the weak anthropic fallacy

[kyle2000]

That in a universe with many environments, and only some small fraction suitable for life, we, being life, would obviously expect to find ourselves in one of the small fraction suitable for life.

FJ, that we must inhabit a habitable universe is a tautology. You can't do what Susskind does which is use that fact to prove that the Big Bang is not the result of design.

Here's another quote from Susskind that demonstrates his flawed logic:

A megaverse of such diversity is unlikely to support intelligent life anywhere but in a tiny fraction of its expanse. According to this view, many questions such as, “Why is a certain constant of nature one number, instead of another?” will have answers that are entirely different from what physicists had hoped. No unique value will be picked out by mathematical consistency, since the Landscape permits an enormous variety of possible values. Instead, the answer will be, “Somewhere in the megaverse, the constant equals this number; somewhere else it is that number. We live in one tiny pocket where the value of the constant is consistent with our kind of life. That’s it! That’s all! There is no other answer to the question.”

[kyle2000]

- the fact we are here has no bearing on whether or not the environment was designed. The point being that WAP does not support ID.

No, Susskind is making the positive argument that the universe is the result of chance. He clearly says: "“Somewhere in the megaverse, the constant equals this number; somewhere else it is that number. We live in one tiny pocket where the value of the constant is consistent with our kind of life. That’s it! That’s all! There is no other answer to the question."

When he says there is no other answer that is a positive argument against design. But this is a fallacy. His argument is a tautology, that we must inhabit a habitable universe is evidence neither for nor against the argument from design.

[James S Saint]

I can tell you that his assertion concerning that "constant" is flat out false and has nothing at all to do with chance, again regardless of the notions of ID.

[Flannel Jesus]

Here's another quote from Susskind that demonstrates his flawed logic:

A megaverse of such diversity is unlikely to support intelligent life anywhere but in a tiny fraction of its expanse. According to this view, many questions such as, “Why is a certain constant of nature one number, instead of another?” will have answers that are entirely different from what physicists had hoped. No unique value will be picked out by mathematical consistency, since the Landscape permits an enormous variety of possible values. Instead, the answer will be, “Somewhere in the megaverse, the constant equals this number; somewhere else it is that number. We live in one tiny pocket where the value of the constant is consistent with our kind of life. That’s it! That’s all! There is no other answer to the question.”

which part of that quote is flawed logic? it all made perfect sense to me.

[BUFFALO]

The way I see it, if we accept the megaverse concept (and I'm not sure there is compelling evidence to do so) there will be an infinite number of universes with an essentially random variation in the physical constants that might have an impact on the development of life. Yes it is tautologous that we live in a universe that permits our type of life. I don't think he's saying this disproves ID. I think he's saying it dispenses with the variety of ID that views our universe as singular and uniquely suited to human life.

Bear in mind that Susskind is a physicist, not a philosopher.

[James S Saint]

Here's another quote from Susskind that demonstrates his flawed logic:

That’s it! That’s all! There is no other answer to the question.”

which part of that quote is flawed logic? it all made perfect sense to me.

His conclusion. It is presumptuous and happens to be entirely false.
His fallacy is that it is a non-sequetor, "It might be this way, therefore it must be this way."

I don't think he's saying this disproves ID.
.
.
Bear in mind that Susskind is a physicist, not a philosopher.

Apparently he was.

And yes, physicists make extremely poor philosophers/logicians.

[Flannel Jesus]

"It might be this way, therefore it must be this way."

actually yes, I agree that that is fallacious. the rest of the quote is fine, just not the part where he says there's no other possible answer, i would agree with that.

[BUFFALO]

That’s it! That’s all! There is no other answer to the question.”

Yes, it is fallacious, but it is obvious hyperbole. I still think his point is that if we assume the existence of a multiverse, we take much of the wind out of the sails of those who would argue that our universe was tailor made with human life in mind.

[anon]

The weak anthropic principle should be obvious..

Since you don't even state why there is nothing to debate in your post.

You yourself say it's tautological.

[James S Saint]

I still think his point is that if we assume the existence of a multiverse, we take much of the wind out of the sails of those who would argue that our universe was tailor made with human life in mind.

Well that wouldn't work against me very well. I would simply reply that the reason we aren't in those other universes is because THIS is the one "made for us"...

[Flannel Jesus]

i think that's james' tongue-in-cheek way of acknowledging the validity of the rebuttle. after all, he's already said "I agree with FJ on the fact that the anthropic principle is a silly argument FOR intelligent design"

[James S Saint]

i think that's james' tongue-in-cheek way of acknowledging the validity of the rebuttle. after all, he's already said "I agree with FJ on the fact that the anthropic principle is a silly argument FOR intelligent design"

..and against.

[Flannel Jesus]

It wouldn't make sense to use it against it.

"Our environment has qualities perfectly suited for us, therefore there is no god."
I don't think I've ever heard anybody actually make that argument, so pointing out that it's a bad argument is pretty pointless. Nobody's making it, so it doesn't matter that it's bad.

[James S Saint]

It wouldn't make sense to use it against it.

"Our environment has qualities perfectly suited for us, therefore there is no god."
I don't think I've ever heard anybody actually make that argument, so pointing out that it's a bad argument is pretty pointless. Nobody's making it, so it doesn't matter that it's bad.

