The multiverse as a scientific concept — part I

Scientia Salon

looking-for-life-in-the-multiverse_1by Coel Hellier

The multiverse concept is often derided as “unscientific” and an example of physicists indulging in metaphysical speculation of the sort they would usually deplore. For example, commenters here at Scientia Salon have said that the multiverse is “by definition not verifiable and thus outside the bounds of empirical science,’’ and that “advocates of multiverses seem to be in need of serious philosophical help” [1].

Critics thus claim that the multiverse amounts to a leap of faith akin to a religious belief. Indeed, the religious often accuse atheistic scientists of inventing the multiverse purely to rebut the “fine-tuning” argument that they say points to a creator god, though the fine-tuning argument is readily refuted in several other ways, and anyhow physicists really don’t care enough about theology these days to let that worry them; further, the concepts leading to a multiverse were developed well before theologians started taking…

View original post 1,523 more words

Non-experts challenging the expert consensus is rarely wise, even when scientists do it

Chris Mooney has an article at Mother Jones, explaining why it's not a good idea for non-scientists to challenge the scientific consensus, in the process, reviewing Harry Collins's new book, 'Are we all scientific experts now?'. Read all the online stuff you want, Collins argues—or even read the professional scientific literature from the perspective of … Continue reading Non-experts challenging the expert consensus is rarely wise, even when scientists do it