This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

After reading the link contained in the criticism of Multiverse theory, I relocated the item to the 'possible arguments' section. The other two items did not contain criticisms, therefore the item statement needed relocation. Also, the article did not make the statement as a factual refutation of a Multiverse theory. Rather, as a probability argument. 10k monkeys vs. Shakespere, etc.-- ghost 20:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

It's been suggested that Fine-tuning should be merged into this article. The articles look like duplicates to me, but I don't know the subject well. What do you think? Kerowyn 03:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not think that they should be merged. The Fine-tuning article is about a more general subject than the fine-tuned universe. Bubba73 (talk), 03:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

right. fine-tuning is a way of doing something, fine-tuned universe is a (IMHO non-scientific) theory dealing with the origin of life -- calvinchong

Fine-tuning seems to be a seperate subject altogther, the somewhat controversial process of adding small "fixes" to a physical model to account for observed effects out of sync with the model. The strereotypical example being the cosmological constant, which, when it was first created, had no explaination other than to reconcile the model with what was believed at the time to be reality.

Whether or not it's scientific, it bears at least partial mention and representation in its own article, being that it's not the same as fine tuning]] Alexnye 04:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Does it bother anyone that the I/J argument isn't peer reviewed? I'm worried that the referee would of had a field day with the science. If it is in a journal somewhere, it would be nice to see a citation. I only mention this because Richard Swinburne reaches the exact opposite conclusion (also via Baysian) in his book "The existence of God."

Bradley, M.C. “The Fine-Tuning Argument: the Bayesian Version.” Religious Studies 38 (2002) 375-404.

The basic argument has been peer-reviewed. This is the version by Sober, cited in the article. The I-J article is to be published in a book, The Improbability of God, by Michael Martin and Ricki Monnier, which is scheduled to appear in February. When I am able I will add a citation. Bill Jefferys 18:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

A book does not mean it's peer reviewed. Is there a site to a journal anywhere? I just think we should site the orignal journal. But surly you'll grant the single sentence that I added for the couterargument. Richard Swinburn's newest edition to his book "The Existence of God" (which postdates this pdf file that was written), reaches the exact opposite conclusion. At least that deserves a small mention.

Our article in the book The Improbability of God (which is now in print, and I've added a citation to the main article) is peer-reviewed to the extent that it was selected by the editors without being submitted by us. The article by Sober is fully peer-reviewed; it gives the same basic argument that we do, which is to show that fine-tuning does not support supernaturalism (or in Sober's terminology, design.) Bill Jefferys 22:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I would also like a link added to Richard Swinburn's book, for balance, or at least a summary of why he reaches the opposite conclusion. As it stands, the Wikipedia article goes into detail on the I/J argument, but basically glosses over any counter-argument. I for one would like to see and evaluate the arguments/counterarguments for myself. Robert Preisser

Regarding the Swinburne reference, I'm looking at the summary Bayesian inference on p189 of The Existence of God (search Google Books to see this). There is no mention of conditioning on L, and as such, his argument does not address one of the main points of I-J: that for a Bayesian inference to be justified, evidence and hypotheses must be conditioned on *all* background knowledge. For this reason, I don't agree with mentioning Swinburne's writing as representative of the counter-argument to I-J. By all means cite someone else, but I haven't come across any pro-FT arguments that attempt to address this rather important point. Such is the cutting-edge of the FT argument...

I'm not going to change the article text at this stage (mainly because I only have an old edition of Swinburne in paper form), but this really wants clearing up by someone who can confirm the above. CC.

I've tried to clean up this I/J stuff. a. The section is not just about I/J but about Bayesean argumnets in general so I've re-titled it accordingly. b. The argument has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal (and IMHO is bogus, but this is not the place to discsuss this). So it certainly can't be called a "theorem" - they have a "proposition". c. Whoever summarised it confused F which in their notation means life-friendly with being fine-tuned (in their notation P(F|N)) d. A paper which has been published in a partisan propagandist book and on the author's website really doesn't deserve such prominence in the article. I don't like removing other Editors' work so I have kept most of the text in the footnote. NBeale 09:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

That's an interesting definition of the word "theorem" you're using there. Nurban 23:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I think I could improve some of the writing in the Nature of the Constants section in this article to make it more readable and on-topic and less sprawling. I'm going to make some edits to this, so please feel free to critique my edits. Twelvethirteen 18:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't change the wording of the pragmatic vs ontological nature of reductionism, though I think this could be more clear too. I just don't want to alter the meaning of it accidentally. cheerz Twelvethirteen 19:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The appearance of fine-tuning is an artifact of the reductionist method. The point of "(meaning our group behavior is due to individual behavior which is due to the parts of the individual which are made of atoms which are made of particles whose behavior is specified by laws of physics that contain within them a few fundamental constants that can be measured to varying degrees of precision)" was to explain "the precise interplay of physical constants being necessary for known life" in that the reductionist method results in the direct known connection between the constants and the nature of everything including the existence of life as we know it. There is no surprise or anything tricky or any big deal that reductionism necessitates that the fundamental rules believed to naturally be 100% of the cause of all behavior in the observed universe would include life among "all behavior". It is only the misunderstanding of science and the belief in the supernatural that produces the "wow, so scientists admit life is caused by carefully chosen parameters" effect. WAS 4.250 10:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

It's also an issue of confusing special condition with precise condition. Just because the constants are precise doesn't mean they were chosen specially. It is tautology to say that if the universe had different conditions the universe would be different. It is anthropocentrically arrogant to conclude that because the universe we inhabit has these conditions this is the "best of all possible" universes or that there is no possibility for other kinds of structures in universes that have a different set of constants. Our universe may be precisely determined, but it need not be special. In fact, if one believes the Copernican principle, there's nothing special about it. -- ScienceApologist 15:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. ScienceApologist, please try your hand at improving the "hard to read" subsection in question. I would, but it was my writing that made it hard to read in the first place. Concerning "nothing special about it", I find it especially absurd that people claim the universe is designed for life when to the best of our knowledge life is about the smallest known part of it. Which indicates to me that a more likely guess is that this universe just by chance (of the quantum mechanics kind) has one possible set of laws that just barely allow for intelligent life to evolve (and as far as I'm concerned intelligent life has yet to evolve on Earth - when we finally create it the first thing we'll learn from it as a species is how utterly self deceived we are as a species). WAS 4.250 16:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I have removed a recent external link to a book advert; the data for adding the link as a reference is: Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces That Shape the Universe, by Martin J. Rees, ISBN  0465036732. I post this here for discussion on whether the book should be added to the article. KillerChihuahua ^?!? 09:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

For a few years, I have been familiar with this book, and I decided that it would likely interest readers of the article " Fine-tuned universe", so I did a Google search for "just six numbers". The link which I selected for this article was not the first on Google's list, but it conveniently had (a) a brief summary of the six numbers and (b) further links for ordering the book.

