Fine-Tuning Problem in Cosmology

[Aridas]

Of course I'm appealing to authority. I wish my opponents would do some of it.

You do realize that openly proclaiming that your arguments are fallacious at the core is not going to help you, right?

You seem to think that "nature" is something outside of the universe. What do you think exists that is outside of the universe?

By trying to use this line of argument, you're demonstrating that you're not interested in accurately dealing with the topic under discussion. Our universe, which could potentially be one of many, is conceptually not the same as existence as a whole, which is what you would have to be referring to with your use of universe here. Your usage is simply improper when the topic of one or more multiverses is part of the discussion, given the even more excessive amount of conflation that tends to occur when using that than tends to happen in most other situations.

I can't win*




*except that I won the debate after the first couple posts, and now it's just an exercise in exposing people's ignorance (e.g., people claiming Hawking isn't an authority).

You won? Interesting. After taking a peek back, it looks a bit more like you tried to point out a couple things that should be non-controversial rather poorly and demonstrated that you really don't understand the puddle argument very well at all. That doesn't really look like victory to me.

With that said, something that is noncontroversial is that cosmological models that explain the existing observations and make accurate predictions are preferable to ones that do not or do so, but just not as well. Sticking to that line of argument and the support there would likely get you much further than what you've been trying.

The puddle analogy, for the record, cannot be properly used to oppose or even address that point. Any and all attempts that I've seen to make a counterargument relating to the puddle being intelligent, for that matter, have quite missed the point of the puddle argument. Including your hexagon shaped hole attempt.

Posting quotes fresh from the mine is hardly a win.

True. Still, a good way to back up your claim that the people in question have been quote mined is to provide the context that shows that the quote is being misused. I'm not convinced that you can, quite frankly.

 

[Pixel42]

I listed the three main objections to the proposition that the universe is fine tuned for life in the previous thread, Fudbucker has yet to address them or even quote where one of his authorities addresses them. He seems to think that listing scientists who accept that an argument can be made for the proposition is sufficient to prove that it's true, and that all scientists agree with it.

 

[Pixel42]

I just dug out my copy of The Goldilocks Enigma, in which Paul Davies makes the case for the proposition. This quote is from the chapter "Afterword: Ultimate explanations".

A. The absurd universe

This is probably the majority position among scientists. According to this point of view, the universe is as it is, mysteriously, and it just happens to permit life. It could have been otherwise, but what we see is what we get. Had it been different, we would not be here to argue about it.

The tone makes it clear that he personally finds it inadequate, but even Davies admits he's in the minority.

 

[tsig]

One post solves this whole debate:

"There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the Universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned' for life". However, he continues, "the conclusion is not so much that the Universe is fine-tuned for life; rather it is fine-tuned for the building blocks and environments that life requires."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

Either Paul Davies* is right, or he has no idea what he's talking about.

*Davies' talent as a communicator of science has been recognized in Australia by an Advance Australia Award and two Eureka Prizes, and in the UK by the 2001 Kelvin Medal and Prize by the Institute of Physics, and the 2002 Faraday Prize by The Royal Society. Davies received the Templeton Prize in 1995. Davies was made a member of the Order of Australia in the 2007 Queen's birthday honours list. The asteroid 6870 Pauldavies is named after him.

I wonder who's more credible, Paul Davies or Tsig?

Hmmm......

Humm...


ETA:
I wonder who's more credible, Paul Davies or Tsig?
He is the author of over twenty books, including The Mind of God, Other Worlds, God and the New Physics, The Edge of Infinity, The Cosmic Blueprint, Are We Alone? The Fifth Miracle, The Last Three Minutes, Superforce, The Accidental Universe, About Time, and How to Build a Time Machine.

Hummm...

 

[Pixel42]

I think one reason for the train wreck this thread has become is a confusion between scientists agreeing that the universe seems to be fine tuned for life and them agreeing that it actually is fine tuned for life. Most scientists would also agree that the sun seems to go around the earth, that complex life seems to have been designed etc. What's in dispute is whether what seems to be the case at first glance is what is actually the case.

 

[Toontown]

I think one reason for the train wreck this thread has become is a confusion between scientists agreeing that the universe seems to be fine tuned for life and them agreeing that it actually is fine tuned for life. Most scientists would also agree that the sun seems to go around the earth, that complex life seems to have been designed etc. What's in dispute is whether what seems to be the case at first glance is what is actually the case.

If most participants in the thread don't even understand that, then what is the use of trying to talk to them about anything?

Here is where I tried to explain it to them:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10372796#post10372796

But my words, like silent raindrops fell, and echoed in the well of silence.

 

[Toontown]

Please cite your sources and show your work.

You trying to waste my time again, or just annoy me? The work has already been done. Nor have you or anyone else offered me any pay for re-doing it.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10378745#post10378745

 

[Toontown]

No, it was not an error, semantic or otherwise. It was a conditional statement.

Hans

Your conditional was false, and the conclusion that followed the conditional was false. You claimed "To the best of our knowledge...", when in fact you have no knowledge leading to the conclusion that follows: "...only one exists."

Referring, of course, to isolated regions of spacetime existing in a larger universe, typically called a multiverse. Which is obviously what Fudbucker was talking about.

 

[tsig]

Ahh, but I think Fudbucker does. He seems to think we are in a simulation "designed" by beings outside of, or beyond, our universe. So, while you like his arguments, I get the felling you are not on the same page.

If most participants in the thread don't even understand that, then what is the use of trying to talk to them about anything?

Here is where I tried to explain it to them:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10372796#post10372796

But my words, like silent raindrops fell, and echoed in the well of silence.

You got the above post as a response which you ignored.

 

[LSSBB]

You got the above post as a response which you ignored.

It must have been a silent raindrop.

 

[Toontown]

You got the above post as a response which you ignored.

Plink


I responded here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10372355#post10372355

 

[Fudbucker]

You do realize that openly proclaiming that your arguments are fallacious at the core is not going to help you, right?

Appealing to an authority is perfectly valid in informal logic, as long as the authority is an authority in the relevant field.

 

[Fudbucker]

Humm...


ETA:
I wonder who's more credible, Paul Davies or Tsig?
He is the author of over twenty books, including The Mind of God, Other Worlds, God and the New Physics, The Edge of Infinity, The Cosmic Blueprint, Are We Alone? The Fifth Miracle, The Last Three Minutes, Superforce, The Accidental Universe, About Time, and How to Build a Time Machine.

Hummm...

Did you bother to actually read what those two books are about?

"Its title comes from a quotation from Stephen Hawking: "If we do discover a theory of everything...it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason—for then we would truly know the mind of God."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mind_of_God

"[God and the New Physics] is not a book about God: it is a book about what was in 1983 the new physics , by a distinguished scientist who would go on six years later to edit a massive scholarly work called The New Physics, who would then start getting interested in life on Earth, extraterrestrial life and (right now) the physics or mechanics of cancer."
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/mar/16/god-new-physics-paul-davies-review1

Even if Paul Davies is a fundamentalist Christian (which he's not), it wouldn't change anything- he's a recognized authority in cosmology and physics.

 

[Fudbucker]

Your conditional was false, and the conclusion that followed the conditional was false. You claimed "To the best of our knowledge...", when in fact you have no knowledge leading to the conclusion that follows: "...only one exists."

Referring, of course, to isolated regions of spacetime existing in a larger universe, typically called a multiverse. Which is obviously what Fudbucker was talking about.

That was what I was talking about.

 

[Aridas]

Appealing to an authority is perfectly valid in informal logic, as long as the authority is an authority in the relevant field.

To a limited extent, if it's actually being used correctly in the first place. It's weak even then, though, at best, given that even authorities can and have been quite fallible quite a bit of the time. Going further from there, though, a number of posters in these forums have also had a bit too much experience with people who don't actually have a case appealing to authorities while using almost exactly the same kind of rhetoric and debate tactics that you've been, which may account for some of the kneejerk reactions of some posters here.

 

[Fudbucker]

To a limited extent, if it's actually being used correctly in the first place. It's weak even then, though, at best, given that even authorities can and have been quite fallible quite a bit of the time. Going further from there, though, a number of posters in these forums have also had a bit too much experience with people who don't actually have a case appealing to authorities while using almost exactly the same kind of rhetoric and debate tactics that you've been, which may account for some of the kneejerk reactions of some posters here.

It's not weak and is done all the time when the subject under discussion is esoteric. It's a standard (non-fallacious) move when dealing with climate denialists to cite the huge number of experts that disagree with them. Whenever a fingerprint expert or forensics expert or DNA expert is called to testify, it's an appeal to authority. Same when economists are cited to support QE or stimulus bills.

"However, the informal fallacy occurs only when the authority cited either (a) is not an authority, or (b) is not an authority on the subject on which he is being cited. If someone either isn’t an authority at all, or isn’t an authority on the subject about which they’re speaking, then that undermines the value of their testimony."
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/appeals/appeal-to-authority/

Stephen Hawking is an authority in cosmology, and he's an authority on cosmological fine-tuning. To suggest otherwise is ridiculous.

 

[tsig]

Did you bother to actually read what those two books are about?

"Its title comes from a quotation from Stephen Hawking: "If we do discover a theory of everything...it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason—for then we would truly know the mind of God."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mind_of_God

"[God and the New Physics] is not a book about God: it is a book about what was in 1983 the new physics , by a distinguished scientist who would go on six years later to edit a massive scholarly work called The New Physics, who would then start getting interested in life on Earth, extraterrestrial life and (right now) the physics or mechanics of cancer."
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/mar/16/god-new-physics-paul-davies-review1

Even if Paul Davies is a fundamentalist Christian (which he's not), it wouldn't change anything- he's a recognized authority in cosmology and physics.

Since fine tuning/design is faith rather than science his expertise means nothing. Just another scientist trying to leverage his science credentials to further his faith agenda.

 

[Fudbucker]

Since fine tuning/design is faith rather than science his expertise means nothing. Just another scientist trying to leverage his science credentials to further his faith agenda.

I'm not going to put you on ignore, but I'm going to stop taking you seriously at this point.

 

[ehcks]

Since fine tuning/design is faith rather than science his expertise means nothing. Just another scientist trying to leverage his science credentials to further his faith agenda.

Indeed. To suggest that the universe was finely tuned requires that there was a fine tuner. Some sort of being or force that intentionally set the universe to allow humans to exist. That we are an intended outcome of an event or being capable of altering the state of the universe itself.

That is an unacceptable level of arrogance and narcissism. That isn't science.

 

[tsig]

I'm not going to put you on ignore, but I'm going to stop taking you seriously at this point.

That's easier than answering anything I've posted. I guess that's winning then.