Begging the question?
What is the name of the logical fallacy that conflates fact with opinion to support a foregone conclusion? I want to say begging the question, but begging the question, I think, would be something like "There will always be more because that's what more means."
The construction I mean is:
1. Observable fact.
2. Opinion accepted as fact.
3. Conclusion based on perception of fact and opinion as dictated by personal beliefs.
I've been thinking about this since reading an article by Stephen Hawking last month. He used an argument that has long been a favorite of creationists and deists and intelligent designers to prove there is no intelligent designer, no creative entity.
The time-honored construction of the faithful is familiar to anyone who's engaged a believer in conversation:
1. The universe as we know it appears exactly balanced to produce life.
2. It is inconceivably unlikely, to the point of impossible, for this to have happened by chance.
3. Therefore the universe was created to nurture us and provide for our needs.
What Stephen Hawking presented as science was:
1. The universe as we know it appears exactly balanced to produce life.
2. It is inconceivably unlikely, to the point of impossible, for this to have happened by chance.
3. Therefore there is an infinite number of universes filling the cosmos, and random chance put us in one that supports life.
The problem with indirect exchanges like this -- or even direct exchanges like this -- is that they look like a conversation. If you don't pay attention, you might come away with the impression that something substantive has been said.
1. It's questionable whether this can be considered a fact, but I'm willing to give both debaters the "the universe as we know it appears exactly balanced to produce life" bit. The fact is we will probably never see any more of the universe than we're seeing right now -- prognosis for humanity keeping its act together long enough to get off this dust mote is not good. Sure it's scientifically shaky to extrapolate the whole place from the minuscule amount we can see, but the parts we've observed -- including way more suns than were predicted with planets in their "temperate zones" -- do tend to support this.
2. Bad statistics. We do not know what variables are involved -- or even how many variables are involved. We cannot base probability on our ability to imagine alternatives to the reality around us. We have exactly one universe at our disposal and in that universe conditions for life exist. Based on that, there is a 100% probability that the universe will support life. With a bit of a stretch you can make it a 50/50 bet: either reality exists or it doesn't. Because we can imagine alternatives ("parallel" universes have been a staple of science fiction and fantasy since the dawn of speculative literature), we can say there is a theoretical potential for these alternatives to exist. But our ability to imagine does not mean what we imagine is real.
3. To believe that there is an infinite number of universes sharing our cosmos that we will never, by definition, be able to interact with or explore -- in fact will never be able to see or touch or measure or detect in any way -- is as much an act of faith as belief in God.
I have no problem with Stephen Hawking or anyone else expressing their faith; sharing the unknowable in which they believe. I respect faith and I'm interested in all of humanity's myriad belief systems. And I understand that one criterion of faith is the belief that what you believe in is right. But I am easily annoyed by those who present themselves as too intelligent/mature/evolved/rational/self-affirming-adjective-of-your-choice to be fettered/deluded by faith then present what is essentially their own unprovable personal beliefs as irrefutable fact. ("There is no evidence of alternative universes." "Aha! Proof none of the infinite number of universes can be detected from another!")
As for those who try to use the physical or the natural to examine or explore or refute or defend the spiritual, I've said this before: To try and understand the spiritual through the application of scientific and rational means is like trying to understand light through the study of acoustics.
The construction I mean is:
1. Observable fact.
2. Opinion accepted as fact.
3. Conclusion based on perception of fact and opinion as dictated by personal beliefs.
I've been thinking about this since reading an article by Stephen Hawking last month. He used an argument that has long been a favorite of creationists and deists and intelligent designers to prove there is no intelligent designer, no creative entity.
The time-honored construction of the faithful is familiar to anyone who's engaged a believer in conversation:
1. The universe as we know it appears exactly balanced to produce life.
2. It is inconceivably unlikely, to the point of impossible, for this to have happened by chance.
3. Therefore the universe was created to nurture us and provide for our needs.
What Stephen Hawking presented as science was:
1. The universe as we know it appears exactly balanced to produce life.
2. It is inconceivably unlikely, to the point of impossible, for this to have happened by chance.
3. Therefore there is an infinite number of universes filling the cosmos, and random chance put us in one that supports life.
The problem with indirect exchanges like this -- or even direct exchanges like this -- is that they look like a conversation. If you don't pay attention, you might come away with the impression that something substantive has been said.
1. It's questionable whether this can be considered a fact, but I'm willing to give both debaters the "the universe as we know it appears exactly balanced to produce life" bit. The fact is we will probably never see any more of the universe than we're seeing right now -- prognosis for humanity keeping its act together long enough to get off this dust mote is not good. Sure it's scientifically shaky to extrapolate the whole place from the minuscule amount we can see, but the parts we've observed -- including way more suns than were predicted with planets in their "temperate zones" -- do tend to support this.
2. Bad statistics. We do not know what variables are involved -- or even how many variables are involved. We cannot base probability on our ability to imagine alternatives to the reality around us. We have exactly one universe at our disposal and in that universe conditions for life exist. Based on that, there is a 100% probability that the universe will support life. With a bit of a stretch you can make it a 50/50 bet: either reality exists or it doesn't. Because we can imagine alternatives ("parallel" universes have been a staple of science fiction and fantasy since the dawn of speculative literature), we can say there is a theoretical potential for these alternatives to exist. But our ability to imagine does not mean what we imagine is real.
3. To believe that there is an infinite number of universes sharing our cosmos that we will never, by definition, be able to interact with or explore -- in fact will never be able to see or touch or measure or detect in any way -- is as much an act of faith as belief in God.
I have no problem with Stephen Hawking or anyone else expressing their faith; sharing the unknowable in which they believe. I respect faith and I'm interested in all of humanity's myriad belief systems. And I understand that one criterion of faith is the belief that what you believe in is right. But I am easily annoyed by those who present themselves as too intelligent/mature/evolved/rational/self-affirming-adjective-of-your-choice to be fettered/deluded by faith then present what is essentially their own unprovable personal beliefs as irrefutable fact. ("There is no evidence of alternative universes." "Aha! Proof none of the infinite number of universes can be detected from another!")
As for those who try to use the physical or the natural to examine or explore or refute or defend the spiritual, I've said this before: To try and understand the spiritual through the application of scientific and rational means is like trying to understand light through the study of acoustics.