Fine Tuning and the Intellectual Necessity

_{Cornelius Hunter

March 16, 2010

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

You have probably heard about the multiverse–the idea that the universe is really a large number of universes. The multiverse helps to explain why our particular universe seems so special. Our universe seems to be a finely tuned machine and the evolution of life would require low probability events. Is our universe special? The multiverse helps to deflect such thinking. If there is a large number of universes, then perhaps each has a different set of natural laws. And perhaps intelligent life can only be supported by a very particular set of laws. So the only life forms that would exist to observe their universe would be those that live in special universes. Presto, we’re not special and fine tuning and evolution are explained. Read more

Comments

Clive Hayden @ 11
Of course, that’s your philosophy, isn’t it? It’s called Pragmatism, and it need not have any bearing on real truth whatsoever, only on functionality.
I think it's also called instrumentalism but it amounts to pretty much the same thing. I believe there is an objective reality out there but our access to it is limited to the data we can acquire with our limited physical senses augmented by such instrumentalities as we have been able to create so far. To make sense of this data we try tying it together with various explanatory frameworks or narratives. It's a bit like one of those join-the-dots drawings where bits of data we gather are the dots. The problem is we don't know what the picture is supposed to be. All we can do is try joining the dots together in different ways and see if we can come up with at least part of a picture. If we're on the right track, the picture that's suggested by the dots we have should point us towards where other dots can be found. If we find those dots where they're supposed to be then we may be on to something. Learning how the world works is probably vital to our prospects for survival as a species. Or that same knowledge could be used to destroy us.. The obvious example is atomic theory. It offered the prospect of far more energy than can be got from fossil fuels. It was also used to flatten Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Does either of those applications mean that atoms don't exist? Of course they don't. The Universe is the way it is. Whatever mistakes we make with such knowledge as we have acquired are our own fault not that of the knowledge itself.Seversky_{March 17, 2010
March
03
Mar
17
17
2010
06:37 PM
6
06
37
PM
PDT}

Sev, And exactly how does The refutation of the steady state model help your atheistic-materialistic position? Methinks you are clearly barking up the wrong tree of the forest you don't see.bornagain77_{March 17, 2010
March
03
Mar
17
17
2010
06:26 PM
6
06
26
PM
PDT}

bornagain77 @ 10
When Sir Fred Hoyle discovered the stunning precision with which carbon is synthesized in stars he stated: “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”
His theory of carbon nucleosynthesis was unquestionably a great triumph in his field. Unfortunately, the evidence is that he was wrong about the steady state universe, a theory also in his field. So how much weight should we give to Fred "Junkyard Tornado" Hoyle's opinions on questions of biology, which was not his field?Seversky_{March 17, 2010
March
03
Mar
17
17
2010
06:04 PM
6
06
04
PM
PDT}

Seversky (#9) You say,
If, God forbid, you or a loved one were ever stricken with a serious illness, you wouldn’t be asking if the philosophical basis of a treatment was well-founded or if our reliance on methodological naturalism is justified. The only questions you would be asking are, ‘Does it work?’ and, if it does, ‘How well does it work?’ because, as Nakashima implied, that’s what counts.
If I understand correctly, you are approving this point of view here. Two aspects of this appear ironic to me. First, that attitude would have little or no patience for questions such as, "What is the history of life?" With that attitude one could not object to full-blown creationism, let alone intelligent design. Yet you have used considerable bytes explaining your passionate disagreement with such theories. What gives? Second, as Clive (#11) mentioned, there remains the question of what goals are worth expending energy for. How does your pragmatism deal with these questions? I say this as someone who has some sympathy with pragmatism in medicine. Even assuming that unguided evolution is true, one does not need to believe in, or even understand, macroevolution (let alone megaevolution) to do well on National Boards, or to practice what is generally recognized as good medicine. Nor is an understanding of, or belief in, ID a requirement. The editorial by Schwartz in the NEJM is simply off base.Paul Giem_{March 17, 2010
March
03
Mar
17
17
2010
07:51 AM
7
07
51
AM
PDT}