But I think that was the point of Susskind's argument, else why go through it.
The anthropic principle shouldn't have anything to do with the entire ID issue although I know apologists have tried to use it for ID.
But it doesn't fit either way.

[BUFFALO]

If we assume there is just one universe (which would be the standard assumption before "multiverse" theories, and still is for most people) the anthropic principal carries a lot more weight. Although ultimately it is fallacious, I can certainly see why people might be drawn along by that line of reasoning.

[Flannel Jesus]

But I think that was the point of Susskind's argument, else why go through it.

I don't see how that could reasonably be interpreted to have been his point. Not even close to reasonably. Like...it's so far different from his point that if you truly believe that that's his point...I don't think I can ever trust your judgement or reasoning abilities again.

[James S Saint]

Leonard Susskind arguest in the Cosmic Landscape paraphrasing:

The evidence for fine-tuning is so overwhelming that many are lead to believe that the universe must be designed. He responds with a parable. He imagines fish debating the meaning of the fine-tuning of the temperature of the water. He calls them fishicists and they develop what is called the ickthropic principle. Eventually they conclude that the water must be fine-tuned within a certain temperature, otherwise they would not exist. Therefore, it is not surprising that the water is fine-tuned.

Unless the paraphrase is completely off base, Susskind is attempting to refute ID with his argument.

[BUFFALO]

If I'm not mistaken you two are arguing around each other here. Susskind is refuting ID by showing how ridiculous it is that the codmologists use it to support ID.

[ZenKitty]

If we assume there is just one universe...the anthropic principal carries a lot more weight. Although ultimately it is fallacious...

How is a principle fallacious? I am curious at that one. By what criterion does one come to judge that a principle is fallacious?

[Moreno]

If we assume there is just one universe (which would be the standard assumption before "multiverse" theories, and still is for most people) the anthropic principal carries a lot more weight. Although ultimately it is fallacious, I can certainly see why people might be drawn along by that line of reasoning.

If it carries more weight if there is just one (this) universe, then the principle is not fallacious. Or not sufficiently supported by whatever statistical (weighing of) evidence is used to back it up. It might be false, but fallacious implies that there is a logic error, rather than an insuffience amount of weight.

[Flannel Jesus]

Unless the paraphrase is completely off base, Susskind is attempting to refute ID with his argument.

Whatever he was or wasn't attempting to do, it is flat out incorrect to say that his argument is anywhere close to "Our environment has qualities perfectly suited for us, therefore there is no god." That's like summing up pascal's wager as "You should believe in God because you shouldn't fear the afterlife." That's how far off it is.

[BUFFALO]

I found this while researching the topic:

"Here is how the famous physicist Stephen Hawking defines the WAP in his popular book A Brief History of Time: 'The weak anthropic principle states that in a universe that is large or infinite in space and/or in time, the conditions necessary for the development of intelligent life will be met only in certain regions that are limited in space and time. The intelligent beings in these regions should therefore not be surprised if they observe that their locality in the universe satisfies the conditions that are necessary for their existence.' From that definition we see that the WAP does not require the assumption of a supernatural agent being responsible for the creation of the universe and of life.

"Another version of the anthropic principle is often referred to as the Strong Anthropic Principle (SAP). Here is how Hawking defines the latter: 'According to this theory, there are either many different universes, or many different regions of a single universe, each with its own initial configuration and, perhaps, with its own set of laws of science. In most of these universes the conditions would not be right for the development of complicated organisms; only in the few universes that are like ours would intelligent life develop and ask the question, "Why is the universe the way we see it?" The answer is simple: if it had been different, we would not be here.' We see that the SAP itself does not necessarily imply the supernatural creation of the universe either.

"One more version of the anthropic principle was offered under the name of the Participatory Anthropic Principle (PAP). This version made use of the concepts of quantum mechanics in their so-called "Copenhagen interpretation." This version implies that the very existence of the universe can only be understood within the framework of an intelligent mind observing the universe.

"Then, there is also the so called Final Anthropic Principle (FAP) which goes even further, positing that the very existence of the universe is due to the human mind observing it.

"Reviewing all described versions of the anthropic principle, Martin Gardner suggested an all-embracing derogatory term "CRAP, the Completely Ridiculous Anthropic principle."

excerpted from : http://www.talkreason.org/articles/anthropic.cfm

[BUFFALO]

If we assume there is just one universe...the anthropic principal carries a lot more weight. Although ultimately it is fallacious...

How is a principle fallacious? I am curious at that one. By what criterion does one come to judge that a principle is fallacious?

I do need to learn to write more clearly.

In this case I am saying that ultimately, I find that the anthropic principal is not a valid argument in support of ID.

But I can see why people are drawn in by this line of reasoning, especially before multiple universes became a well known hypothesis.

[James S Saint]

"Reviewing all described versions of the anthropic principle, Martin Gardner suggested an all-embracing derogatory term "CRAP, the Completely Ridiculous Anthropic principle."[/i]

Hahaha...

[ZenKitty]

In this case I am saying that ultimately, I find that the anthropic principal is not a valid argument in support of ID.

Well, it is consistent with ID and would support ID, but it also supports the opposite point of view which is non-ID.