[quoting from "Beyond the death of God" by Patrick Glynn]
[...]
>
> The final line of defense against the Anthropic Revolution has been a
>kind of scientific legalism. The Anthropic Principle is said to fail the
>test of falsifiability (a contention which, in fact, remains in technical
>dispute). Since, it is argued, no observation or set of observations could
>prove or disprove the Anthropic Principle as a theory, it is not properly
>"scientific." On such grounds, Heinz R. Pagels, executive director of the
>New York Academy of Sciences, in 1987 urged dismissal of the Anthropic
>Principle as "needless clutter in the conceptual repertoire of science."
>But this is the moral equivalent of the courts' exclusionary rule --
>throwing out the entire murder case on the basis of a minor legal
>technicality.
This reference to Pagels is very interesting. The implication is
that Pagels wants to exclude the Anthropic Principle from science
because of its theistic implications. Note also how the priestly
robes are placed about his shoulders "executive director of the
New York Academy of Sciences" implying that such an exclusion has
the approval of the scientific "establishment".
I rather strongly suspect that the author has not read
Pagels highly controversial article <"A Cozy Cosmology">.
The final paragraph of Pagels article reads:
There does exist a line of thinking that _is_ in direct
competition with the anthropic principle. Edward Harrison,
in his textbook _Cosmology_, advises his readers early on:
"We shall occasionally refer to the anthropic principle,
and the reader may, if it is preferred, substitute the
alternative theistic principle." The theistic principle
is quite straightforward: the reason the universe seems
tailor-made for our existence is that it _was_ tailor-made
for our existence; some supreme being created it as a home
for intelligent life. Of course, some scientists, believing
science and religion mutually exclusive, find this idea
unattractive. Faced with questions that do not neatly fit
into the framework of science, they are loath to resort to
religious explanation; yet their curiosity will not let
them leave matters unaddressed. Hence, the anthropic principle.
It is the closest that some atheists can get to God.
-- Pagels, H. (1985). "A Cozy Cosmology," <The Sciences>
25(2):35-38. also in <Physical Cosmology and Philosophy>,
Ed. J. Leslie, Macmillan, New York, 1990, pp. 174-180.
I think this puts Pagels assessment of the Anthropic Principle as
"needless clutter in the conceptual repertoire of science." in
a somewhat different light.
========================
Brian Harper | "The beginning of thought is in
Associate Professor | disagreement --not only with others
Applied Mechanics | but also with ourselves." --Eric Hoffer
Ohio State University |
========================