I am not affiliated with either the author or anyone involved in its distribution, so I was surprised to see my editing associated with spam. I did some research on Wikipedia about spam and some related topics. I followed some links from the ISBN link above, and it seems to me that the data which you have posted are better than what I had posted. I am in favor of adding your data as a reference. Wavelength 19:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Martin Rees who wrote Just Six Numbers is President of the Royal Society and the most eminent scientist to have written a book on the subject. We should certainly be following his basic classifications unless we have very strong and well-supported reasons, properly cited, otherwise. NBeale 11:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't know that Rees would say the book is "about" fine-tuning, though he certainly touches on the subject. -- ScienceApologist 12:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Well I do know that he would. See eg his paper Other Universes, a scientific perspective in God and Design. It's arguably a POV that Just Six Numbers is the pre-eminent book, but that is not what I said: I claimed that he was "the pre-eminent scientist who had written a book on the subject." Your suggested alternative being?? (hint s/he'd better be President of the RS or the NAS and have a Nobel or a Craaford. NBeale

Fred Hoyle is arguably the only person to use fine-tuning anthropic arguments to make any scientific predictions. He certainly disagreed with any theistic implications for his work. -- ScienceApologist 17:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

With great respect to the late Fred, he's (a) not as eminent as Rees and (b) didn't write a book on fine-tuning. In addition Rees is an Atheist who does not accept that providence is the correct explanation and prefers a multiverse view. It would be best not to supress pre-eminent scientsts to impose an un-sourced PoV classification, however eminent the handful of wikipedians who thought it OK were. I'll adjust the section again to address the concern you raised, but please don't just revert, this is not constuctive. NBeale 18:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Writing a popular-level book on "just six numbers" does not make one the eminent scholar on fine-tuning. Fred Hoyle actually published a prediction for a nuclear resonance based on the anthropic principle. This makes his work of more scientific importance than Rees' layman's jaunt through basic cosmological speculation. -- ScienceApologist 18:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Felonious, i don't think you made your case that the edits i put in are POV. i am taking no position on intelligent design other than that what these guys are usually trying to do is to push non-science into the science classroom. this whole concept of fine-tuned universe exists solely because some scientists plausibly believe that it is quite odd or, at least, remarkable that the constants of nature such as the fine-structure constant happen to take on the values that they have and that the existence of the universe, as we observe it, depends on those constants taking on very nearly the value that they have. the word "remarkable" is simply what it is. if it wasn't remarkable, no one would be talking about this "fine-tuning" and there would be no WP article on it. the rest of the changes have to do with what the fundamental physical constants really are and everything that i wrote that focuses that set to the dimensionless constants is in keeping perfectly with the present state of physics as expressed by John Baez, Frank Wilczek, John D. Barrow, Michael Duff, Gabriele Veneziano, and practically any other physicist that you will get on moderated newsgroups such as sci.physics.research and their various blogs. r b-j 00:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

My only issue was your use of 'remarkable' and its cognates in the intro that was non-neutral. "...physical constants relating to one another in remarkedly exactly the fashion..." and "While the concept of the remarkable precise interplay of physical constants..." editorialize. Please see WP:WTA#Ironically.2C_amusingly.2C_unfortunately.2C_interestingly.2C_etc_.5BWords_which_editorialize.5D. FeloniousMonk 02:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Believe it or not, rbj, most physicists/cosmologists reject anthropic principles (which is all FTU is). The assumption that life as we know it could not exist if the constants were changed may or may not be true (it's unfalsifiable though, so not science, just philosophy), but any assumption that life would not exist period, or that life as we know it on earth represents the only possible biological paradigm is asinine. •Jim62sch• 22:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

this whole Fine-tuned universe concept that is the topic of this article is a viewpoint. people can certainly and have taken the POV that the universe is not necessarily fine-tuned at all. if it wasn't "remarkable" in the minds of phyicists (such as Barrow) and other people that have simply brought up the subject that the parameters of the universe seem to oddly take on values that allow for the creation of matter and of the elemental diversity (some additional physics in novae had to happen for elements heavier than iron to be created), of structures such as galaxies, stars, planets, so that beings that are like humans can sit around and think about all of this, from the POV of anyone who would bring this subject up, it is remarkable. it's a simple word. it's not making a big POV claim. it's essentially a tautology. tautologies don't say much, using them to "prove" other assertions is a logical fallacy, but disputing them (if you accept their premises) is also logically flawed. what is your problem with it, Felonious?

the whole idea of a fine-tuned universe concept is that it ostensibly is remarkable. if it isn't remarkable the article has no reason to exist. r b-j 02:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

It's by definition a view point. It's certainly not a given. FeloniousMonk 02:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

you missed the point. r b-j 02:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not. The point is, per guideline, "remarkable" is a word that editorializes and is to be avoided. It's fundamentally unencyclopedic language you're insisting on. FeloniousMonk 02:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

and that point is wrong. it does not editorialize. asserting that the universe is fine-tuned as if it is simply an undisputed fact is editorializing. but when describing what people mean when they talk about the fine-tuned universe, or even advocate for the concept, there is no point to the topic at all if it is not remarkable. that is the reason that naturalists have used the concept of the multiverse along with the weak anthropic principle to explain such a remarkable fine-tuning that is asserted by those who advocate fine-tuning. if it wasn't "remarkable" there would be no topic of fine-tuned universe in the first place.

you point about the WP guideline also fails. "remarkable" is not on the list. it does not, in and of itself, insert POV. if we were writing about something uncommon like octuplets or something like that, saying "remarkable" is not POV. octuplets aren't born all the time. when a batch of octuplets happen to be born once in known history, it is not POV to say that such an event is remarkable. it simply is.

