Beyond Falsifiability: Normal Science in a Multiverse · HackerPapers discussions

Beyond Falsifiability: Normal Science in a Multiverse — mentioned by knightoffaith

Sat, 17 Feb 2024 15:59:49 GMT

>The designer is beyond understanding by definition. Where in the argument is the designer defined this way? The argument is, roughly speaking: (1) The fine-tuning of universal constants is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design. (2) It is not due to physical necessity or chance. (3) Therefore, it is due to design. >You say that fine tuning proponents are still "open" to figuring out why or what this intelligent designer is, but unless you can provide an example of a reputable physicist actually working on this, it's a false claim. I said that the fine-tuning argument does not…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Beyond Falsifiability: Normal Science in a Multiverse — mentioned by JProthero

Tue, 23 Mar 2021 22:00:56 GMT

> Wait a second there. There are different attitudes about falsifiability? Yes. My understanding is that Karl Popper first proposed falsifiability as a criterion for a scientific theory in part because he found that some supposedly scientific ideas (Freudian psychoanalysis was a particular target of his) failed to make predictions that could be definitively tested: it was a feature of these 'theories' that they could be interpreted in such a way as to accommodate any conceivable observation. I think you are right that there is a strong consensus among scientists that for a theory to be…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Beyond Falsifiability: Normal Science in a Multiverse — HN submission

Thu, 25 Oct 2018 07:50:35 GMT

Beyond Falsifiability: Normal Science in a Multiverse

1 point; 0 discussion replies on HN. Paper and source history. A submission is not an endorsement.