Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Vorkosigan · 07-13-2003, 03:49 AM

Did we discuss Toby Wardman's article yet? I'd like to make sure I'm not repeating.

GunnerJ · 07-13-2003, 06:18 AM

There was a feedback thread, and one thread on FT in EoG turned to the subject of Wardman's article. But I can't see why we shouldn't have another discussion here.

pz · 07-13-2003, 07:13 AM

I thought the article was shallow and naive, and would welcome a more thorough discussion here.

theyeti · 07-13-2003, 01:05 PM

I didn't think the article was very good. Here's an example of what I consider to be a category error:

Quote:

If things were different, we wouldn't be here

Even if this universe is wildly improbable, so what? By the anthropic principle, if it were different we wouldn't be here to wonder about it.

This objection comes up very often, but when you think about it, it's rather an odd response to the fine-tuning argument. Suppose a soldier is sentenced to death by firing squad, but when the order comes, all twelve of the marksmen inexplicably miss their target and the soldier survives. Now, for one of the marksmen to miss would be unlikely, but all twelve? The odds against it are huge, unless there's been some deliberate tampering--bribery, sabotage, whatever. Surely the soldier is quite within his rights to wonder why the marksmen missed, and to try and find an answer to that question, even though--if they hadn't--he wouldn't be alive to wonder about it. He would be making a mistake if he just thought, "Oh well, that's that, no explanation needed!"--and then went on his merry way.

The mistake he makes here is that he assumes intentionality. Since we already know that soldiers are goal-seeking beings -- the putative goal in this case is to kill you -- then their failure to do so does indeed make us believe that they intended otherwise. But you can't postulate the behavior of an intentional being as evidence of an intentional being's existence without engaging in circular reasoning.

A better analogy would be that of a bunch of falling boulders, which may or may not have been pushed down a mountain on purpose. If they all missed you, how would you know whether it was due to chance or intentionality? There's no way to tell from the mere fact that they missed you, no matter how unlikely it may have been. You would need to seek additional information from elsewhere.

And that's the problem with fine-tuning arguments in general. They're only convincing if you start with the a priori belief that a universe with life-as-we-know-it is the only reason why the universe exists to begin with. If you assume that the way things are is a target, then of course you're going to be impressed by the fact that the target could have easliy been missed, and belief in a teleological agent follows naturally from there. But if you don't start with that assumption, and assume instead that the universe as it stands wasn't necessarily an intended goal, then fine-tuning arguments are not likely to impress.

theyeti

Joe Meert · 07-13-2003, 02:06 PM

The same sorts of arguments are made in the book 'rare earth'. Although the authors were not talking about ID/creationism, the book was quickly embraced by ID/creationists for its 'theological implications'. I don't know if it is possible for another universe dominated by a different physics to produce life. I realize there is no way to answer that question, but the 'uniqueness theorem' for life and our universe is troubling. So, based on my own personal incredulity, I don't find the 'fine-tuning' argument compelling.

Cheers

Joe Meert

Principia · 07-13-2003, 02:14 PM

Is there a link to this article?

Thanks.

PS: Nevermind. I found it in the Kiosk.

theyeti · 07-13-2003, 02:19 PM

looks like you found it...

Vorkosigan · 07-13-2003, 04:13 PM

That's what I thought, pz. Very unsophisticated. The errors it makes have been discussed to death here. more later.

Vorkosigan

07-13-2003, 03:49 AM	#1
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	ID article in Kiosk Did we discuss Toby Wardman's article yet? I'd like to make sure I'm not repeating.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-13-2003, 06:18 AM	#2
GunnerJ Banned Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: a place where i can list whatever location i want Posts: 4,871	There was a feedback thread, and one thread on FT in EoG turned to the subject of Wardman's article. But I can't see why we shouldn't have another discussion here.

07-13-2003, 07:13 AM	#3
pz Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Morris, MN Posts: 3,341	I thought the article was shallow and naive, and would welcome a more thorough discussion here.

07-13-2003, 02:06 PM	#5
Joe Meert Veteran Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: Gainesville Posts: 1,224	The same sorts of arguments are made in the book 'rare earth'. Although the authors were not talking about ID/creationism, the book was quickly embraced by ID/creationists for its 'theological implications'. I don't know if it is possible for another universe dominated by a different physics to produce life. I realize there is no way to answer that question, but the 'uniqueness theorem' for life and our universe is troubling. So, based on my own personal incredulity, I don't find the 'fine-tuning' argument compelling. Cheers Joe Meert

07-13-2003, 02:14 PM	#6
Principia Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: anywhere Posts: 1,976	Is there a link to this article? Thanks. PS: Nevermind. I found it in the Kiosk.

07-13-2003, 02:19 PM	#7
theyeti Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Denver, CO, USA Posts: 9,747	looks like you found it...

07-13-2003, 04:13 PM	#8
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	That's what I thought, pz. Very unsophisticated. The errors it makes have been discussed to death here. more later. Vorkosigan

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.