i am not saying that the universe has to be fine-tuned. i am only saying that if such a concept of fine-tuning is either accepted per se, or even provisionally for argument, that it is simply "remarkable". there is no such thing as an unremarkable fine-tuned universe. that's the whole point of the topic to exist in the first place. r b-j 02:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Remarkable is a point of view, it is non-encyclopedic, it fails WP:NPOV and does not belong in the article. This is pretty basic. If you find the antropic principle, or it coopted version, FTU to be remarlkable, put it in a blog. •Jim62sch• 10:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The artilcle is not saying that FTU is remarkable. That is strawman argument. The article says that some observed properties of the universe are remarkable and identifies the language of FTU to address that. Fine-Tuned is also a point of view, yet there is an encyclopedia article about it. Perhaps there is no fine-tuning. Then how can such a point of view be represented in Wikipedia? It is because Wikipedia has articles on controversial topics. Just because a topic is controversial does not mean it cannot be represented in Wikipedia. The Fine-Tuned Universe is a topic of some controversy, but as such, if it is to be described or expounded upon, the point of view of the topic (topics have POV, too) gets to be represented. Not as if it were undisputed science, but if the topic of the Fine-Tuned Universe is about what is considered by some to be "remarkable" or "exceedingly unlikely" properties observed in the universe, it is certainly not POV to include such words in the description of the topic. It is also not POV, and is even necessary, to include the fact that it is not, in any manner, settled science. But some scientists use such a term and description for what they believe to be "remarkable" or "exceedingly unlikely" properties observed in the universe. There is no harm in the article reflecting that as long as it is not given undue weight. 76.19.168.52

I have to agree with RBJ. This is exactly the context in which the word "remarkable" is used objectively; it is hard to see why someone would think it is a point of view, just because it was on a list of words to be avoided. Is there an alternative point of view, that the precise relationships of physical constants that allow the conditions for life is NOT remarkable? I don't think so. Dicklyon 04:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Nice that you do, however, you too are incorrect. Remarkable does not belong in an encyclopedic entry as it is clearly used to give weight to a POV. Obviously, you support the anthropic principle (in its FTU version) no matter that it's scientic hogwash, yes, that's my opinion, but that'll never be in the article either because the purpose of Wiki is not to support POV's. In any case, I reverted your entry. If you restore it, it will be reverted again (just as I would revert any entry saying FTU is outright poppycock). If you go 3RR you will be blocked. You see, Wiki has remarkable tools in place for dealing with such nonsense. •Jim62sch• 10:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Whether something is 'remarkable' or not is an opinion, not an objective fact. And it's completely subjective. What one man finds remarkable another may find mundane. Meaning to say whether something "remarkable" is to state a viewpoint. Without an attribution saying the basis for the FTU is "remarkable" is to editorialize. It simply not neutral language. FeloniousMonk 05:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I hear you, but I don't agree. And I really don't get your check-in comment: that the "Fine-tuned universe" concept exists, at all, is a viewpoint. How can there be any question that the concept exists? Are you going meta on us? I'd like to hear what others think, too, since your position is clear. Dicklyon 06:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Although I'm not so sure that this was where FM was going, let me state that both FTU and the anthropic principles are opinions (or if you prefer "philosophical constructs" or "gedenkenexperiments") -- there is nothing in science to back them up. In fact, these concepts are not falsifiable (or won't be unless we can reach a neighboring/parallel universe in which the physical laws are different), thus they are not science. Pretty simple, really. •Jim62sch• 10:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Some editors here have a logical or semantic disconnect with the words they choose to include and the words they insist on deleting. To quote, on one hand, an author who says: "the chance that any initially random set of constants would correspond to the set of values that we find in our universe is very small and the universe is exceedingly unlikely to be the result of mindless chance. Rather, an intelligent, purposeful, Creator must have arranged the constants to support life." and to understand that such a quote is NPOV (in the context of explaining this concept) and then to insist that discussion of the Fine-Tuned Universe is cannot be about the remarkably low probability of such an outcome, clearly demonstrates the bias of the editors. "Exceedingly unliklely" is okay yet "remarkable" is not? The other edits removed were also just as incorrect. If I were to pick nits, I would disagree with Rbj that "there is no such thing as an unremarkable fine-tuned universe." Whether the universe is fine-tuned or not is a physical issue that has nothing to do with whether or not people remark about it. But the word is still correct in this context because the article is not just about the physical nature of the universe but is about an explanation that people use when observing it. But science, as a discipline, is not only about nature, it is also about how people understand and describe nature. Whether or not the universe is actually fine-tuned because of some known or unknown phenomena is a matter of science. Whether or not observers judge such fine-tuning as "exceedingly unlikely" or the less strong "remarkable" is also a matter of science, a human discipline. But, to quote Rbj in another context, nature doesn't give a "rat's ass." Rbj is correct, but not entirely for the right reasons.

The case that FelniousMonk makes is self-contradictory. This editor clearly is unaware of the POV of his own edits yet is completely intolerant of the edits of others that are actually less POV. 76.19.168.52

I forgot to include that Jim is completely correct about the scientific nature of both the Fine-Tuned Universe and the Anthropic Principle, but that still does not mean that when one describes or explains either, it cannot be about what is judged to be "exceedingly unliklely" or "remarkable" observations by humans. It is exactly that, for some people when they think about such observations, such properties of the universe are hard to explain that such explanations such as the AP come up. The FTU is not really such an explanation, though, it is really just a term, a semantic, that we apply to an observation. The observation is, to some, "remarkable" which is really the root meaning of the term Fine-Tuned. That's why deleting the adjective is incorrect. 76.19.168.52

Couldn't this easily be settled by finding a verifiable reliable source that refers to a fine-tuned universe as remarkable? Giving a citation of one of the academics involved in the argument could end this disagreement quickly I would think. Bagginator 11:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. How about Larry Abbot, "The Mystery of the Cosmological Constant," Scientific American, vol. 3, no. 1 (1991): 78, quoted here: [1]. Dicklyon 18:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

As to whether it's science or not, I have no opinion; but I don't think that's the issue. It seems to me, empirically, however, that some scientists do recognize the FTU idea as something worth considering. And I don't think we'd have any article on it if it weren't something worth considering. Here, the thing the makes it worth considering is the very narrow range of values for which standard models predict a universe remotely like what we know. It is that very narrow range that makes the values worth remarking on. Where is the opinion in that? Dicklyon 18:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

(ri) Again, anthropic principles are philosophy, not science. Second, "remarkable" is subjective. Third, I find it remarkable that you can't see the flaw in your own reasoning when you state, "the thing the makes it worth considering is the very narrow range of values for which standard models predict a universe remotely like what we know." •Jim62sch• 22:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

It is acceptable for it to be subjective as long as there is a verifiable reliable source that supports the subjective opinion. All opinions are subjective and Wikipedia allows the use of opinions with proper citations. Bagginator 01:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but neither policy nor guideline provide for presenting even well-supported subjective opinion as objective fact, which is what your addition of the cite to the article did. Again, that's it's remarkable is merely the opinion of the person you cite, not a fact, and one not widely accepted in the scientific community. I've properly attributed the view and noted that it is not widely accepted as a given, with a proper supporting source. FeloniousMonk 02:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Barbarra Forrest's well supported subjective opinion of what a "Leading proponent" is your addition to the Intelligent Design article. Yet somehow you think it appropriate to put her subjective opinion in that article, well supported or not, and you refuse the same thing in this article. Let's please be consistent. Bagginator 05:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Barbara Forrest testified as an expert, thus the court accepted her "opinion" as objective. Capisce?

