BookTalk.org

I got confused where to post in these sections.

Anyway, Marcelo Gleiser says something about the testability ofthe multiverse in his book (that I am now reading) "The Island of Knowledge"

Within the present formulation of physics the multiverse hypothesis is untestable, however compelling it may be. Extrapolation from two universes or even a few to many - possibly infinitely many - is not automatic. More to the point, the notion of "infinitely many" is not testable as a matter of principle: to know of infinite space, we would need to receive signals from infinitely far away; to know infinite time, we would need to receive signals from infinitely distant past

Marcelo Gleiser always speaks modestly and humbly, not unlike Paul Davies, another favorite author of mine.
From what I have experienced, a more arrogant, swaggering tone is favored by most atheist/ metaphysical naturalists.

Gleiser's book goes deep into the limits of our knowledge. His chapter on the multiverse covers much more ground than Carrier's glossy treatment of it.

I highly recommend his book. And although I did agree with several of Carrier's views, Gleiser is a refreshingly welcomed change of pace.

http://www.booktalk.org/post131460.html#p131460

ant wrote:

Throughout the section, he emphasizes one key facet; that to arrive at proper knowledge, we follow proper process. Not process that is fabricated or manufactured post hoc, but one that produces continually reliable results

Yes and no.

Feyerabend would perhaps disagree with a "proper process" being followed to assure arriving at proper knowledge. One need look only at history to falsify that claim. Galileo's development of the heliocentric hypothesis is a perfect example here.

I read Against Method by Paul Feyerabend when I was studying philosophy at university thirty years ago. I recall finding him interesting and provocative, but somewhat crazy. I will try to dig out my copy.

ant wrote: Galileo's usage of ad hoc rules to maintain the heliocentric model was not seen as following a proper scientific process. Quite frankly, it was the Church that insisted on strict adherence to empirical methods:

"The church at the time of Galileo was much more faithful to reason than Galileo himself, and also took into consideration the ethical and social consequences of Galileo's doctrine. Its verdict against Galileo was rational and just, and revisionism can be legitimized solely for motives of political opportunism - " - Feyerabend

That line strikes me as bizarre. Many in the church refused to look through the telescope. Galileo saw the moons of Jupiter and rightly inferred that planets are bodies moving with rational materially simple paths. Galileo understood that planets cannot do the loop-de-loops required by Ptolemaic epicycles, but he lacked the elliptical insight supplied by Kepler and Newton.

To say the church was faithful to reason against Galileo is to traduce logic by making reason the equivalent of tradition. This idea of ‘ethical and social consequences’ simply means that medieval society was ordered on the basis of geocentrism, if not flat earth theory, and that upsetting this order of king and commoner would be disruptive to authoritarian notions of divine legitimacy. That is a recipe for the most appalling and reactionary stagnant conservatism and fear of innovation.

ant wrote: The rest is history of course, but the point Feyerabend makes in " Against Method" is that proper processes do not always provide proper knowledge. the annals of science are littered with hypotheses that led nowhere. Those that did were often developed into proper knowledge by unorthodox means.

I actually think that Feyerabend has an important insight here against Carrier, that scientific discovery rests on genius and intuition, more than on method. Galileo had the genius to see that geocentrism was absurd, and helped advance the path to proving this, while himself not having the full intellectual basis for his intuition. So in this case, science advanced by a correct intuition, which others, especially Newton, came along later to fill out.

I think this shows a basic flaw in Carrier’s approach to religion, that he wants to restrict claims to what can be proven by existing method, and therefore ridicules those who have a more exploratory attitude.

Method is key, rather than genius or intuition. Although genius and intuition are helpful. Consider Isaac Newton's quote: "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." Hidden behind this quote is the understanding that even the most brilliant breakthroughs would have happened shortly anyways, because the time for them was ripe. The stage was set for Darwin to come to the conclusions he came to, and Einstein, and Galileo.

There is genius that will lead the way, but don't forget about all the other genius across the globe. There are many of them. And the ideas they come up with range from the fantastical to illuminatingly truthful. What's required for all these ideas, what was required for Newton's idea and Einsteins, is a method to sort them as wheat from the chaff. How else could we identify them as genius, unless we had a method to show their ideas to be truthful.

One of my favorite pieces of wisdom was from a quote I still haven't been able to find since. It was a nobel prize winner on creativity. The wisdom behind the quote was that the secret to truly creative genius wasn't simply to have a great idea. It was to have many ideas, with a good method of selecting between them. In other words, differential selection of ideas using method.

In this same way, the vast pool of intelligent men on our planet produces many hypotheses, and the use of proper method is what sorts through the pool. The genius among us may come up with hypotheses more quickly, but spread across 7 billion people, that's a tough argument. How many times has it been shown that other people were working on the very same issue, only months behind in progress, on any number of problems?

Or consider the relative lack of progress in the dark ages. Did they have fewer genuises? Or was their method subverted?

Robert Tulip wrote:. . . I actually think that Feyerabend has an important insight here against Carrier, that scientific discovery rests on genius and intuition, more than on method. Galileo had the genius to see that geocentrism was absurd, and helped advance the path to proving this, while himself not having the full intellectual basis for his intuition. So in this case, science advanced by a correct intuition, which others, especially Newton, came along later to fill out.

I think this shows a basic flaw in Carrier’s approach to religion, that he wants to restrict claims to what can be proven by existing method, and therefore ridicules those who have a more exploratory attitude.

Actually Carrier says one of the virtues of the scientific method is that it does accommodate intuition and imagination. But ultimately, all claims must be backed up with evidence.

Carrier wrote:The seed from which the success of science was born is a simple three-step process: adduction, deduction, induction. . . . The virtue of this method is threefold. First, it accommodates creativity. Looking at nature and coming up with guesses about how things work, or what else we might find if we look in the right place, is driven from the start by curiosity and imagination, two things humans have in spades. Second, it doesn’t dare let you get down to the business of proving anything without first analyzing the meaning of our guesses, applying rigorous logic to our ideas, forcing us to fully confront just what our theories would entail if they were true or false—in other words, it unites our creativity with our most powerful tool of all: reason. Third, it doesn’t let you get away with claiming anything without proof . . .

Carrier has a typo here ^ where he says adduction. He meant abduction, a fancy word for guess.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning

His ideas on method are fine in principle, but there are two areas in which I don't think Carrier follows through consistently. Some of his language about the multiverse is careless and goes beyond his principle of not claiming anything without proof (I will look again for examples). And his general sense of discomfort about religion and mysticism leads him to be too dismissive about abductive discussion on cross-cultural and astral themes in ancient religion.

Robert Tulip wrote:...And his general sense of discomfort about religion and mysticism leads him to be too dismissive about abductive discussion on cross-cultural and astral themes in ancient religion.

I have to agree with Robert Tulip here as Richard Carrier is on video admitting that he has absolutely no interest whatsoever in astral or astrotheological themes and basically refuses to study the subject calling it, in his own word, "dull", which is essentially an admission of his own biases against the subject and that makes him an unreliable source on the subject:

"53 through 54 Carrier admits he has no interest in pursuing or investigating astrotheology as he finds it "dull."

Nuskeptix "Christ Myth Theory" Video Chat

Btw, Carrier's criticism of the astral/astrotheological themes throughout Murdock's work has been exposed and refuted here: Stupid Things Richard Carrier has Said and Done

FTL99 wrote: I have to agree with Robert Tulip here as Richard Carrier is on video admitting that he has absolutely no interest whatsoever in astral or astrotheological themes and basically refuses to study the subject calling it, in his own word, "dull", which is essentially an admission of his own biases against the subject and that makes him an unreliable source on the subject

In fairness, the only person I know that's interested in it is Robert Tulip.

hey , me too though I pale as the moon to the sun in comparison to the Tulip

In seriousness I must add that I think you will never get a good understanding of the ancients without astrotheology.

And I must add Carrier is missing it when he says it is dull, I find the opposite is true, astrotheology etc is utterly fascinating, I think Richard is missing out.

It confounds me that Carrier finds a major preoccupation of so many ancient geniuses to be dull

Meh, his loss.