Refuting Vic Stenger (Introduction)
by David Turell 
, Monday, December 31, 2012, 12:28 (4346 days ago)
Here is a complex refutation of Vic Stenger's book which claims fine-tuning is a fallacy. Stenger is an ardent atheist, retired particle physicist, who makes enormous mistakes in his book, according to Luke Barnes, author of this article:-http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1112/1112.4647v1.pdf-Abstract:-The ne-tuning of the universe for intelligent life has received a great deal of attention in recent years, both in the philosophical and scientic literature. The claim is that in the space of possible physical laws, parameters and initial conditions, the set that permits the evolution of intelligent life is very small. I present here a review of the scientific literature, outlining cases of fine-tuning in the classic works of Carter, Carr and Rees, and Barrow and Tipler, as well as more recent work. To sharpen the discussion, the role of the antagonist will be played by Victor Stenger's recent book The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning: Why the Universe is Not Designed for Us. Stenger claims that all known ne-tuning cases can be explained without the need for a multiverse. Many of Stenger's claims will be found to be highly problematic. We will touch on such issues as the logical necessity of the laws of nature; objectivity, invariance and symmetry; theoretical physics and possible universes; entropy in cosmology; cosmic in ation and initial conditions; galaxy formation; the cosmological constant; stars and their formation; the properties of elementary particles and their eect on chemistry and the macroscopic world; the origin of mass; grand unied theories; and the dimensionality of space and time. I also provide an assessment of the multiverse, noting the signicant challenges that it must face. I do not attempt to defend any conclusion based on the ne-tuning of the universe for intelligent life. This paper can be viewed as a critique of Stenger's book, or read independently.
Refuting Vic Stenger
by romansh 
, Monday, December 31, 2012, 18:46 (4346 days ago) @ David Turell
Refuting Vic Stenger
by David Turell , Monday, December 31, 2012, 23:01 (4346 days ago) @ romansh
http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Fallacy/DefendFallacy.pdf-Interesting refutation of a refutation:-Stenger: "I have never denied that life, as we know it on Earth, would not have evolved with slight changes in parameters. In Fallacy I showed (1) that plausible explanations, consistent with existing knowledge, can be made for the observed values of the five critical parameters and, (2) plausible ranges for the other parameters exist that are far from infinitesimal, contrary to what is claimed in the theistic literature. Nothing in Barnes' paper changes my basic conclusion: The universe is not fine-tuned for us. We are fine-tuned to the universe."-Interesting mirror-image view of the relationship. We are certainly bound to each other, humans and the universe. All he is doing is removing the impression of teleology. Take it or leave it.
Refuting Vic Stenger: fine tuning
by David Turell , Saturday, March 16, 2013, 14:07 (4271 days ago) @ David Turell
Stenger twists science. In this new finding fine tuning is shown to be finer!- "In new lattice calculations done at the Juelich Supercomputer Centre the physicists found that just a slight variation in the light quark mass will change the energy of the Hoyle state, and this in turn would affect the production of carbon and oxygen in such a way that life as we know it wouldn't exist.-"The Hoyle state of carbon is key," Lee says. "If the Hoyle state energy was at 479 keV or more above the three alpha particles, then the amount of carbon produced would be too low for carbon-based life.-"The same holds true for oxygen," he adds. "If the Hoyle state energy were instead within 279 keV of the three alphas, then there would be plenty of carbon. But the stars would burn their helium into carbon much earlier in their life cycle. As a consequence, the stars would not be hot enough to produce sufficient oxygen for life."-http://news.ncsu.edu/releases/tpleeanthropic/-The Hoyle State is named after Sir Fred Hoyle who discovered the way stars make carbon from helium, which then leads to oxygen. Hoyle went from atheist to deist/theist as he learned the intricices of fine tuning.
Refuting Vic Stenger: fine tuning
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Tuesday, March 19, 2013, 07:40 (4269 days ago) @ David Turell
Just to clarify for the non-physicist:-1 kiloelectron volt = 1.60217646 × 10^-16 joules-Random chance my arse.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Refuting Vic Stenger: fine tuning
by David Turell , Sunday, March 02, 2014, 21:46 (3920 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Stenger's defense of atheism: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/victor-stenger/how-to-debate-religion_b_4876997.html- Not all points are givens.
Refuting Vic Stenger: fine tuning
DAVID: Stenger's defense of atheism: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/victor-stenger/how-to-debate-religion_b_4876997.html Not all points are givens.-They certainly aren't. Here are a few examples:-1) "If you are a non-expert on any subject, you should not say anything about it beyond your competence."-Sound advice, but what would Stenger say to a theist who advised a theologian to stay clear of physics, chemistry and biology?-2) "If the God most people worship existed, we should have seen evidence for him by now. The fact that we do not proves, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he does not exist."-Who decides the criteria for "evidence"? I haven't seen any evidence that convinces me, but David and Tony have, so who does Stenger mean by "we"? What "evidence" have we seen that life and the mechanisms for reproduction and innovation could arise by chance? None. Does this prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that chance is impossible and design is the only solution? Of course not. Until these mysteries have been solved, "we" can have faith in a superpower or in chance, or "we" can stop making faith-based judgements, and keep an open mind.-3) "Science and religion are fundamentally incompatible because of their contradictory view on the source of knowledge. Science assumes that only by observation can we know about the world. Religion assumes that in addition we learn by revelations from God."-"Revelations" are a soft target, but science and religion (i.e. belief in a "divine creator") are perfectly compatible if you go beyond the limitations of science and try to answer the questions science raises. The atheist scientist may believe that the complexities of life are the product of chance combinations, but this is not science. The theist scientist may believe they're too complex to be anything but the product of design. This is not science either. The moment a scientist or anyone else proposes an answer to the unanswered questions, he enters the realm of philosophy, and in that realm science and religion are compatible.-4) "Atheists claim that the universe just "popped" into existence. I can't believe this. A number of plausible scenarios have been published by reputable scientists in reputable scientific journals. If you insist they are impossible, then you have the burden of disproving them."-The fact that there are a number of them suggests that most if not all are wrong. If the theist can't disprove an unproven theory of origins, nor can the atheist. Russell's orbiting teapot applies to these plausible but unproven scenarios (e.g. the multiverse) just as it does to the God theory. Stenger falls into all the traps he sets for his theist opponents. 5) Stenger pooh-poohs NDEs. He says you can only prove they are not hallucinations if "the subject returns with some knowledge that she could not possibly have known prior to the experience". Clearly this is a subject he should have steered clear of, since there are numerous examples of such information being obtained.-6) "The obvious presence of design and complexity in the world, especially in life, proves there was a designer. That was a good argument prior to Darwin when people had no idea how life came about. Darwin showed that complex organisms evolve from simpler ones by purely natural processes, without the need for a more complex designer."-Firstly, even post Darwin, we still have no idea how life came about, as he admits later. Secondly, what does he mean by "purely natural processes"? We have no idea what processes have enabled so-called simple organisms to live, let alone invent the complex forms of life we know today. I agree that this does not prove the existence of a designer. It proves nothing, so why should the atheist pretend he knows more than the theist? -7) "Many Christians believe in evolution. Not really. Surveys indicate that what most believe in is God-guided evolution. That is not evolution as understood by science. That is intelligent design. There is no room for God in evolution."-There is no room for God in science, if we think of science as the study of the observable, material world. Science attempts to provide factual information, but Stenger's "understanding" of that information as "purely natural processes" (see below, on "Nature") is philosophical, not scientific. Objective information and subjective interpretation can be perfectly compatible, and God-guided evolution will still be evolution! Darwin himself explicitly left room for God in his theory.-8) "Science still has not shown how life began. That is true; but it does not follow that life had to be created by God. To assert that, you have the burden of proving that science will never discover the natural origin of life." [/i]-Of course it doesn't follow. But if a theist can't disprove the negative (science will never discover "the natural origin" of life), nor can an atheist disprove the counter negative (science will never discover the supernatural origin of life). Besides, our knowledge of Nature is so sparse, we have no idea what it might encompass. The terms natural and supernatural are therefore meaningless except to those who insist they already know what is natural.
Refuting Vic Stenger: fine tuning
by David Turell , Tuesday, March 04, 2014, 15:13 (3918 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Stenger's defense of atheism: > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/victor-stenger/how-to-debate-religion_b_4876997.html&... Not all points are givens. > > dhw:They certainly aren't. Here are a few examples:-I won't repeat your comment, but you have beutifully summarized my thoughts as I read his specious arguments. He may be a fine cosmologist, theoretical particle physicist, but a terrible philosopher of science and religion. His faith in atheism blinds him. George, I don't think you can defend him.
Refuting Vic Stenger: fine tuning
by George Jelliss , Crewe, Tuesday, March 04, 2014, 21:03 (3918 days ago) @ dhw
I've had to edit the below to keep within the word limit.-> Not all points are givens. > They certainly aren't. Here are a few examples: > > 1) "If you are a non-expert on any subject, you should not say anything about it beyond your competence."-This is just advice to atheists debating theologians. Probably a theist would advise a theologian debating a physicist similarly not to get too deep into the complexities of physics unless you happen to be someone like Polkinghorne.-> 2) "If the God most people worship existed, we should have seen evidence for him by now. The fact that we do not proves, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he does not exist." > > What "evidence" have we seen that life and the mechanisms for reproduction and innovation could arise by chance? None. Does this prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that chance is impossible and design is the only solution? Of course not. >-This is just the usual dhw argument about chance. I don't know why you have such a down on chance. Unlike God we do have conclusive evidence that Chance exists! We even have laws about how Chance works.-> 3) "Science and religion are fundamentally incompatible because of their contradictory view on the source of knowledge. Science assumes that only by observation can we know about the world. Religion assumes that in addition we learn by revelations from God." > > "Revelations" are a soft target, but science and religion (i.e. belief in a "divine creator") are perfectly compatible if you go beyond the limitations of science and try to answer the questions science raises. > -I dare say most of the theologians one is likely to debate these questions are of the bible-believing religious type. If you have a religion based on something else, it may indeed be compatible with science.-> 4) "Atheists claim that the universe just "popped" into existence. I can't believe this. > A number of plausible scenarios have been published by reputable scientists in reputable scientific journals. If you insist they are impossible, then you have the burden of disproving them." > -My approach to this question would be more philosophical, asking what is meant by existence and time - but we've argued that extensively before. > 5) Stenger pooh-poohs NDEs. He says you can only prove they are not hallucinations if "the subject returns with some knowledge that she could not possibly have known prior to the experience". Clearly this is a subject he should have steered clear of, since there are numerous examples of such information being obtained. >-There are none that do not have convincing alternative explanations. > 6) "The obvious presence of design and complexity in the world, especially in life, proves there was a designer. > That was a good argument prior to Darwin when people had no idea how life came about. Darwin showed that complex organisms evolve from simpler ones by purely natural processes, without the need for a more complex designer." > > We have no idea what processes have enabled so-called simple organisms to live, let alone invent the complex forms of life we know today. > -Why should one postulate divine intervention processes when natural processes, based on chance and physics, appear quite adequate. -> 7) "Many Christians believe in evolution. > Not really. Surveys indicate that what most believe in is God-guided evolution. That is not evolution as understood by science. That is intelligent design. There is no room for God in evolution." > > Objective information and subjective interpretation can be perfectly compatible, and God-guided evolution will still be evolution! Darwin himself explicitly left room for God in his theory. > -It should be possible to distinguish God-guided evolution from natural evolution. In the same way that it is possible to distinguish fraudulent science from genuine science. The statistics would be different from what they should be according to the laws of chance.- > 8) "Science still has not shown how life began. > That is true; but it does not follow that life had to be created by God. To assert that, you have the burden of proving that science will never discover the natural origin of life." [/i] > > our knowledge of Nature is so sparse, we have no idea what it might encompass. The terms natural and supernatural are therefore meaningless except to those who insist they already know what is natural.-But science has shown that all the necessities for life to begin were in existence ready for abiogenesis to occur. The action of chance and physical law is what "natural" means here. Supernatural would be some form of miracle, breaking these laws.-I was asked to respond by DT. The above are my point by point responses, the best I can do at short notice.
--
GPJ
Refuting Vic Stenger: fine tuning
by David Turell , Wednesday, March 05, 2014, 01:43 (3918 days ago) @ George Jelliss
Thought I'd step in since I asked. Thanks for replying. > > George: I dare say most of the theologians one is likely to debate these questions are of the bible-believing religious type. If you have a religion based on something else, it may indeed be compatible with science.-My religious theory based on science alone is that God is an eternal universal consciousness existing at the quantum level of reality. I do not accept the God of the Bible. After Medical school I was an agnostic.-> > George: But science has shown that all the necessities for life to begin were in existence ready for abiogenesis to occur.-I disagree. How many amino acids were present? Based on the Murchison meteorite analysis, only eight. How about the chirality problem? Where were the enzymes, and how do you polymerize in water, as examples of the problems involved? Some of the current theories start with the assumption that RNA somehow appeared. This is why Shapiro postulated ( in 2007 before his death) a more simple energy cycle, mainly inorganic to start with. My usual statement still fits: after 65+ years we only know what does not work.
