Kathe sent me, by way of Pharyngula, Douglas Adams' perfect statement of the Anthropic Principle:
…imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!'
//The Magic 8-Ball says, "Makes just as much sense, doesn't it?"\\
12 comments:
No, it only proves how utterly clueless Kathe and most other antifanatics are about the anthropic principle.
Glad that I could help straighten things out... ;)
Oh, yeah, you straightened everything out nicely.
Care to explain what any of your post meant, starting with that word you're so proud of inventing?
antifanatic: Somebody that takes a willfully ignorant devil's advocate approach to science that creationists *abuse* to prove the existence of god.
This includes ignorance by ommission as well.
If the analogy really is an honest one, then please show me where Douglas Adams accounts for the fact that life ONLY appears balanced between diametrically opposing runaway nature of the anthropic coincidences.
http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/images/instability.gif
Antifanatic: I, (an atheist) discuss the physics for the anthropic principle... and they the antifanatics **automatically** call me a creationist.
Reactionaries aren't scientists, even if the have a degree.
island, you started out cryptic and abusive, and your follow-up comment has not improved my evaluation of you.
Why not calm down and explain, in simple language and without neologisms or abuse, explain what you are talking about?
Pretend that we are not your enemies, that we are people you have never met before who bear you no ill will. Because it happens that this is exactly what we are.
Maybe you would like to direct us to your own blog, or to a site you approve of? It's kind of awkward trying to carry on a conversation with nothing but a blank Blogger profile.
Ignoring my points doesn't make me the abusive one.
Can you please show me how the analogy is the fair representation of the many facets of the physics that make the anthropic principle what it is?
I'll accept a representation for the one example that I provided, thanks.
Because the willful ommission of these points only proves that science has absolutely nothing to do with the counter-argument that is being made, AND THIS IS HIGHLY DANGEROUS TO SCIENCE.
You think that it's unfair of me to define this as antifanaticsm?
Like you asked me to do...
Or the fact that I regularly get called a creationist, even though I'm an atheist, just because I DON'T ommit relevant information???
Sorry, you're not going to lead me down the old and familiar path away from my point, until you admit that I have made a good and valid one that should not be if science was the motivational consideration, which... it ain't... by a long shot... ESPECIALLY where you find gatherings of creationinsts or neodarwinians.
Thank you for not inventing any more new words (I'll presume that "ommit" is just a misspelling), but I'm afraid I'm still not satisfied with your tone.
For God's sake, stop with the screeching boldface and capitals, stop whining about how some other person (not me, not Kathe, not any of our kids) called you a creationist. Speak clearly or go away.
Okay...
Kathe sent me, by way of Pharyngula, Douglas Adams' perfect statement of the Anthropic Principle:
No, it's not even close to being an accurate analogy for the AP.
The puddle example is only given by counter-ideologically motivated people to groups of like-minded individuals as a rebuttal to creationists that are pushing the anthropic principle as evidence for god.
It has little if anything to do with the physics of the anthropic principle.
For example, does the analogy fairly represent the diametrically opposing runaway nature of all of the vast array of the the anthropic coincidences?
Because if it isn't "fairly" represented, then it necessarily harbors unfair prejudice against science.
I don't make the rules... nor do I tell people whom to associate themselves with, but that doesn't mean that the lame rationale of fanatics doesn't make a statement about people that get their information from them.
Not bad. Not extremely convincing, but you could feel free to post some links to sites which develop the argument at greater length.
Definitely a big improvement over your initial approach.
"not extremely convincing"....
lol... uh huh
www.anthropic-principle.ORG
I'm sure that you'll get just as much out of it, but what the heck...
Thank you.
No problem, and I'm sorry about the kids, but I'm not "extremely convinced" that you're not just covering your butt.
Fortunately, I don't depend on your approval.
Post a Comment