Exactly how? Or are you just going to respond with a useless one-liner rather than actually explain your objection?
Statistical analysis of probabilities is a method of analyzing the odds of a theory's validity. If a theory requires that reality be extremely improbable, that theory is highly unlikely. And when there's absolutely nothing else you can do, its the only option other than blind faith.
I'll repeat this again:
If a theory requires that reality be extremely improbable, that theory is highly unlikely.
The entire point of the Anthropic Principle is to attempt to answer this question by stating that if reality was not improbable as such, we wouldn't exist to ask that question.
Do you object to this concept? How is this concept a violation of the scientific method?
In it, you will find the "essential elements" of the scientific method:
* Characterizations (observations, definitions, and measurements of the subject of inquiry)
* Hypotheses (theoretical, hypothetical explanations of observations and measurements of the subject)
* Predictions (reasoning including logical deduction from the hypothesis or theory)
* Experiments (tests of all of the above)
The last two elements are missing from your approach, and it is hence unscientific.
Please note that the anthropic principle is not a scientific theory, it is a wild guess at why things might be what they are.
If a theory requires that reality be extremely improbable, that theory is highly unlikely.
This is a very wild conjecture with no substantiating evidence. It is wholly equal to blind faith, and in no way superior to it.
Please note that the anthropic principle is not a scientific theory, it is a wild guess at why things might be what they are.
It is wholly equal to blind faith, and in no way superior to it.
So, by your logic, the anthropic principle is wholly equal to blind faith? Sure, its not strictly science, and more of a logical argument than a scientific experiment (much like my original post), but really?Equal to blind faith?
If you are that deluded, I'm not even going to bother arguing this. This is pointless. Go get yourself a source a bit better than Wikipedia and educate yourself.
Wikipedia has become a fairly good reference for these sorts of basic principles.
In terms of intellectual "worth thinking about"-ness, the anthropic principle may be more worthwhile than blind faith, but in terms of science, it is equally worthless.
You need to revise your understanding of how science works, or else you'll only continue to blunder around.
Statistical analysis of probabilities is a method of analyzing the odds of a theory's validity. If a theory requires that reality be extremely improbable, that theory is highly unlikely. And when there's absolutely nothing else you can do, its the only option other than blind faith.
I'll repeat this again:
If a theory requires that reality be extremely improbable, that theory is highly unlikely.
The entire point of the Anthropic Principle is to attempt to answer this question by stating that if reality was not improbable as such, we wouldn't exist to ask that question.
Do you object to this concept? How is this concept a violation of the scientific method?