PZ Myers posted this on Pharyngula but in case some of you haven't seen it there, I though I'd post it too.
I find it really shocking that people would talk like this on television knowing that they're being watched by millions of people. Surely they realize that what they're saying conflicts with the consensus among scientific experts? I can understand how they might justify their anti-science position in their own minds in the privacy of their church or home but in public?
They must have a very low opinion of scientists.
18 comments :
Fortunately, the cast of The View has a reputation of being provocative and controversial, so hopefully the audience will watch this with a critical eye. Hopefully. This is America after all.
Hey Larry, out of curiosity, do you have any arguments against the "the constants of the universe are so precisely fine-tuned it could not have been a coincidence" argument?
These women represent the caliber of conversation you get among your typical Americans (e. g., the non educated, or those who may have cobbled together a business degree).
In the US, it is completely permissible to benefit from things like modern medicine but to completely ignore those who developed it.
PS to the last comment:
these are the Republican Presidential candidates
Notice how these people completely dismissed science with no shame whatsoever.
I would have thought it showed that they had an ignorance of science and a perhaps a high opinion of themselves (why else would they be on TV...!!), rather than a low opinion of science per se.
They're also very loud :-)
To anonymous, I'll just quote Douglas Adams from a speech he gave at Cambridge.
" imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for."
The fact that life has evolved does not necessitate design.
Apologies to anonymous. I meant to direct my comments above to esaul17.
Re esaul17
One of the constants that the anthropic principal folks include is the gravitational constant. The argument is that, if the gravitational constant was a little smaller, the universe would have expanded into nothingness while if it were a little larger, the universe would have collapsed after the initial big bang. However, the discovery of dark energy invalidates this argument. A smaller gravitational constant could be compensated for by a lower density of dark energy. A larger gravitational constant could be compensated for by a higher density of dark energy.
PS: I am the one who posted as anonymous; evidently I wasn't logged into google when I attempted to comment.
There is also something else going on in the US: among the general public there is this idea that "one opinion is as good as another", no matter how badly misinformed an opinion might be or no matter how ignorant the person is who is stating that said opinion.
esaul17 asks,
Hey Larry, out of curiosity, do you have any arguments against the "the constants of the universe are so precisely fine-tuned it could not have been a coincidence" argument?
Yes.
1. I'm not convinced that the constants are all independent of each other and I'm not convinced that other values (within reason) are disallowed.
2. Even if the constants are highly constrained, the fact that we find ourselves in the only universe where we could exist is hardly a "coincidence." It's a necessity. There's no other possibility.
3. Any explanation other than a natural one is mere fantasy. There's no evidence to support the idea that a supernatural being created the physical constants specifically to allow life to form. The most reasonable response is not "God did it." Rational people respond with, "we don't know the complete answer to this question."
4. The idea that the universe is designed to produce life is an extreme example of hubris. As far as we know, Earth is the only planet with life in the entire universe. That's one insignificant planet in a galaxy of billions of stars in a universe with billions of galaxies, most of which is composed of cold space where life is impossible.
5. Even if we allow, for the sake of argument, that God created the physical constants, it says nothing about the concept of God that most people believe in. It's a deist position. Such a God may have nothing to do with subsequent evolution or with Jesus.
Larry said,
1. I'm not convinced that the constants are all independent of each other and I'm not convinced that other values (within reason) are disallowed.
This, I think, is one of the best arguments. It is highly likely that, like electricity and magentism, the "fundamental constants" are merely different manifestations of the same unifying "constant"; that is, you can't change just one, because they're all a derivation of the same thing. While this just shifts the question (i.e. if you changed the central constant just a bit...), it greatly reduces the impact of the "problem".
Even if each of the constants are independent of each other, it does not follow that because they are "set" just so such that life is possible. If they were different, we wouldn't be here; I accept that. Someone else would be here and would be pondering why they were "chosen" to exist.
This goes back to fundamental probability theory...it doesn't matter how improbable something is; as long as the probability is not zero, there has to be some outcome. We only think we're "lucky" to be here because we are here. Yes, there are an infinite number of other scenarios that do not lead to us; but someone had to win that cosmic lottery, and whoever did would be amazed that they did despite the long odds.
More in a very old post at my blog:
http://propterhoc.wordpress.com/2007/03/30/flipping-our-coin/
Larry said,
5. Even if we allow, for the sake of argument, that God created the physical constants, it says nothing about the concept of God that most people believe in. It's a deist position. Such a God may have nothing to do with subsequent evolution or with Jesus.
Well said.
To go from "the universe is so complex as to absolutely require a creator" to "Jesus was born of a virgin, rose from the dead on the third day, currently sits at the right hand of god to judge the wicked, and will return to Earth trailing clouds of glory" is, without some evidence to suggest its validity, a complete non sequitur.
Larry, what do you think of the idea (as far-fetched as it may sound) that there are multiple universes with different values of the constants and that we just inhabit one of them?
This scenario in fact involves an "evolutionary design" in the progression of the universe(s), with there being a kind of natural selection that favors certain universes, nonetheless leading to many of them. Then we don't need God or a supernatural deity to explain why our constants have their particular values, since these values constitute simply one among many existing scenarios.
Hey Larry, out of curiosity, do you have any arguments against the "the constants of the universe are so precisely fine-tuned it could not have been a coincidence" argument?
You haven't actually said what it is that you think the 'constants of the universe' are precisely fine-tuned to. If you mean the carbon-based life on this planet then see Jim's quote of Douglas Adams above. Life on this planet has evolved with the existing physical constants and so is inevitably 'fine-tuned' to them, you might as well say that sunlight is fine-tuned to our eyes.
If you mean that the physical constants are fine-tuned to 'any' form of life then please try and define what these may be, something that I've yet to see anyone who tosses around this argument actually do.
Once you have defined exactly what you are applying the fine-tuning argument to then please tell us how you would determine the difference between a 'fine-tuned' and 'rough-tuned' universe anyway?
Within what range must the four to six independent physical constants required to determine the structure of the universe (depending on current knowledge and who you read) be constrained to warrant calling any universe containing life 'fine-tuned'?
"Hey Larry, out of curiosity, do you have any arguments against the "the constants of the universe are so precisely fine-tuned it could not have been a coincidence" argument?"
Larry covered most of the main objections above, but I'd also like to add that "God" doesn't even answer the question -- as usual, "God" merely pushes the same question back. Let's say God "fine-tuned" the universe. OK, now why did God "fine-tune" the universe THIS way and not SOME OTHER way, out of all the infinite number of ways she could've done it? And if the answer is "to make us," well, it's still an astonishing coincidence (the same astonishing coincidence the religious types are objecting to in this line of discussion!) that we happened to have a God that wanted to make us rather than a God that wanted to make something else. How do you explain this other than to invoke an uber-God that obviously created and fine-tuned our God and constrained her to making us rather than something else in our 'stead?
OK, now why did God "fine-tune" the universe THIS way and not SOME OTHER way, out of all the infinite number of ways she could've done it?
Same reason as video game designers. Because this way, stuff that's interesting to watch and mess with happens in the universe. God isn't going to be able to sell boring universes.
I would really hate to live in a universe that couldn't support life. Who would fund my research??
Larry, thank you a lot for that reply, I appreciate it greatly. One of those real enlightening moments.
And when I said they were fine tuned, I meant otherwise planets couldn't form and particles couldn't stay together, to answer the other poster.
That said, I think Larry and others have extensively covered the flaws in this argument. Thank you all again very much.
Post a Comment