From: Stephen E. Jones <sejones@iinet.net.au>
>Reflectorites
>
>On Mon, 9 Oct 2000 09:10:17 +0100, Richard Wein wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>SJ>Here is an example of how a type of `design inference' made a major
>>>contribution to science: ....
>
>>>Hoyle predicted that there must be a previously undetected energy level
in
>>>the carbon-12 nucleus, at an energy that would resonate with the combined
>>>energies, including kinetic energy, of its constituent parts, under the
>>>conditions prevailing inside stars. He made a precise calculation of what
>>>that energy level must be, and he cajoled Willy Fowler's somewhat
>>>sceptical nuclear physics colleagues until they carried out experiments
to
>>>test his prediction. To the astonishment of everyone except Hoyle, the
>>>measurements showed that carbon-12 has an energy level just 4 percent
>>>above the calculated energy. ...
>>>The remarkable nature of Hoyle's successful prediction cannot be
>>>overemphasised. ...
>>>Most anthropic arguments are made with the benefit of hindsight. We look
>>>at the Universe, notice that it is close to flat, and say, "Oh yes, of
course, it
>>>must be that way, or we wouldn't be here to notice it." But Hoyle's
>>>prediction is different, in a class of its own. It is a genuine
scientific
>>>prediction, tested and confirmed by subsequent experiments. ...
>>>This combination of coincidences, just right for resonance in carbon-12,
>>>just wrong in oxygen-16, is indeed remarkable. There is no better
evidence
>>>to support the argument that the Universe has been designed for our
>>>benefit-tailor-made for man.
>>>
>>>(Gribbin J. & Rees M., "Cosmic Coincidences: Dark Matter, Mankind, and
>>>Anthropic Cosmology", Bantam Books: New York, 1989, pp.244-247)
>
>[...]
>
>RW>I fail to see how this is an example of a "genuine anthropic principle
>>prediction." Hoyle noticed some property of nature--that carbon-12 is
>>produced in stars--and gave an explanation of this property, from which he
>>made a prediction. He didn't need the anthropic principle in order to make
>>this prediction.
>
>[...]
>
>Note how it works. Richard (who is an atheist and therefore denies design
>apriori) calls for evidence for design. Yet when evidence is submitted,
>Richard say he fails to see it!
Oh Stephen, Stephen. Will you never learn? The fact that I've concluded that
there's no God does not mean that I deny design a priori. In fact you've
made *two* logical errors here.
1) A person who arrives at one conclusion has not a priori rejected the
contrary conclusion. And he may change his mind in the light of new
evidence.
2) Atheism and design are not mutually contradictory, as the designer could
be an alien species. (For the umpteenth time!)
>Hoyle's prediction was motivated by his belief in design (not the anthropic
>principle as Gribbin and Rees claim, which Hoyle has elsewhere rejected as
>a tautology). Hoylee concluded after it that "a superintellect has monkeyed
>with physics, as well as chemistry and biology":
Whatever his motivation, it is a fallacy to call this a prediction from
design. It is a prediction from the fact that carbon-12 exists. Carbon-12
exists regardless of whether there was a designer.
> "...Hoyle considers the carbon-oxygen synthesis coincidence so
> remarkable that it seems like a `put-up job'. Regarding the delicate
> positioning of the nuclear resonances, he comments: 'If you wanted
> to produce carbon and oxygen in roughly equal quantities by stellar
> nucleosynthesis, these are the two levels you would have to fix, and
> your fixing would have to be just about where these levels are
> actually found to be .... A commonsense interpretation of the facts
> suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as
> chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth
> speaking about in nature'. (Hoyle F., 'The Universe: Some Past and
> Present Reflections," 1982, p16) " (Davies P.C.W., "The
> Accidental Universe," 1983, reprint, p.118)
[...]
This is a conclusion *of* design, not a prediction *from* design. See the
difference?
As to whether it's a valid conclusion of design, I'll just say that I've
discussed anthropic arguments before, and I don't feel like starting again
now.
Richard Wein (Tich)
--------------------------------
"Do the calculation. Take the numbers seriously. See if the underlying
probabilities really are small enough to yield design."
-- W. A. Dembski, who has never presented any calculation to back up his
claim to have detected Intelligent Design in life.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 10 2000 - 19:12:04 EDT