By mathematician (and string theory skeptic) Peter Woit at Not Even Wrong:
It seems that Carroll was arguing that the multiverse shows that we need to change our thinking about what science is, adopting his favored “abduction” and “Bayesian reasoning” framework, getting rid of falsifiability. Using this method he arrives at a probability of the multiverse as “about 50%” (funny, but that’s the same number I’d use, as for any binary option where you know nothing). So, from the Bayesians we now have the following for multiverse probability estimates:
1. Carroll: “About 50%”
2. Polchinski: “94%”
3. Rees: “Kill my dog if it’s not true”
4. Linde: “Kill me if it’s not true”
5. Weinberg: “Kill Linde and Rees’s dog if it’s not true”
Not quite sure how one explains this when arguing with people convinced that science is just opinion. More.
The demand for a multiverse has nothing to do with probability or evidence. It is a way of dealing with the apparent fine-tuning of our universe for life (the counterargument is that there could be any number of such universes, and therefore there must be).
The multiverse proponents have everything to gain and nothing to lose in demanding an end to falsifiability (and evidence-based science). If their demands are met, science as we now understand it cannot last long. Countless pressure groups in science will demand the same exemptions, citing one or another claim for fairness and justice.
But everything comes to an end, and some ages are simply more interested in science as now understood than others.
See also: The multiverse: Where everything turns out to be true, except philosophy and religion
The war on falsifiability in science continues
Blueprint for non-evidence-based science
Follow UD News at Twitter!