Seversky:
The only questions you would be asking are, ‘Does it work?’ and, if it does, ‘How well does it work?’ because, as Nakashima implied, that’s what counts.
Nakashima is not an authority on investigations. Also "how did it come to be this way? is a very important question.Joseph_{March 17, 2010
March
03
Mar
17
17
2010
04:27 AM
4
04
27
AM
PDT}

Seversky:
What is askew is the apparent inability of ID proponents to distinguish between biology, cosmology and philosophy.
What a crock. The point is that the evidence ID extends beyond biology Seversky. This debate extrends beyond biology Seversky. IOW Seversky ID doesn't just pick on evolution.Joseph_{March 17, 2010
March
03
Mar
17
17
2010
04:25 AM
4
04
25
AM
PDT}

A multiverse does nothing to ID because no one says thedesigner(s) is (are) limited to designing one universe.Joseph_{March 17, 2010
March
03
Mar
17
17
2010
04:23 AM
4
04
23
AM
PDT}

Seversky,
The only questions you would be asking are, ‘Does it work?’ and, if it does, ‘How well does it work?’ because, as Nakashima implied, that’s what counts.
Of course, that's your philosophy, isn't it? It's called Pragmatism, and it need not have any bearing on real truth whatsoever, only on functionality. We could turn it around and ask the same question of whether a "treatment" like lethal injection "works" to its intended purpose of killing folks, or if a biological weapon works in killing lots of folks, and if they do, then that's what counts. That's methodological naturalistic pragmatism for you. Whatever works works for the philosophical purpose of working. Is that the only question you would be asking in biological warfare?Clive Hayden_{March 16, 2010
March
03
Mar
16
16
2010
08:36 PM
8
08
36
PM
PDT}

When Sir Fred Hoyle discovered the stunning precision with which carbon is synthesized in stars he stated: "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.” Michael Denton - We Are Stardust - Uncanny Balance Of The Elements - Fred Hoyle Atheist to Theist - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4003877/michael_denton_we_are_stardust_fine_tuning_of_the_elements_fred_hoyle_atheist_to_theist/bornagain77_{March 16, 2010
March
03
Mar
16
16
2010
07:09 PM
7
07
09
PM
PDT}

CannuckianYankee @ 5
It’s interesting though that the Darwinians should appeal to something for which they have no natural evidence in order to do science that is predicated on natural evidence. I find that hard to fathom. Something is askew in their thinking.
What is askew is the apparent inability of ID proponents to distinguish between biology, cosmology and philosophy. Fine-tuning is a question in cosmology. Neither Darwin's original theory nor its subsequent developments, being a theory in biology have anything to say about it. Whether fine-tuning is also an issue in philosophy is a question for philosophers not biologists, Dr Hunter's somewhat tortuous analogy notwithstanding. Philosophers and theologians can squabble about "epistemic difficulties" or whether our reliance on fallible senses is warranted but the fact is that, in science, methodological naturalism works. If, God forbid, you or a loved one were ever stricken with a serious illness, you wouldn't be asking if the philosophical basis of a treatment was well-founded or if our reliance on methodological naturalism is justified. The only questions you would be asking are, 'Does it work?' and, if it does, 'How well does it work?' because, as Nakashima implied, that's what counts.Seversky_{March 16, 2010
March
03
Mar
16
16
2010
06:29 PM
6
06
29
PM
PDT}