BTW, whoever quote-mined "remarkably precise" presented it out of context. I have fixed that problem. •Jim62sch• 22:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the biggest problem in POV issues here is the title. The expression "fine-tuned" involves the past participle of the verb "to tune," which is something an agent does to a system. I'm not really familiar with this field or its terminology, but this one sounds like a name that was "designed" to bias the discussion of the concept. Are there other terms used for it? Dicklyon 18:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

If you don't know the answer to this question, why are you editing the article? Editing talk, fine, but the article? •Jim62sch• 22:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Long story. Various things draw me into various articles. Is it OK if an outsider comes in and takes a position on an issue that he sees? Or is this turf taken? Oh, and what is the answer to the question? Or do you also not know? Dicklyon 23:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The term "fine-tuned" is what appears in the discussions. Both groups who are proponents of a "fine-tuned" universe and opponents both use the term. The connotations are deliberate in that (as the article discusses) people who say that the universe is fine-tuned are generally using it as part of an argument for the existence of a creator deity. JoshuaZ 23:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

That does explain the sensitivity around the topic. To me, it's a purely physics/cosmology question, with no involvement of theology. From a physical viewpoint, it is remarkable that the parameters seem to not work if changed even slightly. This is probably telling us something about the nature of the universe, or that the parameters are not really independent, or that our standard model is missing some key concepts, or that the "constants" are not really constant. I'll do my best to not lend support to a theological POV, but withholding the word "remarkable" for that purpose seems to be going overboard. Dicklyon 03:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Physicists as a group are remarkably poorly paid and welcome any attention that brings money in their general direction. "Big bang" was originated as an insulting characterization but survives as it has reached popular consciousness and thus is useful in the popularisation of otherwise hard to understand physics equations. "Fine-tuned universe" is likewise a term invented to mischaracterize the facts yet brings money to those who involve themselves in its use so it thrives as a term. WAS 4.250 00:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I see. So is it your contention that some scientist believe the "tuning" is not so precise as to deserve remark? Can you show me? Dicklyon 03:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Uh, we would know this how? "...it is remarkable that the parameters seem to not work if changed even slightly". Besides, define "work". •Jim62sch• 22:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

It now says:

Some argue, like Michael A Corey, that the arrangement of the physical constant is "remarkably precise."[1], though this position and its implication is not widely accepted within the scientific community.[2]

So I got ref 2 to see what it says. I haven't read the whole thing, but it doesn't seem to be getting to the point of contradicting the position that the physical constants have "remarkably precise" tuning. Rather, it is all about refuting a theological connection. The current sentence seems to be implying that the "implication" of "remarkably precise" is a theological connection. This is stupid.

Please tell me if I got it wrong. Does the reference apply if I take out "and its implications", which is itself a loaded POV phrase? Dicklyon 05:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I've updated that part to better reflect reality (both in terms of what Corey really said and in terms of who Corey "is"). •Jim62sch• 22:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

BTW, Larry Abbot appears to be a nobody...at least as a physicist. Their is a Larry Abbot(t) at Brandeis who is a neuroscientist (PhD biology), but it seems to me a dead chicken is being waved here. •Jim62sch• 23:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Felonious, please don't remove talk comments, even if you suspect they were put in by a sock puppet, which seems not to be the case. Dicklyon 15:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser evidence shows that 76.19.168.52 is Rbj. Edits added by someone circumventing a block should be removed can be removed by anyone. FeloniousMonk 15:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

"Checkuser" says no such thing. it says something about the use of IPs. and you, Felonious, in your arrogant certainty, expect people to accept your secret evidence without presenting it, is the same bullshit that Bush is trying to do [2] (but at least i was not on trial for my life, i'll grant that). it is indicative of arrogance, entitlement ("i can say whatever the hell i want and i expect you to believe it without presenting any evidence for public scutiny."). in both cases, it's a moral failure. r b-j 03:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

He says he's a friend of Rbj. Makes no difference to me. I hereby re-insert the comments as my own, but keeping the original signature so that the conversation makes sense, which it does not when pieces are elided. Dicklyon 17:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

What he says is irrelevant. What checkuser shows is relevant. •Jim62sch• 22:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

It's "she". 76.19.168.52

OK, I can understand you wanting to defend your POV in the article, and even your wanting to censor Rbj's comments from the discussion after getting him blocked. But if his friend uses the same computer or same ISP or something, you want to censor him, too? Even if I, who am not censored (yet) re-insert the comments as my own, they have to be censored? This is nonsense. Why not leave the discussion alone so that it can proceed to try to understand the article content issues? Dicklyon 22:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Because block evaders should not profit from flouting the rules. Nor should they be assisted by sympathetic friends. FeloniousMonk 22:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah. So there is a god. Dicklyon 22:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Robert (Rbj) has asked me to hold off commenting while his ban is in effect lest it be extended even again. I resent the restriction because of a penalty applied to him, but have agreed to it this time. In principle, I should have no restriction applied to me however Rbj is enjoined. As best as I can tell, the ban is over now.

It's interesting that in the article about Intelligent Design, it prominently says that "An overwhelming majority of the scientific community views intelligent design as unscientific, as pseudoscience or as junk science." While I think it is completely true, the adjective "overwhelming" is editorializing in a greater degree that "remarkable" has been claimed to be here. Observation of the history of the article shows that some of the very same editors, particularly as Felonious Monk, edit that article often yet they apparently have no problem with that editorializing since it is prominent in the article and no one has bothered to remove it. "Overwelming" is a quantitative description (that can be debated) while "remarkable" is more qualitative. How much of a majority is "overwelming" is not well defined, but all that is needed is one or two persons to remark about something for it to be "remarkable". Little mundane things like how fast kids grow, or seem to, are "remarkable" because people remark about them. "Remarkable" is really not about the facts regarding science or art or social phenomena, it's about how people react to these facts. If people remark about them, they are remarkable.

Could it be that "overwelming" in the ID article is editorializing that agrees with the POV of these editors while "remarkable" in this article is simply not consistent with their personal POV?

The actions that Felonious Monk (and threats) to reverse many things Dick Lyon wrote in the article (and of restoring my comments to this talk page and standing by them), despite the citations he brought are evidence of intellectual dishonesty. He just does not want the same standards of debate and reason applied to his words as he demands of others. BTW, thank you, Dick. Rbj mentioned he had an edit conflict with you on some article in the past and was appreciative as well. 76.19.168.52

Did you (or rbj, or both of you, or the biunity) bother to read the llloooonnnngggg archives on the overwhelming debate? Bottom line is, 99.4% was, in the end, rightfully considered to qualify as "overwhelming".

I did not. I had no indication before now that it would be useful to look there. What is it is that you are saying is overwhelming, or 99.4%? Your sentence seems to be fragmentary. Dicklyon 19:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Remarkable/remarkably, aside from the linguistic faux pas of trying to intensify an absolute, is very much a relativistic subjective judgment call much in the same way as introducing adjectives such as beautiful, ugly, simple, difficult, etc., would be -- these words are based on personal perceptions with nothing tangible to recommend their usage. •Jim62sch• 18:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The point was to make it clear that the word was NOT an absolute, but a relative. Nothing about intensifying, which it does not do in this context. I think you guys are either paranoid, or semantically challenged. Dicklyon 19:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

And I think you need to read the OED -- hell, I gave a reference. You can argue your point however you want, but it'll still be wrong. Precise, like unique, is a bloody absolute. Again, 3. Exact; neither more nor less than; perfect, complete: opposed to approximate. Is this really that difficult? •Jim62sch• 00:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't happen to have an OED or a subscription to it, so you'll kindly quote the other definitions, perhaps I'll be able to tell you which one is more appropriate to the context. The definitions I'm thinking of are the ones that lend themselves to the tens of thousands of web pages with each of "insufficiently precise", "remarkably precise", "relatively precise", "more precise", "ultra-precise", "absolutely precise", etc., or the hundreds of thousands of "highly precise". Dicklyon 17:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The quote and reference that I added about Larry Abbott saying "remarkably precise" has been re-attributed in recent edits to Michael Corey (just because he quoted it in his book), and has been dragged into a theological argument. This is really lame. Can you guys who screwed it up please take another look and try to unwind it into something more sensible, leaving theology out of it? Dicklyon 22:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I've put it back to something that is at least "less screwed up", and changed the ref to make it more clear that the quote is from a guy who writes for scientific american, not a guy that writes about God. Dicklyon 23:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

BTW, Larry Abbot appears to be a nobody...at least as a physicist. There is a Larry Abbot(t) at Brandeis who is a neuroscientist (PhD biology), but it seems to me a dead chicken is being waved here. Can you find a reference to the "real" Larry Abbot? Is he in any way notable? Is his opinion worth a plugged nickle? If not, and if you insist on the quote staying, it's going to be reworded yet again with an attribution to the theologist as an apocryphal quote from "a Larry Abbot who is claimed to be..." •Jim62sch• 23:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks like the book that quoted him had the spelling wrong. Needs two t's after all. This seems to be the guy and his phys pubs: [3]. I have no idea what opinions he might have; I was just responding to a suggestion to find a "verifiable" reference. Dicklyon 00:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed the missing t. However, he's been a biologist [4] for some years now (at Columbia), so he seems to be misrepresented as well. Curiouser and curiouser. •Jim62sch• 00:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems he got a lot of physics published in the era we're talking about. I don't see why the "dead chicken" label. Andn is there something controversial about what he said? Are there in fact physicists who do not think these things are "remarkable"? Show me. Dicklyon 01:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't make the first assertion (that it was remarkable), thus I have nothing to prove. If Larry Abbott is the only source that could be found, that doesn't speak volumes for the validity of the statement. Memento, ei incumbit probatio qui affirmat, non qui negat.

In the period in question? His last published physics paper was 3 years before the quote in question. Moving from physics to biology requires a substantial paradigm shift, and his way of looking at the world may have shifted as well. •Jim62sch• 01:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

What I'm trying to understand here is why the use of an adjective phrase like "remarkably precise" is being interpreted as an assertion of some opinion. If you can tell me that some physicists don't see a phenomenon of "fine tuning", or think that it's not true that small changes in physical constants would imply a very different universe, then I'd get the point. But instead of discussing this substantive issue, all I get back is word play. Dicklyon 02:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Some physicists don't see a phenomenon of "fine tuning". I assume you now get the point. WAS 4.250 13:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

That's part of it. The other part is that a stroll through the dictionary until one gets to "remarkable" (stop there and read), mightn't be a bad idea. For example, from the OED, "Worthy of remark, notice or observation; hence, extraordinary, unusual, singular" Note the weight the word adds to whatever it is modifying. Of course, given that "precise" is an absolute (OED, Exact; neither more nor less than; perfect, complete: opposed to approximate), the use of the adjective is superfluous, much in the same way as saying that something is the "most unique x you've ever seen". Thus, you are advocating the intensification of something that needs no such intensification simply for reasons of trying to create the illusion of added weight. •Jim62sch• 13:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the problem is that I'm an engineer. To engineers, "precise" is a relative term. There are degrees of precision. If the "fine-tuned universe" is a topic, then it must be because the precision involved is remarkable. It's not about adding extra weight; it's about making the otherwise vacuous term "precise" into a reason for being notable. By the way, I did read the dictionary (sorry, not the OED), before my first edit involving remarkable, because I wanted to be sure it had the meaning I intended. Dicklyon 15:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

What might be true linguistically in one discipline falls under the category of jargon -- to wit the non-absolute use of precise you mention. In plain English (non-techie), precise has a precise meaning, and that meaning is an absolute. It strikes me as being rather curious that you would say that precise is "vacuous" as the word is anything but. •Jim62sch• 16:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

