Post by unkleE on Apr 11, 2011 23:55:59 GMT
This may be old hat to others here, but I have just come across an excellent science blog - Letters to Nature. It's written by four youngish hotshot Aussie physicists, now doing postgrad research around the world.
I have been impressed by the writing of Luke Barnes, now doing research in Switzerland on "the link between Lyman alpha emission and the formation of cosmic structure." (Yes!) Luke has ventured into metaphysics with several posts on the Cosmological and Fine-tuning arguments, which obviously touch on areas of his expertise, and he reveals himself as an apparent agnostic with a sharp and open mind.
Some highlights well worth reading:
A series of posts on the fine-tuning argument where he "corrects" some (in)famous names, including:
He concludes a three part, and generally positive, review of Jerry Coyne's Why evolution is true with a criticism of Coyne's statement that "supernatural explanations always mean the end of inquiry" and his views on evolutionary ethics.
He has a series of discussions of Michael Reiss' departure from his position at the Royal Society a couple of years ago, which ends with an incisive piece on whether a theist can do honest science - well worth reading.
On a lighter note (perhaps) there's a series on the physics of batting in cricket.
I have gone to this trouble because I think Luke has good expert knowledge, expresses himself well, has an open and incisive mind and addresses questions of interest to us all. Enjoy!
I have been impressed by the writing of Luke Barnes, now doing research in Switzerland on "the link between Lyman alpha emission and the formation of cosmic structure." (Yes!) Luke has ventured into metaphysics with several posts on the Cosmological and Fine-tuning arguments, which obviously touch on areas of his expertise, and he reveals himself as an apparent agnostic with a sharp and open mind.
Some highlights well worth reading:
A series of posts on the fine-tuning argument where he "corrects" some (in)famous names, including:
- PZ Myers - he accuses Myers of not even trying to understand theoretical physics, and concludes: "it is painfully, embarrassingly obvious that Myers has never seriously investigated the fine-tuning of the universe for life. When he isn’t aiming his riposte at a straw man, he’s passing judgment on whole of theoretical physics. He criticises features of our universe without which he would not exist and asks rhetorical questions that were answered long ago. Not content with merely demonstrating his ignorance, Myers proceeds to parade it as if it were a counterargument, allowing him to dismiss some of the finest physicists, astronomers, cosmologists and biologists of our time as “self-delusional”. When Myers can show that he has taken them seriously, we might just start to take him seriously."
- Victor Stenger fares even worse, with a two-part demolition. In part 1 Luke discusses probability theory and how it applies to a rare event, and in part 2 he gives a long discussion of theoretical physics that (he says - it is mostly beyond me) shows that Stenger's physics is terribly wrong. He concludes: "Stenger’s feeble, evasive response to the fine-tuning of the universe evokes the opposite stereotype: the condescending “true-unbeliever” who refuses to engage the evidence, who is not searching for truth at all costs, but is instead rummaging for any excuse to explain it away. ..... I’m being harsh because I expected more from Stenger."
- William Lane Craig comes out surprisingly well. In pt 1 he criticises Craig's arguments on probability, but concludes "Apart from the above example, Craig’s work on the fine-tuning of the universe for life isn’t too bad (my next blog post notwithstanding). In particular, the other points he makes against the multiverse hypothesis deserve our consideration. His best article is “Design and the anthropic fine-tuning of the universe” in the volume “God and design: the teleological argument and modern science”, which also contains Robin Collins’ excellent “Evidence for Fine Tuning”. Both are worth a close read."
In part 2 he discusses whether the fine-tuning could be a result of deep laws of physics we haven't discovered yet, and finds some agreement with Craig but more disagreement. It is nevertheless interesting that the philosopher Craig seems to understand the science better than the scientists Myers and Stenger. - Other posts discuss Avalos, Ross and others.
He concludes a three part, and generally positive, review of Jerry Coyne's Why evolution is true with a criticism of Coyne's statement that "supernatural explanations always mean the end of inquiry" and his views on evolutionary ethics.
He has a series of discussions of Michael Reiss' departure from his position at the Royal Society a couple of years ago, which ends with an incisive piece on whether a theist can do honest science - well worth reading.
On a lighter note (perhaps) there's a series on the physics of batting in cricket.
I have gone to this trouble because I think Luke has good expert knowledge, expresses himself well, has an open and incisive mind and addresses questions of interest to us all. Enjoy!
