Will the multiverse change the scientific method?

Antony Flew

These are my last comments on Man Ho Chan’s article, which reviews and refutes recent attempts to make multiverse theories scientific. Here I’ll deal with those attempts that propose renouncing the scientific method to make the theories of the multiverse scientific. This group of proposals, the most radical, can be summarized as follows:

• Epistemological anarchy: Proposed by Feyerabend in 1988, it argues that science is an essentially anarchic enterprise: theoretical anarchism is more humanitarian and more likely to foster progress than its law-and-order alternatives. In other words: We had better give up applying the scientific method, lest we miss some pseudoscientific theory that could have been useful. 

Man Ho Chan comments this: It is doubtful that multiverse theories can make any real scientific advancement. In some versions of multiverse theories, they suggest that all that can happen happens. In other words, these versions can explain everything. If a theory can explain everything, it does not lead to any scientific advancement… Therefore, it seems that multiverse theories are passively driven by empirical findings or theoretical constructions rather than actively leading to any new scientific advancement.

Elsewhere in his article, Man Ho Chan cites Popper and Antony Flew in support of his view. This is Popper's quote:

A theory that explains everything explains nothing.

And this is Flew’s quote:

A true scientific explanation […] is like a single well-aimed bullet. The idea of a multiverse replaces the rationally ordered real world with an infinitely complex charade and makes the whole idea of “explanation” mean­ingless. (Antony Flew, There is a God, 2007)

Finally, another desperate proposal is based on the assertion that a theory can be considered scientific, even if it does not have empirical confirmation, if it fulfills one of the following arguments:

• Unexpected explanatory coherence argument: According to Anthony Aguirre (2006), multiverse theories could offer an alternative to the singularity problem posed by the BGV theorem (the initials of Borde-Guth-Vilenkin). But, as often happens, this solution would raise new scientific and philosophical problems, almost impossible to solve, and basically it would do nothing more than move the problem to another starting point, which would more than counterbalance the positive impact of the argument.
• Meta-inductive argument: Some of the theories of the multiverse are based on string theory and the theory of chaotic inflation, which have not been confirmed. If any of these theories were confirmed in the future, those theories of the multiverse would receive indirect support. But this argument is based on a logical fallacy, which I described in my post The fallacy of life on Mars:

Mars image mosaic from the Viking 1 orbiter

Correct deduction: Sufficient condition	Fallacious deduction: Necessary condition
B is true if A is true. A is true. Therefore B is true.	B is true only if A is true. A is true. Therefore B is true.

This is the fallacy of false cause, which derives from a confusion between a necessary condition and a sufficient condition. String theory and chaotic inflation may be necessary conditions for some of the multiverse theories, but that does not mean that they are sufficient conditions. Consequently, if the former were confirmed, the latter wouldn’t be automatically confirmed.

In conclusion: supporters of the multiverse theories are so desperate for them to be considered scientific, that they are willing to renounce the scientific method and even logic. If these proposals were accepted, science would be dead. Therefore, it appears that multiverse theories are not just unscientific, but perhaps they also are anti-scientific, by threatening those principles that have always been considered basic for science.

The same post in Spanish

Thematic Thread on Multiverse and Fine Tuning: Previous Next

Manuel Alfonseca