But that absolute interpretation of "precise" makes no sense in this context. That's why it becomes meaningless. Dicklyon 19:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Your being an engineer possibly explains your misconception that "If the "fine-tuned universe" is a topic, then it must be because the precision involved is remarkable". It is "a topic" for psychological reasons. WAS 4.250 16:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, more progress. Can you explain that more? Where did the concept or the term come from? Was it discussed scientifically before it was perverted into a theological ploy, or was it really made up by the god squad? Why isn't the history of the concept discussed in the article. It seems to me that knowing where it has come from would be central to understand the concept and current issues around it. Dicklyon 19:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Fine. Let's make progress. Read Full text of Judge Jones' ruling, dated December 20, 2005 about Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District and ask further questions after that. WAS 4.250 22:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I took a quick look, and since it doesn't seem to contain terms like fine-tuned or anthropic, I decided not to play that game. If you're trying to tell me that the god squad are trying to use the concept of the fine-tuned universe to support their intelligent design agenda, I'm not surprised. But it seems a bit of a tangent to worry about that at this point; what I want to know about is the intellectual history of this concept, not how it is currrently being abused. Dicklyon 00:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

It's essentially a rewording of the strong anthropic principle with teleological arguments thrown in. Asking for an "intellectual" history of FTU is like asking for an intellectual history of the flat-earth society's claims -- it's nought but pseudo-intellectualism. Basically, FTU derives from the need to make ID appear to work in the context of cosmology -- if an intelligent designer (i.e., God) designed life on earth, and if that life is irreducibly complex, then the same must hold true for the universe. •Jim62sch• 01:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I really just want to know about the scientific basis behind things like the phrase "these views are accepted within mainstream science," without the preaching to the choir. Dicklyon 03:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Near as I can tell you [5] wrote that, so you explain. I'll be fixing it presently. •Jim62sch• 00:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess that depends on what you mean by "it". I've done a bit of re-wording. You seemed to agree with it, when you added the exception for "unknown physics" here et seq. Before that, long before I ever saw this article, the statement "the concept of the precise interplay of physical constants being necessary for known life is widely accepted within mainstream science" seems to have been a stable part of this article. Is it now in dispute? If so, please say so here. Or if this mainstream acceptance has now been misattributed to a wrong concept, say that. You seem to be keeping your actual knowledge and opinion hidden while playing with the text for unknown purposes. Just tell us what you think and how you think the article ought to be fixed, and we can discuss it. If there are references to support either that these positions are accepted or not accepted, we should cite those, and cite the opposite only if corresponding other refs are found. OK? Dicklyon 02:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Since the current topic is so closely related to the anthropic principle concept, it would be good to know the history of that, too. That article refers back to Barrow and Tipler 1986, but not much older. Quick GBS shows John Wheeler may have originated the idea [6]. Does anyone have more info on this topic? Dicklyon 20:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the AP goes back to the 19th century, although who developed it first is unclear. Basically, it functions as creationism-lite, with the prime-mover being redirected from a deity to the universe itself, and with the assumption of a "purpose" for the universe. It's all hogwash, of course, driven by the human need to be "special", although it could develop as part of any civilisation that requires validation and that is "goal-oriented". •Jim62sch• 01:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

it would be good to find dated citations with the words "anthropic principle". i can only say, for me, that the earliest that i have read the term was with Stephen Hawking A Brief History of Time in which the anthropic principle was cited and appealed to as a response to the observation of apparent fine-tuning by persons asking how could such an ostensibly unlikely combination of events be expected to coincide to which the theists (such as Richard Swinburne) would say the best answer is divine creation (of some sort, as far as i know not all theists accept the crap of the Discovery Institute or certainly the Young earth creationism). the first reference to the AP (that i've been able to track down) was essentially what is now called the weak anthropic principle (here in WP and in the Barrows/Tippler book), which is pretty much accepted as a tautology, a vacuous truth, but true nonetheless. in the Hawking book, i do not recall any reference to branes or multiverse association, which if combined with the WAP, offers a naturalistic explanation if you accept the multiverse premise (seems eternally un falsifiable to me, but what do i know?). without the multiverse premise, i cannot see how the WAP offers any explanation (being a tautology) and then i was left pretty unsatisfied with Hawking's explanation. he asked the right question (“Why does the universe bother to exist at all? Why should there be something rather than nothing?") but i saw no purely natural answer to the question, although Hawking was claiming the (W)AP answered it.

it wasn't until i first heard of the Discovery Institute and their appeal the the AP (apparently the "strong" or "final" anthropic principle, which was rightly lampooned as the completely ridiculous anthropic principle or CRAP) as evidence of divine creation and it sure seemed odd that both the theists and atheists were appealing to a concept having ostensibly the same name to both "prove", on one hand, or "disprove", on the other, a sorta ontological need for the existence of divine action in creation. i really couldn't figure out how the theists were appealing to the AP for support since, at the time, the only AP i read about was the WAP. so i would also like to see what form of AP was originally meant when the term was coined. what is a good earlier or initial reference to the actual term "anthropic principle"? i'd also be interested in knowing.

regarding fine-tuned universe, while i agree with Dick that there is a close relationship to AP, i fully disagree with Jim that the are essentially the same thing as the AP and that it is "driven by the human need to be 'special', although it could develop as part of any civilisation that requires validation and that is 'goal-oriented'." the concept of the fine-tuned universe has nothing to do with that, except in the minds of some theists who seem to have an agenda in co-opting science into their religious world-view.

at the outset, the "fine-tuned universe" concept was not an answer or explanation of anything. it was a term applied to the actual observation that physicists made regarding a bunch of universal physical constants (what values they happen to be and what values they would have to be for matter, elements, stars, etc. to be anything like what we observe and expect to need to live as carbon-based biological beings) and of initial clumping about 10000 years after the Big Bang (so that galaxies, stars, and planets could eventually be formed). physicists look at that and say (paraphrased) "gee, if these 26 dimensionless universal constants weren't very nearly what they are measured to be, and if that clumping apparent in the cosmic background radition wasn't there, nothing would be like it is and we wouldn't be here." they also recognize that (outside of the SAP and FAP which i think is appropriately labeled CRAP which seem to reverse cause and effect) they wouldn't have to be that way. we are here because of this fine-tuning not the other way around (which the WAP tautologically "affirms"). but it is considered by many physicists that all of those constants being what they are is remarkable. indeed Richard Feynman said regarding the most visible of those constants (the fine-structure constant about why it is (137.035999)^-1):

