Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Is New Scientist channelling us? Dunno. We sure aren’t channelling them but…

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

From New Scientist:

You think there’s a multiverse? Get real

COSMOLOGY is in crisis. Recent experiments have given us an increasingly precise narrative of the history of our universe, but attempts to interpret the data have led to a picture of a “preposterous universe” that eludes explanation in the terms familiar to scientists.

Would they be thinking of stuff like cosmologists Ellis and Silk being actually  allowed to say in Nature, that

This year, debates in physics circles took a worrying turn. Faced with difficulties in applying fundamental theories to the observed Universe, some researchers called for a change in how theoretical physics is done. They began to argue — explicitly — that if a theory is sufficiently elegant and explanatory, it need not be tested experimentally, breaking with centuries of philosophical tradition of defining scientific knowledge as empirical. We disagree. As the philosopher of science Karl Popper argued: a theory must be falsifiable to be scientific. Article.

Right. Because the multiversers don’t have the goods.

And the lack of evidence for the multiverse  is talkable now in pop science?

Loss of rationality, assuming you had any to begin with, is a high price to pay for the bottom up naturalism of one’s dreams to be true. Some are willing to relax the standards of evidence for a multiverse, so they can believe it in good faith.

That’s what the row is about. Did some at New Scientist get that? We don’t know because most of their article is paywalled.

By contrast,  the article in Nature or our “So tell us again, WHY are you funding this utter nonsense? Let us give you the name of a good, affordable co-dependence counsellor… ” response. Both are free.

Someone who busts through the New Scientist paywall: Get back to us and tell us if they appear to get the fact that science ‘s oxygen is evidence, not pleasing speculation.

For a quick overview of how we found ourselves in this swamp and how to get out of it, see The Science Fictions series at your fingertips (cosmology). Also free.

Lose the pom poms.

Fun: Straighten up and fly right? Here’s how to do it.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
Thanks jstanley01 I can now pack up my curiosity, move to the town of 'No More Questions', bury my head in the sand and stick a bible in the crack of my bottom. All things have been answered, there is no need to worry yourself, everything is known and inquisitiveness is a curse, reason is unecessary. Investigation and the state of mental acquisitiveness is dangerous, go about your dreary know nothing bozo lives.rvb8
January 17, 2015
January
01
Jan
17
17
2015
01:26 AM
1
01
26
AM
PDT
I find it HILARIOUS, watching the know-it-all's beat their brains out against the hard barrier described by none other than the Apostle Paul nowhere else but in the Bible:
Hebrews 11:3 (NIV) By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.
And the only retort The Brights have left is, "By faith we understand that it was not"? Egads, my stomach hurts. Too, too funny.jstanley01
January 16, 2015
January
01
Jan
16
16
2015
06:41 AM
6
06
41
AM
PDT
Sounds like they're trying to pull back the craziness. Here's the 'kernel' of their thoughts: "Once we accept that we need a new paradigm to do science at the level of the universe as a whole, the next question to ask is what principle that new paradigm should be founded on. This is a question we hope to provoke cosmologists to think about. Mangabeira Unger and I propose three principles, which we argue are necessary to underlie any theory capable of explaining big cosmological questions – like the selection of the laws and initial conditions of the universe – in a way that is open to experimental test. The first is that there is just one universe. The second is that time is real and the laws of nature are not timeless but evolve. The third is that mathematics is not a description of some separate timeless, Platonic reality, but is a description of the properties of one universe. These principles take us beyond the Newtonian paradigm and the cosmological fallacy, and are a starting point for exploring the science of the universe as a whole."polistra
January 16, 2015
January
01
Jan
16
16
2015
06:13 AM
6
06
13
AM
PDT

Leave a Reply