Nakashima:
How could I deny convergence when it is as easy to prove as flipping pictures out of a coloring book? It doesn’t take venomous catfish to convince me of convergence. No sir. Ya see, venomous catfish convergence is a fact, and it is an intellectual necessity of science that facts be accomodated. Yes, there is a kind of science that does not have to accomodate facts as an intellectual necessity, the kind measured by the Baez Crackpot Index. The kind of science Dr Michael Behe testified about in Dover. The kind where reversing the polarity will make time run backwards. These kinds of science have something in common – they don’t work.
Sorry, you lost me. I don't follow what you're saying. You don't seem to understand the intellectual necessity of evolution. You also seem to have a problem with convergence, which is another example of how evolution does not explain biology very well.Cornelius Hunter_{March 16, 2010
March
03
Mar
16
16
2010
04:02 PM
4
04
02
PM
PDT}

CannuckianYankee (5):
Is it necessarily an infinite number of universes, or is it a finite number?
It is a finite number, not infinite. That number is not easy to compute, but it is equal to or greater to the number required to make fine-tuning and evolution plausible.
I find that hard to fathom. Something is askew in their thinking.
Well it is entirely consistent with evolutionary thinking.Cornelius Hunter_{March 16, 2010
March
03
Mar
16
16
2010
03:59 PM
3
03
59
PM
PDT}

Dr Hunter, How could I deny convergence when it is as easy to prove as flipping pictures out of a coloring book? It doesn't take venomous catfish to convince me of convergence. No sir. Ya see, venomous catfish convergence is a fact, and it is an intellectual necessity of science that facts be accomodated. Yes, there is a kind of science that does not have to accomodate facts as an intellectual necessity, the kind measured by the Baez Crackpot Index. The kind of science Dr Michael Behe testified about in Dover. The kind where reversing the polarity will make time run backwards. These kinds of science have something in common - they don't work.Nakashima_{March 16, 2010
March
03
Mar
16
16
2010
03:09 PM
3
03
09
PM
PDT}

I'm stuck on the issue of the multiverse. Is it necessarily an infinite number of universes, or is it a finite number? If it is a finite number, then I could accept it if there was some concrete evidence rather than simply the necessity for evolution to be true in light of fine tuning. If it is an infinite number of universes, then I have logical problems with it. Either way, I don't see how either one is a solution to the apparent fine tuning of our present and experienced universe. It's interesting though that the Darwinians should appeal to something for which they have no natural evidence in order to do science that is predicated on natural evidence. I find that hard to fathom. Something is askew in their thinking.CannuckianYankee_{March 16, 2010
March
03
Mar
16
16
2010
02:18 PM
2
02
18
PM
PDT}

Nakashima (3): So you deny convergence too?Cornelius Hunter_{March 16, 2010
March
03
Mar
16
16
2010
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT}

Stick to thylacines, Dr Hunter. If you flip the picture and squint, they do look like wolves. The same is not true of religion and science.Nakashima_{March 16, 2010
March
03
Mar
16
16
2010
10:37 AM
10
10
37
AM
PDT}

Nakashima (1):
Do you think fact-hood and intellectual necessity in science are independent of each other?
If they are dependent that would be a sign of fine-tuning.
You posit universes where there might be intellectual necessities for science that are not facts.
Such as this one.
What might those be, faith commitments?
That's a good example for starters.
I agree, I don’t want to live in such a universe, where it is intellectually necessary to do fact free science!
I'm afraid you are. In fact, your soaking in it:
I’m happy living a universe where facts _are_ intellectual necessities for science, aren’t you?
Evolutionists fail to understand even basic problems with their claims.Cornelius Hunter_{March 16, 2010
March
03
Mar
16
16
2010
09:23 AM
9
09
23
AM
PDT}

Dr Hunter, As in Mr Arrington's thread on the same topic, you're not starting on the right foot. Do you think fact-hood and intellectual necessity in science are independent of each other? You posit universes where there might be intellectual necessities for science that are not facts. What might those be, faith commitments? I agree, I don't want to live in such a universe, where it is intellectually necessary to do fact free science! I'm happy living a universe where facts _are_ intellectual necessities for science, aren't you? That's not a rhetorical question.Nakashima_{March 16, 2010
March
03
Mar
16
16
2010
05:07 AM
5
05
07
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply