Refuting Vic Stenger: fine tuning (Introduction)

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.