Nobody knows. It's one of the greatest damn mysteries of physics: a magic number that comes to us with no understanding by man. You might say the "hand of God" wrote that number, and "we don't know how He pushed his pencil." We know what kind of a dance to do experimentally to measure this number very accurately, but we don't know what kind of dance to do on the computer to make this number come out, without putting it in secretly!

we do not know why it takes on the value that it does. none of us do, not the physicists, not the materialists, and not the deists. but the physicists tell us it better the hell be close to that value otherwise matter would not be at all what it is and we could not exist in any form like we do. there is no known causal reason why it would have to take on that value. nearly any physicists (as well as many other people) consider that remarkable because they remark about it. and sometimes they use that word (as cited by Dick). if Feynman says " It's one of the greatest damn mysteries of physics: a magic number that comes to us with no understanding by man", it is not editorializing to say that it is remarkable that it takes on the value that it does. now raise that degree of remarkability to the 26^th power and you have something even more remarkable.

thanks, Dick, for keeping the "word players" at bay. their latest word-play regarding the meaning of "precise" is just that. "precise" and "precision" have multiple definitions in the dictionary and what they imply is the "engineering definition" (but we know it is far broader than engineering) is one of those definitions. "remarkably precise" is meaningful and not redundant in the manner that "very unique" is. r b-j 03:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

while i actually agree more with Dick, i don't think we should try to sweep under the rug that there is a real difference between Dick's and FeloniousMonk's version and not just a difference in usage. one says that this observation of fine-tuning is, for the most part, accepted, and the other says it is not accepted within "mainstream science". while, i think that everybody here agrees that ID is not accepted within mainstream science, there is a bona fide dispute here whether fine-tuning is. i don't even think there is agreement among editors what, precisely, fine-tuned universe is referring to. there are some editors equating the notion of fine-tuning to ID and others (e.g. me) who clearly do not. i continue to maintain that Fine-tuned universe means the observation that the universal constants take on these particular numerical values such that: 1. no physicist knows why (causal) these dimensionless quantities take on the values that they do and 2. if they were not very nearly those particular values, matter, the universe, and life would not exist as we know it. the observation of these two facts are well accepted (as far as i can tell) in the physics community and these observations are "notable" or "remarkable" enough that they are given the name as of this article. fine-tuned universe is about the observation (and is widely accepted) while ID is an explanation for this observation which is not widely accepted within the science community. the multiverse hypothesis combined with weak anthropic principle is another explanation. i think this is a content disagreement that needs to be hammered out without Felonious simply reverting resorting to wordplay or relying on his opinion that the other version is "better". from the very beginning he has not justified that and has relied his admin status and the ability to silence opposing view to define the article and the meaning of terms. r b-j 15:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. FM pretty much inverts the meaning. The only way we are going to resolve the substantive difference, however, is to find some sources, so that we can get an idea to what extent the scientific community agrees that the universe would be a very different place if the relationships between physical constants was changed even a little. I'm no expert on this topic, but I thought that concept was pretty much accepted, and the article said so in a sentence that nobody argued with for a long time, so I thought it was accepted here, too. I don't understand the recent addition of the awkward misplaced "not"; my impression is that maybe he didn't mean to invert the meaning, but just had a hard time writing what he intended. It's hard to tell, which is why I keep asking other editors to please disclose what they are thinking instead of just playing word games. Dicklyon 16:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

"and that small changes in these relationships would correspond to very different universe" should be "and that small changes in these relationships would correspond to a very different universe", right? Info D 13:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

sure! making a change like that is called a minor edit and you can legitimately click the little "This is a minor edit" box down by the Edit summary when you do it. no need to check up with others for something like that.

thanks for catching the omision. r b-j 19:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

"Both popular and professional research articles in cosmology often use the term " universe" to refer to the observable universe. The reason for this usage is that only observable phenomena are scientifically relevant. Since unobservable phenomena have no perceptible effects, physicists argue that they " causally do not exist". Since unobservable parts of the universe cannot be measured, hypotheses about them are not testable, and thus inappropriate for a scientific theory." See Brane cosmology and multiverse. They may "often" use the above definitions, but definitions based on string- and M-theory are gaining in acceptance. •Jim62sch• 00:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

i find it a little problematic also, but not entirely. this is one of the problems of string theory or of Brane cosmology or the multiverse conjecture. no one has devised an experiment that will test it. it's not falsifiable. if it remains infalsifiable for long, it will move from science to philosophy because science eventually makes predictions that can be tested. r b-j 00:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they may...one never knows, although I suspect these theories will remain theories whether or not they are testable, and testing them may very well be impossible as you note. Of course we can't really test parts of QM either (yet) -- the effect of using Planck energy to probe the Planck length for example: will it result in a singularity? On paper yes, but until we can actully test it, we'll really never know. I suppose more than anything, string theory, M-theory, branes, etc are just extremely interesting to think about (and maybe in the case of branes and brane cosmology it's best to consider them to be gedenkenexperiments). Besides, parts of classical physics (for example Newton's third law and (acceleration) that all things, regardless of shape fall at the same rate (on earth 32ft/s/s) absent other influences)* weren't "proven" until we went into space. The first when a Shuttle astronaut pushed on a satellite and went in the opposite direction of his push, and the other on the moon with the famous feather and hammer experiment.

Anyway, my intent was to point out that the mention of physicists and their attitudes is not wholly accurate.

*Yes, that's a crappy sentence but it's the best I can do at 6AM ;) •Jim62sch• 10:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The series box in Intelligent design includes Fine-tuned universe as part of the series. Perhaps we should add the box to this page as well. Rares 07:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

i have mixed feelings about it. Fine-tuned universe and Anthropic principle have some scientific value. ID really does not. it's a religious/philosophical statement. r b-j 17:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't have mixed feelings about it. Just say no. It's OK for intelligent design to point here as a concept that they use. It's less OK to make a prominent box here saying that this article is a part of that other weirdness; a link or two is enough. Dicklyon 17:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

FTU is one of the current cornerstones of ID. As for FTU and the anthropic principles having scientific value, that is extremely debatable. Neither is truly falsifiable, thus neither is science. They are philosophy. •Jim62sch• 23:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

real physicists make real reference to fine-tuned universe and anthropic principle. there is nothing in the fine-tuned universe other than a plausible observation of facts that really are testable. FTU is not a theory, it's an observation, or an interpretation of an observation. the WAP is just a tautology and really doesn't say anything. the SAP and FAP (aptly renamed CRAP) do say something that can never be tested and is thus not science. string theory cannot be falsified (as yet) and is not yet relegated to the philosophical scrap heap. also the totally naturalistic theory of creation using a multiverse theory along with WAP is also untestable. but it makes a claim to be science (as being the scientic alternative speculation to a theistic cosmology). r b-j 13:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

If this is not OR, it needs cites.

