We’re back for more with Dr. Sean Carroll! This time it’s even more action packed. We talk about his debate with William Lane Craig, which I think is one of the best atheism/religion debates out there on the YouTubes. In addition to that, we talk about the Boltzmann Brain Problem, and Sean answers questions from patrons, who submitted them over on patreon.com/atheist.
Find Sean’s new book here!
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 44:03 — 51.4MB)
Subscribe: RSS
I don’t get his position on falsify-ability. I’ve usually heard falsify-ability used in reference to a scientific theory rather than science generally and that’s what Carroll seemed to be referring to. And my understanding is that a scientific theory should also be predictive, not just falsifiable.
To use his multiverse example (which Carroll refers to as a scientific theory), if Popper were presented with that theory, I don’t see why he would consider it it any more or less scientific than the intelligent design theory.
I have a poor imagination – could someone present a theory that is observable (ie: inhabits our physical/material universe), but is not testable/falsifiable?
Maybe Sean would say Intelligent design is a scientific theory, just one that has failed all predictability tests.
Is there a predictability test that the multiverse theory hasn’t failed? But wait a sec, if there was a prediction and a test, wouldn’t that be falsify-ability?
It’s my understanding (NOT a cosmologist, physicist, etc) that the multiverse/many worlds theory is based on observations after the fact. I think someone smart like Thomas would refer to that as post-hoc rationalization. And how do you avoid Texas sharpshooters when doing science like that?