I'm not happy with an article that deliberately picks on the use of "favourite" to make a spurious argument. It's obvious what was meant - would "preferred" have been better, or "considered most likely" ? That sort of intellectual dishonesty isn't a good start.
Then the phrase in the title - "why are some so keen to believe..." - "speaks volumes" (sic) about the attitude of the writer. It immediately attempts to cast "believers" in a certain hypothesis as vaguely like religious nuts. The correct answer (as with "why do you believe in evolution? Is that somehow better than my belief in God?") is "I don't BELIEVE in the evolution (or the MWI) - I understand the evidence that indicates it may be the correct description of reality." Reasons to "believe" the MWI might include the fact that it answers important questions, and is the simplest hypothesis (to date) that explains all the observations of QM. That doesn't make it right, but it does mean it merits genuine, serious discussion. Any article that starts with *ad hominem* attacks against some generic "believer" isn't attempting any intellectual rigour or honesty - it's acting like a spin doctor, trying to pre-emptively discredit anyone who disagrees with it in much the same way governments do when someone attempts to question their policies (you object to tax loopholes for the rich? You must be a threat to National security!) So I will give that article a miss. I expect that sort of intellectual dishonesty from politicians, although I'd rather it wasn't there, either - but it has no place in science, IMHO. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
