David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B 34 (1):5-35 (2003)
In the last three decades several cosmological principles and styles of reasoning termed 'anthropic' have been introduced into physics research and popular accounts of the universe and human beings' place in it. I discuss the circumstances of 'fine tuning' that have motivated this development, and what is common among the principles. I examine the two primary principles, and find a sharp difference between these 'Weak' and 'Strong' varieties: contrary to the view of the progenitors that all anthropic principles represent a departure from Copernicanism in cosmology, the Weak Anthropic Principle is an instance of Copernicanism. It has close affinities with the step of Copernicus that Immanuel Kant took himself to be imitating in the 'critical' turn that gave rise to the Critique of Pure Reason. I conclude that the fact that a way of going about natural science mentions human beings is not sufficient reason to think that it is a subjective approach; in fact, it may need to mention human beings in order to be objective.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Yuri Balashov (1994). Uniformitarianism in Cosmology: Background and Philosophical Implications of the Steady-State Theory. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 25 (6):933-958.
Brandon Carter & William H. McCrea (1983). The Anthropic Principle and its Implications for Biological Evolution [and Discussion]. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences 310 (1512):347-363.
John Earman (1987). The Sap Also Rises: A Critical Examination of the Anthropic Principle. American Philosophical Quarterly 24 (4):307 - 317.
John Leslie (1988). No Inverse Gambler's Fallacy in Cosmology. Mind 97 (386):269-272.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Errol E. Harris (1992). Cosmos and Theos: Ethical and Theological Implications of the Anthropic Cosmological Principle. Humanities Press.
Claus Beisbart & Tobias Jung (2006). Privileged, Typical, or Not Even That? – Our Place in the World According to the Copernican and the Cosmological Principles. Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 37 (2):225 - 256.
Milan M. Ćirković (2002). Anthropic Fluctuations Vs. Weak Anthropic Principle. Foundations of Science 7 (4):453-463.
Errol E. Harris (1991/1998). Cosmos and Anthropos: A Philosophical Interpretation of the Anthropic Cosmological Principle. Humanity Books.
John D. Barrow (1986/1988). The Anthropic Cosmological Principle. Oxford University Press.
Frank J. Tipler (1988). The Anthropic Principle: A Primer for Philosophers. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1988:27 - 48.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads256 ( #2,865 of 1,699,591 )
Recent downloads (6 months)45 ( #10,503 of 1,699,591 )
How can I increase my downloads?