Skip to main content

Howlers by Michael Shermer

1. When arguing against the anthropic principle, he accuses its adherents (quoting Dawkins) to carbon chauvinism.  That is, not being open to the possible that there exist other, non-carbon-based life forms.  But the anthropic principle does not pretend to establish that only one kind of life exists: it simply establishes that any form of life would be impossible if not for the fine tuning of the universe.  This argument by Shermer is a non-sequitur.

2. He argues against the uniqueness of this world, saying there may be multiverses, etc. Well, where does he think the burden of proof lies regarding this controversy?  Does he place the same light burden of proof on those who say what he wants to hear?

3. He points out that humans are not the center because there may be other rational organisms.  Okay, so the universe is not homosapiocentric: is that a big deal?  For the purposes of theism, it would be very sufficient if--at some future date--an even more robust version of the so-called anthropic principle were seen to demonstrate that the universe is fine tuned so that rational beings of one sort or another (or both) can develop.  Let's call that the logocentric priciple.  In other words, ETIs are not an embarrassment to the theistic thesis that nature points to God.

4. He calls the inference to design subjective because lacks an algorithm.  He may well be correct, but how about a little explanation of why the inference to NO design is not subjective?  Does it have an algorithm?


5. He speculates that early mini wings (which were not able to lift the bearer) were radiators.  Really?  sounds so very far-fetched to me!

6. He points out that a scientist has demonstrated, by looking at 100 possible universes, that half of them would last 1 billion years, which is long enough for life to develop because stars could develop requisite chemicals.  Yeah, but enough for a life like ours to develop?  With rational animals?

The last half hour of listening to the audioversion of his book is chock full of howlers,
Labels:

Comments

Unknown said…
Wow, I have quite a bit to catch up on.

Michael Shermer strikes me as a charlatan. His Skeptics Society meets at Caltech, and everyone there finds them an annoyance. They reserve a meeting hall so they can advertise Michael Shermer as someone who "gives talks at Caltech". Most Skeptics Society members are baby-boomer non-scientists who were disenfranchised by hippies, alternative medicine, California, etc. Shermer himself has a PhD in the history of science. This is a field I respect dearly, but he has no authority to explain multiverses, etc.
11:19 PM
Leo White said…
I have boatloads of comments about Mr. Shermer, but I'll say for the moment, that his worst arguments are.... howlers (pretty bad and probably mere froth or rhetoric), but the concessions he makes to his opponents are.... gracious. He opens the door just a crack to human spirit, to there being more to reality than can be quantified. But of course, that's half of the time. The other half of the time he's busy talking the positivist talk (i.e., science knows all that's real or worth knowing). More to come. He is helpful because his arguments are clear, even though they may be inconsistent with each other.
8:02 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

P F Strawson's Freedom and Resentment: the argument laid out

Here is a summary and comments on the essay Freedom and Resentment by PF Strawson.  He makes some great points, and when he is wrong, it is in such a way as to clarify things a great deal.  My non-deterministic position is much better thanks to having read this.  I’ll summarize it in this post and respond in a later one. In a nutshell: PFS first argues that personal resentment that we may feel toward another for having failed to show goodwill toward us would have no problem coexisting with the conviction that determinism is true.  Moral disapprobation, as an analog to resentment, is likewise capable of coexisting with deterministic convictions. In fact, it would seem nearly impossible for a normally-constituted person (i.e., a non-sociopath) to leave behind the web of moral convictions, even if that person is a determinist.  In this way, by arguing that moral and determinist convictions can coexist in the same person, PFS undermines the libertarian argument ...
Post a Comment
Read more

response to friend who suggested that the self is a democracy of neural parts

This is a nice way to try to avoid being cornered re the irreality of the self if you're a reductionist, for you can assert that a pattern obtains at the microscopic level that is not all that unlike the pattern found at the societal level.  No need for the one self that does it all: instead, you have many sub-selfs that compete for dominance or take turns guiding the whole. The problem with this is, however, that the voters/officials are all zombies.  None of them thinks about the whole as such.  And perhaps none of them thinks even about themselves (unless one is a panzoist).  None of them makes a comparison of alternatives. The more this proposed democracy seems like a zombocracy, the more consciousness will be seem to be epiphenomenal. Furthermore, if the oneness of the self is less real than the multiplicity of explanatory neural parts, then why can't each of these neural parts be conceived of as democracy as well?  And why not parts of these parts, et...
6 comments
Read more

interesting article by Jimmy Akin on death before the Fall

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/did-animals-die-before-the-fall/ Akin below: Aquinas.... writes: In the opinion of some, those animals which now are fierce and kill others, would, in that state, have been tame, not only in regard to man, but also in regard to other animals. But this is quite unreasonable. For the nature of animals was not changed by man's sin, as if those whose nature now it is to devour the flesh of others, would then have lived on herbs, as the lion and falcon. Nor does Bede's gloss on Genesis 1:30, say that trees and herbs were given as food to all animals and birds, but to some. Thus there would have been a natural antipathy between some animals  [ Summa Theologiae I:96:1 ad 2 ].  Aquinas thus holds that it was not  all  death that entered the world through man's sin, but human  death.
Post a Comment
Read more