Why scientism is bunk

A grand example example of a "begging the question" argument.

Can you elaborate?

A grand example example of a "begging the question" argument.

You'll have to explain this one. "Begging the question" is an attempt to argue the truth of a proposition while simultaneously taking the proposition for granted. An example is “Wool sweaters are superior to nylon jackets as fall attire because wool sweaters have the higher wool content”, which begs the question because the argument fails to show how having the higher wool content makes a garment superior. Another definition: "to ignore a question that is implicit in the argument under the assumption it has already been answered." How, exactly, is my statement begging the question?

If some apparently "fine tuned" constant in the equations of physics (like the 1/r^2 relation in calculating the gravitational force in celestial mechanics) is actually an inherent part of the mathematical foundations of existence, that just points to mathematics itself also being the "fine tuned" product of some Intelligence, another example of how absolutely nothing can come from absolutely nothing including there being no mathematics. If an important physics constant that needs to be very close to its current value in order for life as we know it to exist is actually "a part of the maths", this is just a different form of fine tuning, but fine tuning nevertheless.

OK, but you seem to have weakened the whole fine-tuning argument as a result - which is fine by me!

David

Perhaps another answer to the fine-tuning argument would be to imagine that you had a suitably powerful simulator so that you could follow the evolution of a star and its associated planets in enough detail to decide if it were suitable for life.

Now imagine that the simulator could be run on a large number of variants of the standard laws (de-tuned physics, if you like). My hunch would be that it would be possible to find lots of other niches for life.

I mean the fine-tuning argument may depend a lot on people's inability to know how other universes would develop.

David

Perhaps another answer to the fine-tuning argument would be to imagine that you had a suitably powerful simulator so that you could follow the evolution of a star and its associated planets in enough detail to decide if it were suitable for life.

Now imagine that the simulator could be run on a large number of variants of the standard laws (de-tuned physics, if you like). My hunch would be that it would be possible to find lots of other niches for life.

I mean the fine-tuning argument may depend a lot on people's inability to know how other universes would develop.

David

Yeah I think Cosmic Fine Tuning suggests design, and at the very least is something that feels like it needs more explanation than mere luck...but it seems to me that if someone - not necessarily @nbtruthman b/c I am not sure I understand his last posts on this - is arguing that these constants are the only ones in which life could arise it seems to argue against souls...

Yeah I think Cosmic Fine Tuning suggests design, and at the very least is something that feels like it needs more explanation than mere luck...but it seems to me that if someone - not necessarily @nbtruthman b/c I am not sure I understand his last posts on this - is arguing that these constants are the only ones in which life could arise it seems to argue against souls...

I don't like weak anti-materialist arguments - because they distract from more powerful reasons.

I mean in principle you could take any physical law, and add extra terms - such as (k1-k2)/r^4 and then claim the universe was tuned so that k1 equals k2!

David

I responded to the following argument "..And the worst error of scientism is basic logic, where it is conveniently not recognized that any "theory of everything" is a system of laws governing reality that has to have had some intelligent origin. Nothing comes from absolutely nothing.

The argument claims:

1. Any "theory of everything" is a system of laws governing reality.
2. This system of laws has to have had some intelligent origin.
3. Nothing comes from absolutely nothing.

The assertion in point 2 ("has to have had some intelligent origin") presumes that there must be an intelligent origin for the laws of reality without directly offering evidence or reasoning for this claim. It simply asserts it as a foundational premise. This is essentially taking the conclusion (there is an intelligent origin) and using it as a premise.

The other argument of this thread which I find a lot more compelling is the fine-tuning argument. It provides a persuasive reason to posit the existence of a designer or cause behind the laws of physics. Consider atoms, for instance. If the fundamental forces of nature deviated even slightly from their current values, it's conceivable that no stable matter would form. Instead, everything might exist in a mere quantum foam state. The precision with which our universe is structured suggests that there may be an underlying intent or design.

The other argument of this thread which I find a lot more compelling is the fine-tuning argument. It provides a persuasive reason to posit the existence of a designer or cause behind the laws of physics. Consider atoms, for instance. If the fundamental forces of nature deviated even slightly from their current values, it's conceivable that no stable matter would form. Instead, everything might exist in a mere quantum foam state. The precision with which our universe is structured suggests that there may be an underlying intent or design.

As you may have read, I find fine tuning to be a weak argument - basically because it isn't clear just what is available to be fine tuned.

I think one good place to look is the extraordinary things that some people can do. For example some people who claim to be mediums can pass Julie Beischel's multiply blind tests that they can contact the dead.

For example, the fact that people can recover from an NDE and report facts they would not have known by natural means.

For example, the fact that evolution by natural selection is not possible when the mutations are of DNA/RNA. The reason being that hundreds of simple mutations would be needed to convert a gene for one thing into a gene for another, and almost all of those steps would not be guided by natural selection.

The fact that a very few people seem to be born with fantastic skills. This makes sense if you accept the evidence for reincarnation, but that is not accepted in the scientific creed.

Etc.

There really is no need to obsess over whether anything can come from nothing.

David

2. This system of laws has to have had some intelligent origin.

and

The precision with which our universe is structured suggests that there may be an underlying intent or design.

In both cases there is an intelligent origin, (assuming one classes oneself as intelligent - whatever intelligent means). We, are apparently having the experience of these "laws", and of the "precision". It is us, who are having the experience.

Additionally...

We can make lots of observations within the 'result' we experience, and we can then use these observations to map the shape of a 'thing' which has enough richness and complexity to be used to understand the 'result' we experience. Unsurprisingly, the shape of the 'thing' (obtained completely independently), resembles some deep structures within our biology (which we have observed within our experience), those same deep biological structures are a part of the organs which are believed to mediate our own experience.

It is so beautiful... (and so shocking...)

I responded to the following argument "..And the worst error of scientism is basic logic, where it is conveniently not recognized that any "theory of everything" is a system of laws governing reality that has to have had some intelligent origin. Nothing comes from absolutely nothing.

The argument claims:

1. Any "theory of everything" is a system of laws governing reality.
2. This system of laws has to have had some intelligent origin.
3. Nothing comes from absolutely nothing.

The assertion in point 2 ("has to have had some intelligent origin") presumes that there must be an intelligent origin for the laws of reality without directly offering evidence or reasoning for this claim. It simply asserts it as a foundational premise. This is essentially taking the conclusion (there is an intelligent origin) and using it as a premise.

The other argument of this thread which I find a lot more compelling is the fine-tuning argument. It provides a persuasive reason to posit the existence of a designer or cause behind the laws of physics. Consider atoms, for instance. If the fundamental forces of nature deviated even slightly from their current values, it's conceivable that no stable matter would form. Instead, everything might exist in a mere quantum foam state. The precision with which our universe is structured suggests that there may be an underlying intent or design.

Which in turn strongly implies that said system of laws has to have had some intelligent origin...

So I don't understand your objections...