Yes, we know. It’s complicated. Science writer John Horgan might have expected some pushback from his advice to Skeptics: Bash Bigfoot less, pop science more, and he got his wish (!) via Steven Novella at Neurologica blog:
Horgan gives a very superficial analysis, in my opinion to the point of being wrong. He claims they [multiverse, string theory] are not falsifiable, therefore they are pseudoscientific, “Like astrology.” For those of you playing logical fallacy bingo, that is a false analogy. There are many problems with astrology that do not apply to string theory.
Indeed. Astrology eventually became testable* and flunked. It’s not clear that the multiverse or the computer sim universe will ever become testable.
The “non-falsifiable” criticism has been raised, numerous times, by skeptics, and the implications of this have been discussed at length. Briefly, it is true that string theory and the multiuniverse theory are not currently testable, and therefore they are not complete sciences unto themselves. But they do attempt to give insights into what the deeper realities of the physical universe might be by exploring mathematical models for internal consistency, the ability to explain what we already know, and elegance.
If they are not evidence-based and testable, they are not sciences. It is that simple. How did this ever even become a discussion anyway?
They will ultimately come to nothing if we cannot find some way to test them, but that does not mean they serve no purpose now. More.
The trouble is, they do indeed serve a purpose. They keep a high level of evidence-free naturalist nonsense flowing through the sciences, while subtly importing from the top down a new value system that privileges naturalism over evidence. Maybe some like it that way.
* Apart from astronomy issues, astrology must be difficult to test when everyone believes it. We might then act as if it were true, thus making it seem true.
For example. If kings are told that a certain conjunction of signs means that kings go to war, they might declare war to give themselves an edge on what they believe other kings will do. Real life experimental disconfirmation would hardly be easy… It’s a wonder it ever happened!
See also: Stop presses: “Moral molecule” another pop science scam Why not wait till findings have been replicated? Oh, wait … there’d be much more trustworthy science, sure, but far less of it overall.
Follow UD News at Twitter!
5 Replies to “Skeptic fights back against skepticism about skeptics”
But they do attempt to give insights into what the deeper realities of the physical universe might be by exploring mathematical models for internal consistency, the ability to explain what we already know, and elegance.
Why do we value these things? What are the hidden metaphysical and theological underpinnings of string theory and multiverse theory.
We can ask that, because we know they are not empirical.
I am all for any sort of science that helps expose science for what it really is.
The hidden metaphysical underpinning of multiverse theory, is to conceive of choosing in terms of sorting out the best result.
This is to conceive of choosing as like a chesscomputer calculates the next move, where the chesscomputer is forced to do what it does, and it couldn’t have turned out any other way.
It is hammered into people’s brains by society, by parents, school, government, your job, people’s own ideals, to always do your best. That’s what leads people to conceive of choosing in terms of sorting out the best result.
The correct definition of choosing is for the spirit to make an alternative future the present.
And so with multiverse theory the scientists are obeying this psychologically deeply engrained command to do their best. This is why they propose that in stead of there being 2 futures to 1 present, there are in stead 2 universes. In each universe then everything is forced, which means like the chesscomputer, in each universe everything is calculated in terms of what is best.
Of note: To be ‘mathematically consistent’ with the multiuniverse theory the atheist/naturalist would have to believe in fluffy pink unicorns dancing on rainbows.
In the ultimate logical backfire of all history, the materialistic/atheistic conjecture of an infinity of universes to try to ‘explain away’ the fine tuning of this universe insures, through the ontological argument, the 100% probability of the existence of God:
Simply put, the atheist cannot argue it is logically impossible for God to exist when he has already conceded that it is logically possible for an infinity of other possible worlds to exist.
Also of note to the supposed ‘mathematical consistency’ of string theory:
One final note to atheists/naturalists. The Christian founders of modern science called and they want their science back since you have now completely ruined it: