…and this is a 
Faith is not a prerequisite for science
Category: Science
Posted on: November 25, 2007 9:53 AM, by PZ Myers
Paul Davies has written a curious op-ed that has been blithely published by the New York Times. I'm not sure why the NYT saw fit to publish it, except that Davies does have a reputation as a popularizer of physics, and as something of an apologist for deism; they certainly couldn't have chosen to print it on its merits. His argument is the tired and familiar claim that science has to be taken on faith, so it's just like religion. I recall hearing variants on this back in the schoolyard, usually punctuated with "nyaa nyaas" and assertions about each others' mothers, and while we may not have said much about science, the principle was the same. Citing a false equivalency is a cheap argument, but not very credible.
Davies lost my respect for his thesis early on, from the first sentence actually, but I'll focus instead on this claim from his second paragraph: "All science proceeds on the assumption that nature is ordered in a rational and intelligible way. You couldn't be a scientist if you thought the universe was a meaningless jumble of odds and ends haphazardly juxtaposed." Perhaps this is where not being a physicist has the virtue of a different perspective, because I can say without reservation that he's completely wrong — in a historical science like evolutionary biology, we have no problem when we encounter a phenomenon that isn't orderly or rational, and that has all the appearance of haphazard meaninglessness. We're accustomed to seeing simple chance as a strong thread running throughout biological history.
Pattern and order are important too, of course, but when looking at the appearance of some particular feature we have to be prepared for the possibility that it is not a consequence of some orderly progression — perhaps it just happened that way. I can't imagine that my physicist colleagues* are any different, and that they would be horrified to discover that physical order was "rooted in reasonless absurdity". That would be interesting. If that is the way the universe is, that is what science will try to grapple with (admittedly, we might have serious difficulties grappling with total chaos, but no one claims that science can have answers for everything). That Davies seems to believe that order must rule everywhere and at every level is a stronger presupposition than is warranted by a scientific approach, and sounds remarkably theological…and I don't think Davies would object to the charge of theology, although he clearly thinks the only good science fits his theological model.
But then Davies does have this notion that that the concept of physical laws is derived from Christian doctrine — that science is rooted in attempts to define the actions of a supernatural lawgiver who imposes a kind of universal consistency on everything. As a historical argument, and as a psychological description of the way the minds of people like Newton worked, I can go along with that; but as an assumption that this expectation of a universal order must reflect a universal reality, I disagree. If the laws of physics were subtly different in Egypt than in Greece, we would have developed an empirical physics that took that into account; that certain laws are constant everywhere is just what is, as empirically determined by scientific observation. A geologist, a biologist, an anthropologist, and a historian will also be able to tell you that there are many things that are quite different between Egypt and Greece, and yet variation does not mean those sciences fail.
Alas, Davies also brings up the anthropic principle, that tiresome exercise in metaphysical masturbation that always flounders somewhere in the repellent ditch between narcissism and solipsism. When someone says that life would not exist if the laws of physics were just a little bit different, I have to wonder…how do they know? Just as there are many different combinations of amino acids that can make any particular enzyme, why can't there be many different combinations of physical laws that can yield life? Do the experiment of testing different universes, then come talk to me. Until then, claiming that the anthropic principle, an undefined mish-mash of untested assumptions, supports your personal interpretation of how the universe exists and came to be is a self-delusional error.
I'm also always a bit disappointed with the statements of anthropic principle proponents for another reason. If these are the best and only laws that can give rise to intelligent life in the universe, why do they do such a lousy job of it? Life is found in one thin and delicate film on one planet in this mostly empty region of space, and even if there are other fertile planets out there, they will be nearly impossibly distant, and life will be just as fragile and prone to extinction there as here. Even on this world, all of the available environments favor bacteria over scientists or theologians, and said scientists and theologians have existed for only about 0.00001% of the lifetime of this universe, and are prone to wink out of existence long before we can get rid of one of the zeroes in that number. If I wanted to argue for a position on the basis of the anthropic principle, rather than trying to pretend that we live in a Goldilocks universe, we should be wondering how we ended up in such a hostile dump of a universe, one that favors endless expanses of frigid nothingness with scattered hydrogen molecules over one that has trillions of square light years of temperate lakefront property with good fishing, soft breezes, and free wireless networking.
Maybe Davies has faith in science, but I don't. I take it as it comes. I have expectations and hypotheses, but these are lesser presuppositions than what is implied by faith—and I'm also open to the possibility that any predictions I might make will fail. Perhaps if Davies weren't so obsessed with equating his religion with his science, he wouldn't be blind to the fact that most scientists don't see his god in the operation of the universe.
*I see that at least one of my physicist colleagues agrees — Sean Carroll's reply makes the same point. If you want more perspectives than that, Edge is compiling contributions, and Mark Hoofnagle, Janet Stemwedel, and Dave Bacon have weighed in at Scienceblogs.
Email this entry to a friend
View the Technorati Link Cosmos for this entry
Comments
PZ, I both agree and disagree with you. I do think that science takes it as written that the universe proceeds according to lawful regularity, but this is not a matter of faith. It's more like a logical axiom. Such an assumption, however, is the opposite of faith: it is not dogmatic, but tentative, and it could easily be changed if evidence indicated that it needed to be. However, evidence never has.
Posted by: Ric | November 25, 2007 10:07 AM
Inconsistency in religious propaganda techniques is funny to watch. Davies calls science faith, but at the same time prominent religious folk argue that religion is not based soley on faith. Christians really need to get their stores straight; they dodge back and forth faster than a politician.
Posted by: MarcusA | November 25, 2007 10:17 AM
*sigh* I remember reading what was basically Davies' article in the LA Times Sunday section. When I was 11 years old. It seemed dubious, even then.
You know what's changed? These things used to make me want to tear up the newspaper--now they make me want to throw my laptop across the room!
I just slogged through the editorial, and immediately clicked over here for some sweet rationality. That's another difference, nowadays, at least these things don't exist in a vacuum based on what folderol a particular newspaper chooses to print & ruin my Sunday breakfast.
Posted by: tikistitch | November 25, 2007 10:19 AM
The Edge link doesn't work.
Paul Davies says,
Bollocks. People are eager to propose reasons why the laws of nature are the way they are. The problem is that those propositions can be very hard to test! Consequently, we have a big pile of them, waiting around for experiments which are either elaborate and expensive, if we're lucky, or impossible outside of a science-fiction story, at worst. What do we do in such a situation? Why, we gather our wits and bluster through on luck and pluck.
And people had been doing science for many centuries before Isaac Newton. Davies should look up a history of the Ionians: Empedocles established the material nature of air, Aristarchus realized that the Earth was not the center of the Universe, Leucippus and Democritus made a very good guess about matter being composed of atoms, and so forth. Platonism and a slave society ensured that Hellenistic science never fully embraced the power of experiment, but what progress they made!
It's also worth noting that Greek scientists moved within generations from polytheism to positions we'd characterize nowadays as deism, agnosticism and atheism, all before the first word of Christian gospel had ever been set on parchment.
Which accomplishments of Isaac Newton do we remember today? Other than a few historians of science, who pays attention to his fumblings with alchemy or his dream of mapping the floorplan of the Jerusalem Temple? Does anyone care that he had a couple books of astrology — perhaps read, perhaps not — on his bookshelf?
No. The legacy of Newton, the discoveries we now call "Newtonian", are his accomplishments as a scientist, accomplishments which endure not because they hew to his heterodox, anti-Trinitarian religious faith, but because they help us understand the natural world.
It pains me to be so disparaging, but I have to call Paul Davies an excellent example of faith making a smart person say stupid things.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | November 25, 2007 10:27 AM
PZ....
You being a biologist and all, I'm surprised you don't consider the obvious answer to this, the really important part of Mr. Davies article:
"In other words, the laws should have an explanation from within the universe and not involve appealing to an external agency."
I think fractals provide a clue to the answer. Patterns that exist in the micro are also found in the macro. A given bit of life has within itself self-organizing ability. We non-scientists, and maybe you too, call it DNA.
I can dispel with an external god by making the claim, which I -think- is supported by empirical observation, that the universe appears to be self-organizing. I need no gods for that, and it addresses Mr. Davies' complaint. Any claim beyond that, that the unviverse appears to be self-organizing, requires proof. Of which there is none.
To finish Mr. Davies thought:
"In other words, the laws should have an explanation from within the universe and not involve appealing to an external agency. The specifics of that explanation are a matter for future research. But until science comes up with a testable theory of the laws of the universe, its claim to be free of faith is manifestly bogus."
"The specifics of that explanation are a matter for future research."
I think if we really looked for the DNA of the universe, we'll eventually find it. And don't propose that dark matter horseshit to cover the lack of real discovery - that falls into the "god did it" category, to me.
Posted by: TW | November 25, 2007 10:33 AM
What "Dark Matter horseshit"?
There is actual evidence for it's existence now.
Typical apologist BS.
Assert that science must explain everything all the while assuming their god exists and offering no credible evidence what so ever.
Posted by: spurge | November 25, 2007 10:52 AM
Posted by: H. Humbert | November 25, 2007 10:54 AM
That nature is ordered in a rational and intelligible way is the conclusion of science, not a required assumption. The only assumption that science requires is that the likelihood of intelligible order is sufficiently high for it to be worth the effort of searching for it.
Posted by: Stephen | November 25, 2007 10:58 AM
"There is actual evidence for it's existence now."
Can you send over a teaspoonful?
"Typical apologist BS."
I'll assume that's sarcasm. ;-)
Posted by: TW | November 25, 2007 10:59 AM
Oh, and by the way, if you think that the External Agency floating out there beyond the Universe which chose our physical laws is an intelligent being, then I have some questions for you:
1. Does this Agency live in a Universe like ours? If so, where did that Universe — call it Heaven — come from? And if not, doesn't this mean that intelligence can live in an environment unlike our own, with different natural laws — i.e., that the Anthropic Principle is false?
2. Such an Agency would have to be an astonishingly skilled physicist and cosmologist to even plan the creation of a Universe like ours. Doesn't the mere ability to reason in such a fashion — the ability for memories to persist across time, and all the other such prerequisites — imply that the Agency exists in a medium in which events are not entirely random? How did that medium come about?
3. We can trace the historical development of Christianity with considerable confidence, beginning with storm-god worship in the Fertile Crescent perhaps four thousand years ago. During the Israelite and Judean monarchies, polytheism was gradually supplanted by a "henotheist" view: one God rules supreme in this land, but others hold sway elsewhere. Eventually, the notion of a worldwide deity was articulated (witness the book of Jonah, in which the protagonist flees to the edge of the known world but can't escape YHWH), and the idea of a cosmic dualism between good and evil beings was adapted from the Persians. Paul of Tarsus wrenched Christianity away from Judaism, Priscillian or one of his colleagues slipped the Trinity into 1 John, and Aquinas "reconciled" Catholic faith with the scientific knowledge recovered from Spanish Arab libraries, making Aristotle a part of Roman dogma until that other troublesome part of ancient science reared its head again with Giordano Bruno and Galileo Galilei. All this history is about people doing things: the "sophisticated" theology of God as the "essential condition of being" (or whatever) is a product of thousands of years of people making stuff up. Why should we identify the discoveries of science with this one, particular mythological tradition?
Posted by: Blake Stacey | November 25, 2007 11:01 AM
I saw the article, and my reaction was somewhere between "bullshit!" and "So what?"
We have to assume that the laws of the universe are orderly, not because of "religious faith," but because if we didn't, there would be nothing to talk about. We can't operate as if the universe were capricious or illusory; there would be no way to deal with such a world. Fortunately, it seems to work out that way.
Davies seems to object to the fact that at some point you just have to say "That's just the way it is." in answer to the persistent "Why? I don't quite understand why that bothers some people so much, but I guess it does. Otherwise, it's "Turtles, all the way down."
Posted by: BaldApe | November 25, 2007 11:04 AM
Davies states "Clearly, then, both religion and science are founded on faith -- namely, on belief in the existence of something outside the universe"
Well, no that isn't clear. Science is NOT founded on the existence of something outside the universe. Man I hate this argument. If you look up the definition of science, you're not going to see anything about things outside the universe. Your going to get something pertaining to observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. Why is this so hard to understand?
Thanks PZ for a nice rebuttal.
Posted by: Dahan | November 25, 2007 11:16 AM
Why is it that when scientists say "I dunno" or "that appears to be the way it is" - it's viewed as a failure of science, but when the religious say "I dunno" or "that appears to be the way it is" - it's a sacrament?
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | November 25, 2007 11:18 AM
I am a physicist, and I don't take it on faith that "nature is ordered in a rational and intelligible way." It is manifestly otherwise.
The relevant definition of rational is consistent with or based on reason; logical. If only it were! Ever heard of quantum mechanics? It's clear by now that nature does not conform itself to our mental capabilities. We are forced to invent new, counterintuitive logics at every turn.
Rather than intelligible, I'll consider the stronger statement that nature is lawful. It can't be intelligible if there isn't a structure to understand, but assuming there is a lawful structure doesn't mean we're capable of understanding it. I take lawful to mean that there exist some local physical invariants, which can be expressed in terms of equations of motion or extrema conditions. This does not preclude there being unlawful, or random processes as well.
Do we physicists take lawfulness on faith? Some might, but I don't. It can be considered a hypothesis, just like any other statement. It just happens to receive overwhelming support from experiment. It is difficult to conceive what it would mean for there to be no lawfulness, or how life or cognition would be possible in such a universe, but that doesn't matter. If you want to ponder necessary conditions for reason and disappear into a solipsistic hole of Kantian metaphysics be my guest. Davies appears to be blind to the difference between a belief, or a working hypothesis, and faith. But he has bigger issues.
One of our two pillars of theoretical physics, quantum field theory, is manifestly non-deterministic and unlawful (the part Von Neumann called the R-process). We don't like it, but have been, for now, forced to accept it. One would think Davies would be aware of this fact, but it seems to manifestly contradict his assertion about the nature of science. So is he stupid, dishonest, ignorant, or some combination of the three? Can we design an experiment to find out?
Posted by: efp | November 25, 2007 11:19 AM
Hmmmm, Davies needs a devil to make sense of things! I better go find one so I can try to see things his way.
Posted by: Rick Schauer | November 25, 2007 11:19 AM
Alas, Davies also brings up the anthropic principle, that tiresome exercise in metaphysical masturbation that always flounders somewhere in the repellent ditch between narcissism and solipsism.
lol... PZ thinks that the observed reality is "metaphyiscal masterbation".
He must also equate his ignorance of the facts to reality... ;)
Posted by: island | November 25, 2007 11:20 AM
Another point is that the religious implicitly admit that faith is undesirable when they make these arguments. They are just disguised tu quoque fallacies: "Well, okay, I am irrational! But so are you!" "I know faith is bad, but you have it too, so you're bad too!"
Guess that's what PZ was getting at with the "nah nah nah" comment.
Posted by: Ric | November 25, 2007 11:22 AM
I'm glad somebody was able to put a more eloquent spin on this. The only thing that could come to my mind was "SCIENCE DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY," which, while somewhat satisfying to yell at my monitor, doesn't address Davies' misconceptions *quite* as well.
Ric, I like the description of scientific first principles as a "logical axiom" that can be edited rather than an article of faith. That really crystallizes the distinction.
Posted by: Falyne | November 25, 2007 11:25 AM
Hey, #9
Not a teaspoonful, but a picture.
Posted by: Ken Cope | November 25, 2007 11:25 AM
I think the foundation underlying science is that occurrences can be explained, not that it is always orderly and rational. It's not a faith, you just don't take our words for it. It is based on observations and testable hypotheses.
Posted by: Unstable Isotope | November 25, 2007 11:26 AM
This is such a frustrating oped because there is a thin veneer of actual point in it. This guy obviously just read The God Delusion and decided it was necessary to use his feeble command of the philosophy of science, and I do mean feeble, do dispute the objective rationality of science. But really, was the principle of uniformity really the best thing to attack? I mean, why not go for the throat and attack causality. The faith in causality is more of a faith that that in the principle of uniformity. Of course he couldn't go and do that because regular people believe in causality as well.
To be fair, I think that there is a critique to be made of those who have faith in science. Not scientist mind you, but those non-scientists who place a sort of religious like faith in scientific studies and the like. I think this is a place where scientists and people who really understand science need to start explaining how this stuff actually works. That and the fact that the social sciences are trying to tag along with the hard sciences when they really don't belong in even close to the same category, and I say that as someone deeply involved in political "science."
Posted by: coathangrrr | November 25, 2007 11:30 AM
While we're at it, here's more from Sean Carroll. It's the physicist's version of the point PZ raised in the post above, about the "lousy job" our physical laws do with regard to sustaining life.
See here.
The summer before last, I attended a conference on collider physics. One of the presentations was about how they figured out the charge of the top quark. According to the plain-vanilla Standard Model, the top quark should have a charge of 2/3 (in units where the electron's charge is -1). However, there was a possibility that the top quark actually has charge 4/3. Which of those choices is preferable on anthropic grounds — i.e., which choice leads to matter, chemistry and us?
Surprise! Either of them would work. We can't discriminate between options for a fundamental quantity of nature on anthropic grounds. You have to go to the accelerator folks. The data collected at Fermilab's Tevatron (see arXiv:0709.2665) indicates that the data supports a top-quark charge of 2/3 pretty strongly. Chalk up one more for the Standard Model, but keep in mind that anthropic reasoning got us nowhere.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | November 25, 2007 11:30 AM
I love this blog.
I am not a scientist (musician) but I am very interested in science, evolutionary theory, etc.
I find religion to be hilarious and sad at the same time.
People cling to it like a teddy bear or security blanket and try to justify everything in terms of this nonsense that was probably drilled into them as children.
(I am currently raising a four year old with no religious nonsense! except some Saturday/Sunday sleepovers at his Grandparents where he goes to Sunday School. I don't like this and This will be an argument soon enough.For now Sunday school is really just a babysitter. He wasn't baptised and I think they think 'we'll get some religion into him'.) Not on my watch!
Anyway,
I find the dissections of their(the religious) arguments VERY ENTERTAINING.
Keep it up.
I read a lot but don't post much as I fear I can't keep up with you sciency folks!
Posted by: Jeff | November 25, 2007 11:31 AM
Gee, that fellow in #16 sounds familiar. . . .
Posted by: Blake Stacey | November 25, 2007 11:37 AM
Atoms and planets, etc. don't "obey" laws, they behave in ways that we describe using the word 'law.' So that guy's whole argument simply rests on the flawed notion of trying to fit the universe into his own inappropriate use of language. Once the idea that the universe behaves in ways we then describe by theory and experiment (as opposed to obeying abstract rules that we apply to the world), you are left when the apparently non-ending question: why do things behave the way they do?
That kind of question should lead him to do more research, make more discoveries...but alas...
Also, I don't think science really makes the assumption that universe is well-ordered/intelligible....the evidence is pretty clear that it is, from what we already know. So if anything, its just going with the data.
Besides, if the world/universe weren't reasonable or intelligible in some way, why did evolution apparently select for reasonable intelligence in humans and our relatives? How could an intelligence that uses reason and logic be beneficial in a world thats totally chaotic at every level?
Posted by: chris p | November 25, 2007 11:40 AM
One of our two pillars of theoretical physics, quantum field theory, is manifestly non-deterministic and unlawful (the part Von Neumann called the R-process). We don't like it, but have been, for now, forced to accept it. One would think Davies would be aware of this fact, but it seems to manifestly contradict his assertion about the nature of science.
The mathematical basis for deterministic quantum mechanics
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006quant.ph..4008.
Quantum Mechanics and Determinism
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002quant.ph.12095.
Equivalence relations between deterministic and quantum mechanical systems
http://www.springerlink.com/index/HH00377G1073586H.pdf
Quantization of discrete deterministic theories by Hilbert space extension
http://igitur-archive.library.uu.nl/phys/2005-0622-153937/14765.pdf
Quantum gravity as a dissipative deterministic system
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999CQGra..16.3263T
-Gerard 't Hooft
So are you stupid, dishonest, ignorant, or some combination of the three? Can we design an experiment to find out?"
Posted by: island | November 25, 2007 11:41 AM
There is a tendency for some anti-theists to dismiss anthropic fine-tuning (with notable counter-examples like Dawkins and Dennett) based on the reasoning that it provides aid and comfort for theists (and deists) in general and Intelligent Design proponents in particular, and therefore must be suspect. In other words, based on the notion that anthropic fine tuning is inherently tainted with design and theism.
That is a mistaken impulse. True, anthropic fine tuning and a teleological interpretation of Gouldian historical contingency (which together might be called anthropic contingency) are all the IDists have left. The other ID planks are dead letters. The "design inference" is just Paleyism, which Darwin took care of. "Irreducible complexity" is demolished by comparative molecular biology. But anthropic fine tuning is supportable. This is why not only do IDists have a lot riding on anthropic fine tuning, so do theistic evolutionists like Miller and Conway Morris.
However, it is a error to suppose that anthropic fine tuning necessarily lends support to theism any more than the appearance of design in organisms or the intricacy of molecular mechanisms do. In fact, a well-supported and widely accepted naturalistic account of anthropic fine tuning would be devastating to IDist and theistic evolutionist claims regarding cosmological design, as well as teleological thinking in general. (Theism would simply retreat and provide God a different role, of course.) But dismissing the anthropic principle, fine tuning, and cosmological contingency out of hand makes atheists appear insecure and hence gives ammunition to creationists.
True, the premises of the various formulations of the anthropic principle and related ideas might be mistaken. But they are not trivial or absurd, and they ought to be taken seriously. There is something that needs to be explained, something which can't be waved away by quoting Douglas Adams or Voltaire. Certainly many physicists (Kaku, Susskind etc.) and some philosophers (Bostrom) believe that there is something that needs to be explained. The need to explaining anthropic fine tuning has been one of the driving forces behind the various multiverse and cyclical universe universe models of the last couple of decades of theoretical physics.
It used to be normative to take the state of the cosmos and its laws for granted, to not ask why they are a certain way and how things would be if they were otherwise. That time is past. To blithely dismiss anthropic fine tuning is to concede those questions to theists and other teleologists.
Posted by: Colugo | November 25, 2007 11:42 AM
Ric: I do think that science takes it as written that the universe proceeds according to lawful regularity, but this is not a matter of faith. It's more like a logical axiom.
See here, I disagree. Science, or at least the scientific method, *discovered* the lawful regularity. It was never an axiom beyond a basic, innate concept of causality we all share because as humans that *do* things, we see the results on things that we do things to. In fact, that same innate concept of causality is exactly what the creationists and those like Davies are using to bait people into thinking there must be more, some cause of the universe itself, such that assuming there wasn't a cause (which is an incorrect assumption about scientific methodology AND atheistic thought) must therefore make science a religion.
The historical reality is that we saw the patterns FIRST - the patterns were already there. We didn't assume 32 feet / sec^2; quite the opposite. But someone, somewhere recognized that things DON'T fall at different rates (unless they are so light as to let air resistance affect it, though they didn't use that term yet), and Galileo codified those patterns into mathematical terms. He didn't assume there was a pattern there - he gathered the data first and the regularity presented itself.
So too, astronomy, geology, and the rest. Each science started by seeing the larger ordered pattern once they could look beyond the tiny amount of data they had from their tiny localized viewpoint. They didn't assume a regular pattern - they noticed it first and then worked to codify it.
Posted by: Joe Shelby | November 25, 2007 11:43 AM
Gee... that Blake Stacy guy sounds stereotypically ignornant.
Posted by: island | November 25, 2007 11:44 AM
I agree with almost all of PZ's post, but I have to admit that I don't like his rubbishing of speculation concerning the anthropic principle. It's perfectly legitimate for theorists to argue that life would be impossible if the universal constants were to take on values within particular ranges. Before evolution can take place, a certain amount of order is required. Stable matter, for instance, is absolutely essential.
Of course, science relies on faith in common sense logic, which isn't anything like religious faith. Davies' article is simply absurd.
Posted by: Jamie | November 25, 2007 11:49 AM
Okay, I posted a bunch of links on scientific papers about deterministic quantum mechanics by G 't Hooft so that I can find out if the genius physicist, "efp" is...
stupid, dishonest, ignorant, or some combination of the three? Can we design an experiment to find out?
But they got picked up by the filter...
Posted by: island | November 25, 2007 11:49 AM
Blake, so then, henotheism explains why that bugger YHWH is so goddam jealous, in that bible book of his.
It always makes me laugh, that the Xians, etc, don't cotton on to the fact that a sexually male god that supposedly created us and the universe doesn't make any goddam sense Sexual function & identity are biological, but the god thing can't be biological. Talk about the cart before the horse! Why can't the religiots see that their god thing evolved from its Mesopotamian antecedents? Stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid.
Posted by: Richard Harris | November 25, 2007 11:50 AM
I agree with PZ's "false equivalency", but why do many of the best physicists (i.e. Weinberg, Susskind) use the Anthropic Principle for the Cosmological Constant? Is it to get rid of god by using a brute force style reason? It's like saying "If the Cosmological Constant were any other size then we would not be here to observe it". At least it's better than saying that god caused that Constant. It's as if they reformulated the Anthropic Principle for the atheist before theists could claim it in their own formulation.
Posted by: Jon | November 25, 2007 11:54 AM
Blake Stacey, please go here and shoot down this physics or quit pretending that some link to a neodarwinian grunt session means anything more than.... groupthink:
http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2007/10/18/guest-post-rick-ryals-diracs-holes-and-einsteins-constant/
Posted by: island | November 25, 2007 11:57 AM
Joe, I don't disagree. You're exactly right: Thales observed the pattern of eclipses in ancient navigation records and came up with what I call an axiom from this data. I don't mean it's an axiom in the way that one would assume a premise for a logic problem absent of content. What I mean is that it has been taken as an axiom by scientists ever since Thales, but you are correct that it did arise out of a discovery. I was trying to intimate this (but not clearly enough) when I said it could be changed.
Also, I am not discussing the specifics of scientific law (32 feet / sec^2 et al.): those are certainly not axioms) but rather the observation that the universe proceeds according to lawful regulation.
Posted by: Ric | November 25, 2007 12:00 PM
Jamie: common sense logic
Ah, but if only logic WERE a "common" sense.
Posted by: Joe Shelby | November 25, 2007 12:01 PM
Whoops, when I said "lawful regulation" I meant "lawful regularity." That makes all the difference in the world. There is no "regulation" in the universe. Typo.
Posted by: Ric | November 25, 2007 12:03 PM
Island, currently the filter grabs anything with more than two links and holds it "for review". (I suppose it's an anti-spam tactic.) It's annoying, but as you can see - there they are.
Yes, Blake, I recognized it too.
Posted by: Kseniya | November 25, 2007 12:06 PM
NO, NO, NO! #33, your formulation is the anthropic principle! When did it get redefined into the teleological argument that everyone else is here is discussing? The anthropic principle countersthe fine tuning argument.
Posted by: J Myers | November 25, 2007 12:07 PM
Blake Stacey wrote:
Hey, that's what I always say when this subject comes up! But maybe not so succinctly.
BaldApe:
There wouldn't be anyone to talk about it, either. Life as we know it depends on replication, and if there is no regularity then there can't be anything that "replicates", not to mention the need for energy sources etc. So some order is not just a prerequisite of science, it's a prerequisite of life, and us being able to observe it is not the mysterious part.
Posted by: windy | November 25, 2007 12:07 PM
I agree with PZ's "false equivalency", but why do many of the best physicists (i.e. Weinberg, Susskind) use the Anthropic Principle for the Cosmological Constant?
And what, specifically, is Lenny talking about when he says that "we will be hardpressed to answer the idists if the landscape fails"...? becuase "the appearance of design is UNDENIABLE"... ?
And what specifically is Richard Dawkins talking about when he says:
All appearances to the contrary... the only watchmaker is the blind forces of natuure... albeit deployed in a very special way... ?
Do you suppose that this means that the physics DOESN'T... "look like a fix"... ?
Do you suppose that this means that we should NOT give the first most apparent implication of the evidence... EQUAL TIME... and that we should dismiss the guy that's standing over the dead body holding a smoking gun because we somehow know without looking that he couldn'a done it... ?
Just don't call yourselves "self-honest", nor scientific.
Posted by: island | November 25, 2007 12:08 PM
Lack of an alternative.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | November 25, 2007 12:08 PM
The anthropic principle countersthe fine tuning argument.
LOL.. anthropic selection from some theoretically speculative multiverse of potential is not a physics "principle", much less is it a cosmological principle.
The anthropic physics as applied to most natural expectation for a dynamical structure principle is what gets you a *biocentric* cosmological principle.
Posted by: island | November 25, 2007 12:13 PM
island, redefine all you want; you can make anything mean anything that way. I'm not claiming it is a "principle" in any rigorous way; that is simply part of the name it was given. It says what it says, and claiming that "the anthropic principle" supports a "designed universe" is to call the fine-tuning argument by the same name as the argument that counters it (how effectively it counters fine-tuning is a matter of debate, though I find it quite satisfactory).
Posted by: J Myers | November 25, 2007 12:21 PM
Thank you Kseniya, they finally posted, and now my follow-up is both, out of context... and just plain wrong... ;)
Posted by: island | November 25, 2007 12:23 PM
The anthropic principle countersthe fine tuning argument.
To treat this seriously, and at the risk of emboldening the troll, I don't see that it does. From my point of view the anthropic principle is either a simple tautology or a trivial statement. Of course us being here means the universe is a certain way, but that doesn't rule out the existence of a supernatural being. The anthropic principle says nothing about *how* the parameters got the way they are and I am very uncomfortable with the SciFi suggestions of multiple universes. Really, is a multiverse of universes the parsimonious solution we're looking for?
The anthropic principle is grasping at straws.
Posted by: coathangrrr | November 25, 2007 12:27 PM
No, Ms Meyers, I'm saying that the observed for evidence for the expectation of a dynamical structure mechanism, (a true cosmological principle), takes theoretical precedence over all other speculations, until or unless you can prove that the multiverse is real or justified by a final theory or a valid COMPLETE theory of quantum gravity.
It's fine to use it like RD does to counter equally speculative rants of creationists, but it does NOT supercede the anthropic observation as it applies to the observed universe.
Posted by: island | November 25, 2007 12:30 PM
Name calling without a speck of support.
Boy... I'm really not impressed by the irrational belief system of the cranks that hang-out here.
Posted by: island | November 25, 2007 12:32 PM
#19 -
"The direct demonstration that dark matter has the properties inferred on the basis of indirect arguments shows that we are on the right track in our quest to understand the structure of the universe."
That's what bothers me about this stuff. I think it's too likely that the equipment has been programmed with assumptions that will return 'evidence' that fits the assumptions. But I'm the first to admit that I ain't no rocket scientist.
Posted by: TW | November 25, 2007 12:36 PM
No, Ms Meyers, I'm saying that the observed for evidence for the expectation of a dynamical structure mechanism, (a true cosmological principle), takes theoretical precedence over all other speculations, until or unless you can prove that the multiverse is real or justified by a final theory or a valid COMPLETE theory of quantum gravity.
So, until we know everything about this universe we can't speculate on other stuff. That's just stupid and not useful.
Boy... I'm really not impressed by the irrational belief system of the cranks that hang-out here.
Maybe you should leave then, seeing as you don't seem to be helping the situation any.
Posted by: coathangrrr | November 25, 2007 12:36 PM
It will be alright PZ. Don't let idiots get to you. It seems like you get all worked up over things... I know, I know - despite the accumulation of information over thousands of years, humans havn't become better thinkers- but you know mountains more than you would have known had you been born 200 years ago! You can be happy about that!
Posted by: robotaholic | November 25, 2007 12:40 PM
So, until we know everything about this universe we can't speculate on other stuff. That's just stupid and not useful.
Um, no, I believe that I mentioned (somewhere) something about EQUAL TIME for the most obvious answer, which is for a biocentric cosmological principle.
This argument is also an infinitely stronger killshot to creationists arguments than anthropic selection ever will be.
It's also what Davies is talking about.
Posted by: island | November 25, 2007 12:45 PM
If you leave, island, we'll probably see a good 80 or 90% decrease in the amount of crank in the Pharyngula comments. You are very probably the biggest crackpot to infest the comments since the bygone days of Charlie Wagner.
Posted by: Dustin | November 25, 2007 12:46 PM
Maybe you should leave then, seeing as you don't seem to be helping the situation any.
Wait... you seem to have forgotten something about name calling without a speck of support... which continues unabated.
How conveniently dogmatic.
Posted by: island | November 25, 2007 12:47 PM
Dustin, prove your assertion or shut your big mouth.
Posted by: island | November 25, 2007 12:48 PM
Island, I've looked over your blog and the various references you've posted, and I'm deeply unimpressed. You appear to have confused the true statement, "t'Hooft has argued that quantum mechanics might have a deterministic basis" with the incorrect statement "Science has established that quantum mechanics is deterministic."
You've used a couple of quotemines along the lines of "the appearance of design is undeniable" to claim that the universe is undoubtedly designed, which is profoundly dishonest. The reason for the collapse of "natural theology" is that the superficial appearance of design in, for example, biological systems, is, on closer investigation, better accounted for by the operation of unintelligent, non-forward looking natural mechanisms than by the operation of an intelligent or forward-looking designer, unless such designer is pathologically perverse.
Finally, the only statement of the "anthropic principle" which has any useful content is this: "The laws of nature cannot be such as to make the universe we see about us impossible." You cannot, except as an exercise in collossal egotism, make the leap from there to "The laws of nature were carefully picked to allow for the existence of me specifically, me me me me me."
Posted by: Stephen Wells | November 25, 2007 12:51 PM
I find it interesting that arguments from the strong anthropic principle seem to assume the truth of materialism.
Basically they state that with a supply of the basic units of mass-energy, along with a few parameters, all that we know could come to be, including life and mind, etc. If some independent reality were granted to mind then there would be no need to appeal to anthropic coincidences.
Posted by: paul01 | November 25, 2007 12:53 PM
So why are you telling us, PZ? You should be telling the Times.
Posted by: Molly, NYC | November 25, 2007 12:54 PM
Island: You're a notorious crank. Go babble somewhere else.
Posted by: PZ Myers | November 25, 2007 12:55 PM
Oh, before I forget, in what possible sense is the most obvious answer for the laws of nature a "biocentric anthropic principle?" It's a big universe out there and this "life" thing only happens, to the best of our knowledge, in a thin film on the surface of one rocky planet. Even just looking at the solar system, almost everywhere is massively inimical to life.
re the OP: I have personally, while I was at ASU, heard Paul Davies say that he wants to nuke a hole in Mars and look in the crater for buried signs of early life there. I suggested less drastic methods and he said he wanted an answer in his own lifetime. In my book that makes him an egotistical crank.
Posted by: Stephen Wells | November 25, 2007 12:57 PM
Even on this world, all of the available environments favor bacteria over scientists or theologians, and said scientists and theologians have existed for only about 0.00001% of the lifetime of this universe, and are prone to wink out of existence long before we can get rid of one of the zeroes in that number.
... as I have grown rather weary of vapid nonsense like Davies' actually getting column inches, I find myself strangely consoled by this thought. Yes, there will indeed come a day when no one equates (i) the sensible and modest induction that there are, in fact, useful and predictive patterns behind the phenomena we observe with (ii) the arrogant certainty that your personal invisible sky daddy not only exists, but actively listens to and seriously considers your entreaties that your football team will win this Saturday.
Sure, this day may, in fact, coincide with either the swelling of our own primary to a red giant or the heat death of the universe. But hey, for that sorta reward, I can wait.
Posted by: AJ Milne | November 25, 2007 1:01 PM
Davies do indeed read as an apologist most of the time, whether it is a correct interpretation or not. Here he shows the usual confusions and credulity of such.
And as any apologist arguments they can easily be shredded, as Coyne, Krauss and Bernstein did. Carroll takes another tack and uses his "non existence is not among the observed ensemble and therefore isn't a well posed question" argument, which of course works too.
One can go further and discuss the specifics of Davies confusions. As he touches two of my pet peeves I will pounce on that. (And unfortunately that means I will be repeating myself from many times before. Maybe it's time to change peeves. :-P)
First, Davies conflates faith (and meaning) between science and religion. The difference is IMO accentuated and kept by the adage that "trust is earned", meaning that repeatable observations and testable science lends trust while religious faith is just that.
Second, Davies brings up what Colugo calls "anthropic fine tuning" and I call the religious "anthropic argument" in its general sense, whether fine tuning or other implicit uses of a priori probabilities.
The religious disconnect is to juxtapose those two separate questions (meaning and fundamental laws) and pretend that physicists are interested in the later due to the former.
In reality some forms of anthropic principle argues that one shouldn't make the religious mistake of conflating (possibly small) a priori probabilities with (possibly large) a posterori likelihoods. The weak anthropic principle (WAP) hypothesises that we are likely to find ourselves in a universe where physics makes life likely.
Like it or not, we live in a universe that can be described by some form of anthropic principle (AP). If there is only one possible physics, the tautological AP would still be applicable and has in fact been used for effect. (Hoyle and the carbon-12 resonance.)
Whether something comes out of it in connection with multiverses is another matter, and I wouldn't want to argue either way as it seems feasible but not, erhm, too likely. ;-)
But I note that creationists aren't the only ones confusing the matter. Koonin has speculated in a cosmological model for abiogenesis. IMHO his reasoning is confused, as he proposes to explain what he describes as a low likelihood scenario ("a system of a far greater complexity, i.e., a highly evolved one, appears to be required") while the WAP concerns itself with high likelihoods.
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson, OM | November 25, 2007 1:01 PM
Me again.
I remember reading an excerpt from Ptolemy's Almagest, where he paused in his exposition to ask why one should prefer a scheme that depended largely on circles, as opposed to one that allowed for more eccentricity. He appealed to the experience of the ancients, who observed a) an orderly progression of stars though the heavens and b) the fact that the planets generally descibed parallel tracks through the heavens.
The regularities that formed the basis of Ptolemy's science were thus observed regularities, not assumed regularities. The fact that he was wrong about some things is beside the point. If this was so in the early days of science, why should it be any different now?
Posted by: paul01 | November 25, 2007 1:02 PM
You appear to have confused the true statement, "t'Hooft has argued that quantum mechanics might have a deterministic basis" with the incorrect statement "Science has established that quantum mechanics is deterministic."
No, my point was made in response to a claim that non-deterministic quantum mechanics is a proven fact.
The reason for the collapse of "natural theology
You obviously did not spend any time at my blog, because I would never make such a lame claim.
You've used a couple of quotemines along the lines of "the appearance of design is undeniable" to claim that the universe is undoubtedly designed
No, the universe is not "designed", and I never claimed anything of the sort. My claim is that the appearance indicates that there is a carbon-life oriented structure principle that gets willfully ignored for the very reasons that Carter was forced to put forth the AP in the first place.
I've looked over your blog and the various references you've posted, and I'm deeply unimpressed
No doubt, since you apparently understood very little of what you saw.
Posted by: island | November 25, 2007 1:03 PM
Island: You're a notorious crank. Go babble somewhere else.
Blatant lies without support don't impress me any more than your ignorance of the facts, buddy.
Posted by: island | November 25, 2007 1:06 PM
That was hot.