John Horgan was one of the first batch of Templeton-Cambridge Journalism Fellows in Science and Religion. As he reports,
The 10 fellows were to spend several weeks at the University of Cambridge, listening to scientists and philosophers pontificate o…

I am PLato( as the ego struggles to be himself)!

You had to be working in the environment, as “opposing views” were sought, as to the basis of the model spoken and referred too.

I would also point to Robert Laughlin’s ideas in rebuttal to Witten’s statement. If you knew he was a Condense Matter Theorist, how “appropriate” his views in relation to Wittens.

LGQ and STrings? Amara may be right to point to that environment, and the conditions of knowledge according to the circumstances in which we are raised. We certainly do not want to supplant our “biased views” on others? Let them be selectve then. Pass by the post?:)

Casting a ideology over the pervasiveness of science with leaders in their positions , although sound in guiding our principles in regards to what is needed in science, had been less kind, in assigning features to “this and that” over the adoption of what ever model.

People do cast statements and tones in regards to others, that is not my way. Should it be discouraged? I think so.

The points about funding, to some prescribe agenda is ridiculous. If science was held in front, then how would you have been discouraged from acting repsonsibly( group made me do it?).

The “guidance” then might have been more appropriate to raise the points as they do, and let minds decide whether what they had said is right to them. Take forward the skills they had been offered, and allowed them to blossom. Lok at the statements and found reason with which that statement might not be fair. Prove their math.

Research would/should encourage individualistic pursuites to excellence, by example? I don’t care if you are atheist, Buddhist or IDist as long as the validation and principals of science are upheld. That is all of our struggles, is to go over and check that we are not making mistakes, accepting them, and seeing if what is being used is in fact working, and applicable in other areas.

That’s Witten’s point also,I listed in quote. What year was that? I speculate then, that you and I might agree on this?:)

I also think that a complete non-taoutologous form of the anthropic principle defines the ToE.

At least Barrow is looking real physics.

Into the fourth year exclusively studying the anthropic curse, I’ve found x number of illogical reasons to dislike the anthropic principle, and one very important reason to respect it like no other.

Here are the top 4:

1) Misplaced geocentric arrogance – Many good scientists simply don’t like the implication that we hold a special place in the universe. They blame taoutologous form for not answering “why”, yet I’ve found that nobody bothers to try to find that reason because of the above assumption about human arrogance… speaking of circular reasoning.

2) Ideological pre-conceived prejudice – Do a Google search, and it quickly becomes quite evident that creationists are convinced that “specialness” is evidence for god, or, counter-fanatically motivated people are convinced that they’d better not give the creationists an inch, so they strictly deny all possible interpretations of evidence that we’re not here by accident. Unfortunately, this pre-conceived prejudice over-flows right into the mainstream.

3) Then there’s string theory – oh.no.Lenny.What.Have.You.Done
It didn’t take long for the attack against the multiverse to be redirected to an attack against the AP.

4) It runs directly contrary to the flow of mainstream science toward a universe that’s created from a purely random process, as supported by the uncertainty principle, as it is radically applied to just about anything that anybody wants to use it to “explain”, while enabling them to successfully dodge the causality bullet. That sets-off alarm bells for me.

~

One excellent reason to study the anthropic principle:

If the anthropic principle defines the most accurate cosmological principle, then it also defines the ToE, because it either, unifies the forces, or, more-probably… a complete non-tautologous form explains “why” the forces cannot be unified.

The whole “stringvangelism” thing not what I am talking about. I am referring to real scientists making some falsifiable statatement about matters religious like the exsitence of a supernatural power, divine intervention, demonstrable (and repeatable)power of prayer etc or something like that.

Amara,

The Jesuits are an interesting group to consider.