However, this line of reasoning begs the question of what "fine tuned" conditions might have been necessary to lead to the spontaneous existence or creation of an omnipotent God. Thus, this argument may be seen as explaining one "improbable" situation (the observed existence of the universe with a set of physical constants capable of creating complex life) by supposing an even more improbable situation (the existence of a meta-universe and whatever structure or meta-physical laws would be necessary to allow for the spontaneous creation or existence of a supreme being which was complex enough to create our own universe). This line of argument, therefore, may be subject to criticism from proponents of Occam's Razor.

Removed from article 11/6/2006 •Jim62sch• 10:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

There was a lot of un-sourced stuff in this section which (to put it at its kindest) was PoV that did not distinguish speculation from fact and was badly ill-informed. I have put it roughly in a shape aligned with the pre-eminent scientist to have written a book in this field Martin Rees who is President of the Royal Society. The comment attributed to Steven Gould is unsourced and frankly incredible, and most of the rest should be sourced or deleted. It was 'not' a "good edit" alas. NBeale 22:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

In addition the Ikeda/Jeffries "argument" is simply a posting on a website. It is inappropriate to give it this much prominence when major books by global experts only get a few lines. Jeffries is barely notable, not a member of the NAS and Ikeda isn't even notable. At most it rates a sentence. NBeale 23:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

As you are proposing major changes to the consensus version, you'll need to discuss the changes here.

Additionally, your denegration of the Ikeda-Jefferys hypothesis merely means that you are not up on current physics trends. •Jim62sch• 22:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

At least it's a "hypothesis" not a "theorem." Can you give some references please? I can find nothing in Science or Nature and only one ref in Google Scholar which is a self-published website. Their argument BTW is completly bogus but this is not the forum to debate this point. The fact is that, as far as I can see, it has not been peer reviewed or sited sufficently to have academic credibility. if I am mistaken please provide the evidence. Thanks. NBeale 18:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Science and Nature aren't about to publish anything regarding Fine-tuning because it isn't a scientific concept but is merely philosophical. -- ScienceApologist 19:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

A quick search of Google Scholar reveals about 919 papers matching "Fine Tuning" and Anthropic of which 587 are in Physics, Astronomy and Planetary science. And my question was, are there any quality citations of I/J? NBeale 21:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Have you spelled it correctly yet? You couldn't find anything yesterday because you were spelling Jefferys incorrectly. You mean "theory", theorems are found in geometry, etc. •Jim62sch• 23:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[7], [8], [9], [10]. Enough to start. •Jim62sch• 23:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

All look like self-citations with the exception of Stenger to be published in "The Skeptical Intelligencer" not exactly scholarly peer-reviewed. Basically it's a junk argument I'm afraid. Stenger doesn't seem from his article to have made much of an impact as a scientist (no hon degrees, non-academician etc..) and no-one else seems to take this "argument" seriously. Whereas the Anthropic Principle scientists are major figures. NBeale 07:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

There were some uncited and very POV statements in the critics part of the Premise section. I have adjusted them to NPOV (eg is claimed that) and noted that they need citations. However the sentence: The argument loses much of its meaning and appeal if it is restated in the alternative terms "If the constants of the universe weren't exactly what they are, Saturn wouldn't have rings around it." is risible and should be deleted. You might as well say that an argument that God does not exist loses much of its meaning and force if it is restated in the alternative terms of "A Boeing 747 does not exist". Can anyone suggest a rational reason why that (unsourced) sentence should be retained? NBeale 18:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey - and not just any Boeing 747 but the Ultimate Boeing 747 at that. Whilst we are on the "Premise" it is interesting that Victor Stenger is blatantly quoted out of context. Thanks for bringing this section up as Victor Stenger's position is that... "The fine-tuning argument and other recent intelligent design arguments are modern versions of God-of-the-gaps reasoning, where a God is deemed necessary whenever science has not fully explained some phenomenon." the reference is page 20 of that PDF. This was added in http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Fine-tuned_universe&diff=prev&oldid=80933287 to justify the definition and yet nothing more of Stenger was added even though he is a strong opponent of the whole of this Intelligent Design related pseudoscience. Looks like we need to balance that out. Ttiotsw 04:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Victor Stenger is notable and is a critic of fine-tuning (well actually any ID stuff). He has a reasonable number of books to his name and quotes or is quoted by others in this field so I've segued him into this article. Please use talk before blanking these edits. BTW: He's not in Wikipedia as ... well one reason is I haven't yet finished my draft article as I'm fairly new to Wikipedia WRT creating new WP:LIVING pages and got bogged down on bibliography references and see-also stuff as his books are cited reasonably often and trying to avoid copyvio on biographical data. Ttiotsw 09:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Explaining my edit, http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Fine-tuned_universe&diff=93233733&oldid=93228420 I changed the "are"s in the second sentence to "may be"s i.e. it is now "Some of these may be fully compatible with known scientific facts (notwithstanding their use of metaphysical ideas which maybe considered to be beyond the domain of science). " as it already was weasel with the "some" so I added may be. In the last sentence I changed the "some" at the start of the sentence to "Many" i.e. it is now "Many other religious creation views are either incompatible with, or indifferent to, scientific understandings. The reason being that so far it's just mentioned "some" and only two other examples (Christianity and Judeism) are discussed and thus the majority that are left is..."Many" plus you seriously can't get away with the word "creation" in a sentence that talks about compatibility with "science". Ttiotsw 22:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The edit was hardly an improvement. •Jim62sch• 23:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

...and Fine-tuned universe is hardly a science so it's hard to identify concrete stuff. Got to be a bit more precise as to what was wrong with my edit. Ttiotsw 01:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Too weaselly. BTW, FTU is a form of the anthropic principle, which is accepted by some scierntists. •Jim62sch• 20:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that a list of proposed examples of "fine-tuning" of physical constants would be a good idea, but there doesn't seem to be any difference between this and a list of "anthropic coincidences", which seems to be the more common term; I think it would be better to fork the list to list of anthropic coincidences or something like that, leaving a link (and one or two common examples) from here and from anthropic principle. Ben Standeven 20:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)