too many do not understand what scientific evidence is. Its got to be more then ordinary lines of reasoning. Which are just lines without imagination if they are right.
I always struggle to show evos and creos that evolution has no bio sci evidence behind it worthy to justify evolution as a sci thoery.
Indeed its hard to study/prove things done long ago and so are invisable.
Yet they must not clain evo has bio sci.
Mung @ 4 – No, I’m a neo-Darwinist. It’s Darwin with genes and maths!
I even have some of the maths on my whiteboard at the moment, so I’m feeling really sciency.