Sunday, September 24, 2006

Quackery or Honest Decent Scientific Observation?

Given the following, (which isn't even a scientific stretch, since Wheeler proved that number 1 is theoretically plausible, and nobody that can honestly read the writing on the wall is going to dispute number 2):

1) A literal anthropic constraint on the forces.
2) The basic tennents of evolutionary theory are correct.

Then there is a self-evident prediction that falls, because it would be utterly absurd to think that a true anthropic constraint on the forces would not *necessarily* include the human evolutionary process, so it is NOT unreasonable to ask in a scientific context if the INDICATED reciprocal connection means that there is a mechanism that scientists should look for, which would enable our universe to "leap" *relatively rapidly* to a higher odering of the same basic structure, because this sure as heck would explain a lot of stuff in perfect context with direct observation, including the asymmetry problem, the flatness problem, the horizon problem, etc etc etc... don't forget causality!

Number 2 is, of course, the well supported theory of evolution, and number 1 is supported by the fact that the actual structure of the universe occurs in **dramatic contrast** to the modeled **expectation**... so many fixed balance points that are commonly or "coincidentally" pointing directly toward carbon-based life, indicate that there is some good physical reason for it that is somehow "specially" related to the existence of carbon-based life.

If it's right, then it is readily supportable and everything falls into place easily, (which, it does), to define the preferred theory, since it resolves the mentioned problems way more simply than any current approach, but that's just the way that it falls out, this has nothing to do with me, so my honest observations do not warrent that people automatically reject, thereby insulting me for making them. That makes me say to myself that these people already have their non-scientific minds made-up right from the get-go, and history proves that they will recognize nothing that you offer as evidence after that.

All I'm after here is an honest admission that this is quite evident given two scientifically supported features of our world that relate our existence to our observed universe, but I'm NOT asking for a multiverse theory or any other rationale for why it might not be true.

"They" really hate this because they can't use it as an excuse not to look if you take their "explain-it-away" rationale away from them, which, unfortunately, is the current pattern of modern physicists and neodarwinians alike, regardless of claims to the contrary, which are designed to cover-up their failure to fully represent science. Normally, an indication FOR something directly relevant would set-off a frenzy among scientists looking in all directions, but this is not normally restricted to looking only away from the strongest implication, unless there is some pre-existing non-scientific motivation to do so.

There is no "opinion" involved here, in other words, I'm only asking for honest recognition that it's the prediction is QUITE APPARRENTLY THERE without straining your eyes.

Good luck with that... has been my experience, and I'll guarantee you that this has nothing to do with my honesty, but it does have everything to do with people foaming at the mouth, while calling me everything from an IDist, to the arrogant reactions of snobs who pre-reject any sort of implication for anthropic specialness out of hand.

My point is that the prediction is so apparent that it is equally obvious when people are very motivated not to see it, and the fact that nobody else has figured-out something this obvious before now proves that people are also very motivated not to look any further than generic statements about it before they form their opinion, and that's just wrong, as I've clearly shown here, because of the potential science that isn't even hidden if you just open your eyes.

I don't accept pure skepticism as an excuse to be self-dishonest in order to continue with a barrage of debate rhetoric. Healthy skepticism is one thing, but the pure devil's advocate approach isn't honest.

No comments: