From: Dick Fischer (dickfischer@earthlink.net)
Date: Sat Apr 12 2003 - 12:05:02 EDT
Bob Schneider wrote:
Each of the formulations for fine-tuning are labeled as a "Principle" (e.g., the Strong Anthropic Principle) and not as a "Theory." In much the same way,
Howard Van Till speaks of his "Robust Formational Economy Principle." Those in the scientific community have been careful in their language; they do not
think that this evidence leads to a formulation that qualifies as a scientific theory.
Point well taken. I don't think we are careful enough in applying correct terms, thus contributing to the fog of misunderstanding. Should it not be the Strong Anthropic Hypothesis? And what does "strong" have to do with it? Is there a corresponding "Weak Anthropic Principle"? Why not simply the "Anthropic Hypothesis"? There, now go and correct all the literature.
Dick Fischer - Genesis Proclaimed Association
Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
www.genesisproclaimed.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 12 2003 - 12:07:52 EDT