{"id":622,"date":"2007-11-24T22:12:16","date_gmt":"2007-11-25T03:12:16","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.math.columbia.edu\/~woit\/wordpress\/?p=622"},"modified":"2008-01-16T15:42:47","modified_gmt":"2008-01-16T20:42:47","slug":"letter-to-the-editor","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.math.columbia.edu\/~woit\/wordpress\/?p=622","title":{"rendered":"Letter to the Editor"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>To the Editor:<\/p>\n<p>Paul Davies, in his Op-Ed piece <a href=\"http:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2007\/11\/24\/opinion\/24davies.html\">Taking Science on Faith<\/a>, uses recent untestable speculation about multiple universes motivated by string theory to claim that &#8220;the mood has now shifted considerably&#8221; among physicists.  He characterizes physics as being, just like religion, &#8220;founded on faith&#8221;, faith in the existence of intelligible laws describing nature and in a &#8220;huge ensemble of unseen universes&#8221;, the so-called &#8220;multiverse&#8221;.<\/p>\n<p>The only real recent shift in mood among most physicists has been a loss of interest in string theory, precisely because its proponents have been forced to invoke the multiverse hypothesis in order to explain why string theory can&#8217;t predict anything.   The existence of mathematical &#8220;laws of physics&#8221;, describing accurately and successfully the physical world in a testable way is not a &#8220;belief&#8221; but a fact. <\/p>\n<p><strong>Update<\/strong>:  The <a href=\"http:\/\/www.edge.org\/3rd_culture\/davies07\/davies07_index.html\">Edge<\/a> web-site is promoting both the Davies Op-Ed, and several critical responses to it.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Update<\/strong>: Lots of other bloggers weighing in, with the Science Blogs crowd (<a href=\"http:\/\/scienceblogs.com\/ethicsandscience\/2007\/11\/questions_i_have_for_paul_davi.php\">here<\/a>, <a href=\"http:\/\/scienceblogs.com\/pontiff\/2007\/11\/nitpickers_pardiso_paul_davies.php\">here<\/a>, <a href=\"http:\/\/scienceblogs.com\/pharyngula\/2007\/11\/faith_is_not_a_prerequisite_fo.php\">here<\/a>,  and <a href=\"http:\/\/scienceblogs.com\/authority\/2007\/11\/science_faith_and_the_new_york.php\">here<\/a>) uniformly Davies-hostile.  The only positive blog entries I&#8217;ve seen about the Davies piece come from the <a href=\"http:\/\/www.uncommondescent.com\/intelligent-design\/taking-science-on-faith\/\">IDers<\/a> and <a href=\"http:\/\/motls.blogspot.com\/2007\/11\/paul-davies-taking-science-on-faith.html\">Lubos Motl<\/a>.  Lubos  seems to feel that the main issue here is that Steven Weinberg, Stephen Hawking, Lenny Susskind and Frank Wilczek may be unable to pursue their anthropic-principle-inspired research programs out of fear that I might criticize them.  I would think they might be even more intimidated by P.Z. Myers, who reaches rhetorical heights I can not aspire to, referring to the Anthropic Principle as that <em>tiresome exercise in metaphysical masturbation that always flounders somewhere in the repellent ditch between narcissism and solipsism<\/em>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>To the Editor: Paul Davies, in his Op-Ed piece Taking Science on Faith, uses recent untestable speculation about multiple universes motivated by string theory to claim that &#8220;the mood has now shifted considerably&#8221; among physicists. He characterizes physics as being, &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/www.math.columbia.edu\/~woit\/wordpress\/?p=622\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-622","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.math.columbia.edu\/~woit\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/622","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.math.columbia.edu\/~woit\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.math.columbia.edu\/~woit\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.math.columbia.edu\/~woit\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.math.columbia.edu\/~woit\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=622"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.math.columbia.edu\/~woit\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/622\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.math.columbia.edu\/~woit\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=622"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.math.columbia.edu\/~woit\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=622"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.math.columbia.edu\/~woit\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=622"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}