|
Post by unkleE on Dec 13, 2013 5:54:54 GMT
I'm sure we have talked about Luke Barnes before. He is an Aussie post-doc researcher in cosmology/astrophysics, and has taken a particular interest in the scientific evidence for universal fine-tuning (he resolutely refuses to discuss the philosophical/theological implications at any length). His blog contains many demolitions of people who have tried to argue the science badly. Members of this forum may be interested in his latest post, a critique of Richard Carrier applying Bayes theorem (or not) to fine-tuning. A second post on Carrier and fine-tuning itself is still to come.
|
|
|
Post by wraggy on Dec 13, 2013 6:12:11 GMT
|
|
|
Post by evangelion on Dec 13, 2013 14:21:19 GMT
I'm sure we have talked about Luke Barnes before. He is an Aussie post-doc researcher in cosmology/astrophysics, and has taken a particular interest in the scientific evidence for universal fine-tuning (he resolutely refuses to discuss the philosophical/theological implications at any length). His blog contains many demolitions of people who have tried to argue the science badly. Members of this forum may be interested in his latest post, a critique of Richard Carrier applying Bayes theorem (or not) to fine-tuning. A second post on Carrier and fine-tuning itself is still to come. Nice find! I can see myself spending a bit of time there...
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Dec 15, 2013 20:44:51 GMT
The second part of Barnes on Carrier. I didn't try to follow all the Bayes Theorem equations (life, and my understanding, are both too short), but it looks like Richard has made multiple mistakes in his eagerness to break new ground.
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Dec 23, 2013 5:35:42 GMT
Barnes felt the need to comment on another article by Richard Carrier, here. This is getting to be a serious embarrassment for Carrier and Stenger. They quote almost no-one except themselves, none of it in peer-reviewed scientific literature, while Barnes has reviewed 200 papers in reputable journals, then published the results of his review in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and references no less than 24 famous cosmological names who support the view he is taking against Stenger and Carrier. Rationalism (or, I guess, it's really empiricism) rarely looked so bad.
|
|
|
Post by merkavah12 on Dec 23, 2013 18:31:32 GMT
The second part of Barnes on Carrier. I didn't try to follow all the Bayes Theorem equations (life, and my understanding, are both too short), but it looks like Richard has made multiple mistakes in his eagerness to break new ground. "Eagerness, what bitter venom! Making fools and wise men alike dance in burning homes with untoward enthusiasm in worship of mirages and worthless gems!"
|
|
|
Post by evangelion on Dec 23, 2013 21:19:28 GMT
Wow, Carrier's really copping it sweet. No matter what field he turns to, there's always some pesky expert who makes him look like a total klutz!
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Jan 22, 2014 1:07:28 GMT
Update: Luke Barnes has been attacking Richard Carrier on Carrier's blog, and I think getting not a little impatient. Here's his final summary of the discussion, which is on Carrier's blog here (you have to scroll down a fair way to find the "discussion" - more like two ships passing in the night!). Barnes basically says Carrier doesn't understand the science, doesn't understand probability, doesn't present any argument against Barnes' criticisms, and makes a lot of mistakes in what he says. I haven't tried to follow the maths, but since Barnes is a published post-doc on astrophysics and references a large bunch of cosmologists and a few statisticians, we can probably assume he has got the physics right and Carrier hasn't, and he is closer to getting the statistics right than Carrier. But I imagine the battle lines will stay pretty much where they are now. It's called discussion and progress based on evidence. I won't say "Enjoy!" because it is all a little depressing.
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Jan 22, 2014 8:41:36 GMT
I thought Barnes was actually very restrained, particularly in light of Carrier's unsubstantiated accusations. The problem with Carrier is that he never details his points in context - he sticks to his vague claims or attacks isolated parts. When I read Carrier's posts the adage "show, don't tell" occurred to me, so it was amusing to me when I saw Barnes also used that stock phrase.
Now I suspect the use of such semantic smokescreens is a deliberate tactic by Carrier to throw punters off. However, I think these are facts that he cannot hide away: 1. He later admits that footnote 20 is not relevant, but it is his prime example of Barnes' supposed dishonesty initially. Barnes however only addressed it in a small section "Inconsistency with Finite Frequentism" in his first post and didn't make it important to his argument at all. 2. He confuses the “if the evidence looks exactly the same on either hypothesis, there is no logical sense in which we can say the evidence is more likely on either hypothesis” with "if the probability of the evidence (the likelihood) is the same on either hypothesis, then the evidence does not help us choose between the hypotheses", as Barnes noted. Carrier seems unable to see the difference. He dropped Barnes's question about this in his final reply. 3. The main point of his p(f | o) = 1 seems trivial. o for Carrier does not denote the existence of intelligent observers, but an observer's first-order belief in the existence of intelligent observers ("I know/observe that there are intelligent observers"). Barnes is right when he proposes to separate o out of the background knowledge. Carrier later acknowledges his point about p(f | o) = 1 requires further argument which he gives in his chapter, but states that o may not be isolated from b'. This is false.
Am I getting it right with the above points?
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Jan 24, 2014 12:11:02 GMT
Am I getting it right with the above points? I haven't attempted to work through the probabilities. I think I could do it, but I'm too lazy, and I trust Barnes to get it right. But I think you are right about Carrier. He doesn't have a "real job" so his main source of self esteem and recognition comes from his "avid fans" in the atheist world. So he can't take a backward step without losing face and his position in that world. So much for rationalism and free thought! It's not all that different from Barnes vs Stenger and some of the public comments by Lawrence Krauss. These scientists' enthusiasm seems to have led them into making statements they cannot justify scientifically, and Barnes is pointing out that the emperor's butt is on display. At least, that's how it seems to me, but what would I know?
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Jun 21, 2014 2:56:10 GMT
A further update: Jeffery Lowder, a fellow atheist (one of my favourite atheists because he is very precise and very fair-minded) and friend of Richard Carrier, has reviewed the Barnes-Carrier debate in detail, and the result is devastating for Carrier. He judges Barnes to be right on almost every point, and only wrong on about 2. Here are a few sample comments: - “I think Dr. Carrier absolutely has to respond to this point by Dr. Barnes or publicly issue a retraction.” (regarding the scientific consensus)
- “This strikes me as a devastating reply. Like the last point, I think Dr. Carrier absolutely has to respond or else issue a retraction.” (re Barnes’ comment to “start citing papers”)
- “Ouch” (to several points on scientific authority and consensus)
- “I agree with pretty much this entire section of Dr. Barnes’s essay.”
- “I think Dr. Carrier must directly answer the questions in the bulleted list …. I strongly agree. I hope that Dr. Carrier will directly respond to Dr. Barnes without the personal attacks.” (in response to Barnes’ claim that Carrier was attacking him personally and avoiding discussing the issues)
I have not found any response by Carrier, and it is hard to see how he can respond. An honest and humble person would simply admit their enthusiasm had got the better of them, but Carrier may find that response difficult, especially since the original writing Barnes took exception to was a chapter in a John Loftus book.
|
|
|
Post by evangelion on Jun 21, 2014 9:49:44 GMT
A very fair analysis by Lowder. Barnes' epic beatdown of Carrier was a joy to behold.
|
|