Multiverse Naturalism Philosophy Science

The multiverse is science’s assisted suicide

Spread the love

From Denyse O’Leary at Evolution News & Views:

For many people today, post-modern science is more of a quest to express an identity as believer in science, irrespective of evidence. Cosmologist Paul Steinhardt got a sense of this in 2014, when he reported that some proponents of early rapid cosmic inflation “already insist that the theory is equally valid whether or not gravitational waves are detected.” It fulfilled their needs. In 2017, cosmologist George Ellis, long a foe of post-modern cosmology, summed it up: “Scientific theories have since the seventeenth century been held tight by an experimental leash. In the last twenty years or so, both string theory and theories of the multiverse have slipped the leash.”

We have so much more data now. But it provides no evidence for a multiverse. That’s nothing unusual historically (think phlogiston and ether for great ideas that did not work). We used to just adjust. But today, increasing numbers of science-minded people demand a post-modern science that adapts to their needs. After all, we evolved to survive and pass on our genes, not to understand reality.

As a result, many cosmologists and science writers speak as if the multiverse merely awaits routine administrative clearance to morph into textbook science, absent evidence. Characteristically, they see themselves as fighting a conservative (fuddy-duddy) establishment which clings to a role for mere evidence.
More.

See also: Philosopher of science: Science “studies” are a stealth face of post-modernism

How naturalism rots science from the head down

The Big Bang: Put simply,the facts are wrong.

What becomes of science when the evidence does not matter?

Cosmology is naturalism’s playground. But does the fun mask a science decline?

Post-modern physics: String theory gets over the need for evidence

Cosmic inflation theory loses hangups about the scientific method

7 Replies to “The multiverse is science’s assisted suicide

  1. 1
    Barry Arrington says:

    O’Leary writes:

    post-modern science is more of a quest to express an identity

    Interesting insight. Us-Them tribalism is exploding everywhere, and it turns out that for some science is just another tribe.

  2. 2
    Dionisio says:

    The multiverse seems like a fancy pseudoscientific hogwash.
    However, it’s supported by a very strong argument:
    Because there’s a law of gravity then universes can pop up like that… pop pop pop pop…
    Bzdura, yerunda, tontada.
    Nonsense remains nonsense regardless of who says it.

  3. 3
    News says:

    Barry Arrington at 1: The thing about us-them tribalism is that it encourages a point of view well understood among animals (our pack ruff! ruff! vs. your pack GRRR!!).

    Hence the Social Justice Warrior bashing the old lady prof in a fit of self-righteous rage. Self-righteousness is almost the only contribution that being human makes to such a person’ psyche.

    He will be lucky when he reaches a point in life where he can be properly ashamed of himself.

    Which reminds me: In the real world, off-campus, tribalism is everywhere understood as synonymous with backwardness and poverty.

  4. 4
    polistra says:

    The multiverse and dark matter and dark energy are just God in an acceptable costume. God in drag.

  5. 5
    Bob O'H says:

    Barry & Denyse – I agree that there is a lot of Us-Them tribalism, but how should we combat it? Should we look for where we agree, rather than where we disagree?

  6. 6
    jrefwycliff says:

    Roger Penrose has some new speculations and empirical evidence for repeated expansion and contraction, “multi-bangs” which is worth considering. I believe it was a U-tube video. It is based on the predicted presence and detection of certain “irregularities” in the map of the background radiation.

    Of course it is not definitive but we should be aware of and not afraid of any evidence.

  7. 7
    Barry Arrington says:

    jrefwycliff,

    “we should be aware of and not afraid of any evidence”

    No one is afraid of evidence. Maybe you should re-read the post. The first line says: “For many people today, post-modern science is more of a quest to express an identity as believer in science, irrespective of evidence.”

    That “irrespective of evidence” part should have been a clue that fear of evidence is not what the post is about.

Leave a Reply