Sean Carroll channels Giordano Bruno
| November 8, 2011 | Posted by Robert Sheldon under Intelligent Design |
Sean M. Carroll, a noted cosmologist, in his first column for Discovery Magazine called Welcome to the Multiverse writes that the progress in cosmology has forced cosmologists “kicking and screaming” to accept the Multiverse, the same theory that caused Giordano Bruno to be burned at the stake in Rome in 1600.
Sigh.
I sigh because the two pieces of evidence that have dragged him “kicking and screaming” into multiverse theory are “string theory” and “inflation”. And what you should immediately ask, is “What!? Not Bruno’s universalism?” because both of those “theories” have about as much to support them as Bruno did.
Carroll knows this, and in a clever twist, argues that like Bruno, we should explore scientific heresies with an open mind. Except that it isn’t the Church, but the philosophy of science that is being trashed. That is, while I am all for exploring scientifically heretical subjects, I would prefer to do so on empirically sound foundations, which neither String Theory nor Inflation possess. One should read Bruce Gordon on the metaphysics that undergirds both theories–which have gone through numerous modifications as they fail to conform to data. In fact, on Lakatos‘ analysis, both StringTheory and Inflation are clearly “degenerate science programs”.
So how does one get “forced” by degenerate science programs that expend all their disposable hypotheses on shoring up the main thesis?
4 Responses to Sean Carroll channels Giordano Bruno
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
He refutes his own statement that he was drug “kicking and screaming” when he notes, in that column, that many theories of Inflation do not posit a Multiverse at all.
A broader point here speaks to the rampant degeneracy of modern science across numerous fields. Traditionally the product of science is to migrate an Abductive framework (Peirce) to an Inductive one a single point at a time via experiments — deductive constructions. The modern metaphysics infestation is not one of bad metaphysics but an attempt to alter things such that the product of science is the Abductive frameworks themselves. Full stop, and nothing more to be done.
You can ascribe this qua Popper, Lakatos, Kuhn, Jaki, or even just a limit to current measurement equipment and mathematics as you like. (The last two as, if there is nothing more that can be produced at this time, those employed will still attempt to produce anything as a matter of their continued employment.) I’m not familiar with Jaki, but if he takes the standpoint that the Nullius in Verba consequence of treating men as flawed and venal things; then he’s certainly done a better job of things than Lakatos’ efforts at dialectics.
tldr: The problem is that the product of science is, now, the creation of novel religions rather than novel consequences.
Well then…
See also TOBA is a-swingin’, looking for gravity waves
Another example (I can provide more if you like)
rhampton7,
I appreciate your effort to demonstrate that both string theory and inflation have experimental predictions. However, this is not enough to make them empirical.
Here’s an anecdote to explain, based on the story of Euler and Diderot. (See Wikipedia entry on Euler). Euler was an accomplished mathematician and devout, Diderot an accomplished Frenchman and not. They were both employed in Moscow, when Diderot asked for a mathematical proof of the existence of God. Euler complied, saying,
“Euler appeared, advanced toward Diderot, and in a tone of perfect conviction announced, “Sir, \frac{a+b^n}{n}=x, hence God exists—reply!”
My point being that acoustic waves in the early universe do not need inflation to be either predicted or observed. Neither do dark energy or dark matter need string theory to be observed or predicted. Colloquially speaking, if I had some ham, I’d make a ham sandwich (with String Theory) if I had some bread.
And that is the problem. Empiricism itself needs to be well connected to observation or else the appeal to empiricism is as vacuous as the appeal to data. Neither inflation nor string theory have any support even for the construction of these experiments. They have merely appropriated them as if they were parts of the theory.