Peter Woit on what’s wrong with Jerry Coyne’s argument for a multiverse
|December 13, 2017||Posted by News under Fine tuning, Multiverse|
Facebook and YouTube, he says.
The Youtube video he found makes the standard tenuous argument that the CMB provides evidence for inflation, inflation should be eternal, thus there should be a multiverse. As I explained in detail here, the models of inflation one supposedly has “evidence” for are not models that lead to the kind of multiverse of different physical laws that Coyne needs for his argument with religion.
I should make it clear that I’m on Coyne’s side in the argument of evolution vs. religion, but scientists arguing on the basis of science should take care that they’re using good science if they don’t want to discredit themselves. And, as a general rule for anyone who cares about what’s true and what isn’t, looking for things on Facebook or Youtube that help your side of an argument is now an extremely bad idea. More.
But that begs the question of why Coyne is going to social media for arguments. Are there any good arguments for a multiverse that beat social media’s Gotta Be True!? Does Woit not realize that it amounts to an evidence-lite/evidence-free approach to science?
See also: Post-modern physics: String theory gets over the need for evidence
The multiverse is science’s assisted suicide
Question for multiverse theorists: To what can science appeal, if not evidence?