Refuting Vic Stenger: additional thought
by David Turell , Wednesday, March 05, 2014, 15:13 (3917 days ago) @ David Turell
The other approach to start of life has been a backward look at how simple an organism can be called true life. The most simple organisms on Earth, truly independent living organisms are highly complex. Even viruses which are dependent upon the fully living for their survival are highly complex. It appears first life must have been complex, requirung many disparate parts coordinating together. One example: waste products must be dispelled by creating little globules which are extruded. That garbage came from ingesting nutrients to disgest and create energy which life requires. Even parts of a single-celled organism recycle. And then there is the problem of the creation of a mechanism for splitting into two daughter organisms, the only way to reproduce. If you think about it, the vestiges of the first bacterium ever on Earth are still here, because of the method of reproduction.-It takes a huge amount of faith to make George's statement, which implies abiogenesis happened by chance. That is dhw's point. Chance is a supreme issue even if we have well-undertood probability formulas in math.
Refuting Vic Stenger: fine tuning
My thanks to George, who has responded to my criticisms of Stenger. I have also had to edit in order to keep within the word limit.-GEORGE: This is just the usual dhw argument about chance. I don't know why you have such a down on chance. Unlike God we do have conclusive evidence that Chance exists! We even have laws about how Chance works.-Of course chance exists. The question is whether you believe chance could produce mechanisms so complex that we still don't understand them and are still unable to recreate them. If ever we do, it certainly won't be by chucking the bits and pieces in a pond and letting chance put them together.-Dhw: ...science and religion (i.e. belief in a "divine creator") are perfectly compatible if you go beyond the limitations of science and try to answer the questions science raises. GEORGE: I dare say most of the theologians one is likely to debate these questions are of the bible-believing religious type. If you have a religion based on something else, it may indeed be compatible with science.-This is a very fair answer. I know plenty of religious people who reject a literal reading of the bible, and have adapted their beliefs to the findings of science. "God-guided evolution" is a case in point. It is perfectly possible to believe both in evolution and in God. (See below.) STENGER: "Atheists claim that the universe just "popped" into existence. I can't believe this. A number of plausible scenarios have been published by reputable scientists in reputable scientific journals. If you insist they are impossible, then you have the burden of disproving them." GEORGE: My approach to this question would be more philosophical, asking what is meant by existence and time - but we've argued that extensively before.-At least you distinguish between science and philosophy. Stenger is clearly floundering philosophically when he insists that theists carry the burden of proving a negative thesis (none of the numerous atheistic scenarios are possible) and apparently doesn't realize that atheists would therefore also have to prove the negative thesis that God isn't possible either.-dhw: Stenger pooh-poohs NDEs. He says you can only prove they are not hallucinations if "the subject returns with some knowledge that she could not possibly have known prior to the experience". Clearly this is a subject he should have steered clear of, since there are numerous examples of such information being obtained. GEORGE: There are none that do not have convincing alternative explanations.-I am surprised that you have done so much research on NDEs and can explain all the examples.-Dhw: We have no idea what processes have enabled so-called simple organisms to live, let alone invent the complex forms of life we know today. GEORGE: Why should one postulate divine intervention when natural processes, based on chance and physics, appear quite adequate.-I myself do not postulate divine intervention, but again am surprised that you consider chance an adequate explanation for the origin of the complex mechanisms described above. Chemistry and physics do not explain how the processes of life and evolution were set in motion.-Dhw: Objective information and subjective interpretation can be perfectly compatible, and God-guided evolution will still be evolution! Darwin himself explicitly left room for God in his theory. GEORGE: It should be possible to distinguish God-guided evolution from natural evolution. In the same way that it is possible to distinguish fraudulent science from genuine science. The statistics would be different from what they should be according to the laws of chance.-It depends on the nature of the "guidance". It is perfectly possible for both theist and atheist to accept that all forms of life descended from earlier forms, and branched out into a higgledy-piggledy bush leading, among other species, to us humans. This could, for instance, be the result of chance from the beginning onwards, or of a God creating the initial mechanism and then letting it run its own course, or of a God playing games, or of a God experimenting with or without a particular purpose in mind. The course of evolution and the "statistics" remain the same.-DHW: ...our knowledge of Nature is so sparse, we have no idea what it might encompass. The terms natural and supernatural are therefore meaningless except to those who insist they already know what is natural. GEORGE: But science has shown that all the necessities for life to begin were in existence ready for abiogenesis to occur. The action of chance and physical law is what "natural" means here. Supernatural would be some form of miracle, breaking these laws.-I'll follow Stenger's advice and leave the science to David. However, since nobody understands the quantum world, and over 90% of the universe is unknown to us (dark matter and energy), we simply do not know what Nature is capable of. And as we don't know what "natural" laws led to life and the evolutionary processes, they do appear to be miraculous. Yes, maybe chance worked the miracle. Or maybe Nature contains some form of intelligence we do not know about (which need not be the God of any religion).
Refuting Vic Stenger: fine tuning
by David Turell , Wednesday, July 05, 2017, 18:08 (2699 days ago) @ dhw
Another review of his works by a particle physicist who says Stenger is completely wrong:
http://www.michaelgstrauss.com/2017/07/is-fine-tuning-fallacy.html
"In his book The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning, Stenger claims that arguments theists make about fine-tuning can be easily refuted. Following the tone of my blog, I will try to discuss this issue in a non-technical way. The astrophysicist Luke Barnes wrote a long technical article refuting Stenger's claims which I highly recommend. In response to Barnes' article, Stenger wrote an article, which caused Barnes to write a further rebuttal on his blog. The general consensus among scientists who have studied this question is that Barnes' arguments are stronger than Stenger's and the universe does appear to be fine-tuned.
***
"One of Stenger's major points is that if the laws of physics are the same when tested by different observers (what he calls Point-of-View Invariance, or PoVI) then the laws of physics as we know them must be valid in any universe, not just ours. He then goes on to say that because these laws are necessary they are not fine-tuned at all. If Stenger's logic regarding PoVI and the laws of physics can be shown to be incorrect, then many of Stenger's conclusions are completely invalid. In fact, Luke Barnes does show that this proposal is not valid because of Stengers' misuse of certain terms. Barnes outlines Stenger's argument as:
LN1. If our formulation of the laws of nature is to be objective, it must be PoVI.
LN2. Invariance implies conserved quantities (Noether’s theorem).
"LN3. Thus, “when our models do not depend on a particular point or direction in space or a particular moment in time, then those models must necessarily contain the quantities linear momentum, angular momentum, and energy, all of which are conserved. Physicists have no choice in the matter, or else their models will be subjective, that is, will give uselessly different results for every different point of view. And so the conservation principles are not laws built into the universe or handed down by deity to govern the behavior of matter. They are principles governing the behavior of physicists.”
"Barnes goes on to show that Stenger commits the logical fallacy of equivocation. He uses the word invariant (invariance) in LN1 and LN2 as if they mean the same thing, but, actually, they mean two very different things. The invariance in LN1 means the physical laws are the same while that in LN2 is a more technical term with a very distinct meaning of being symmetric. By using the word "invariant" when the appropriate term is "symmetric" Stenger sets up a false equivalence, and without that equivalence his whole argument is destroyed. His conclusion in LN3 does not logically follow. I believe this is why many scientists have indicated that Stenger's book does not, at all, refute the fine-tuning in the universe.
***
"After reading this book myself and reading other scientists' reviews of The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning it seems that Stenger's arguments are considered strong only by those who already agreed with him, while the majority of scientists who have studied the issue agree that Stenger dismisses fine-tuning claims with little justification. Clearly, the scientific evidence for a designer remains strong. I expect that as theists continue to point out that the universe really does appear to be finely-tuned to allow life to exist that more books like this will be written to try to undermine that case, and that close inspection of the arguments against theism will show them to be highly inadequate, just like those in the supposed Fallacy of Fine-Tuning."
Comment: the author appears to be a theist, but that does not remove his valid objections to Stenger's false reasoning. Fine tuning suggests God exists.