A very interesting article and at a quick skim through, fair and balanced although putting an arguement that some will find antagonistic. My only caution is that the journal it comes from is the product of a tradional right wing US think tank, not extremist, and academically respected.
I have read the entire article and it certainly set me thinking. It seems that much of the science that I have accepted as being based on a rock could actually be built upon sand. I am trying to get to grips with multiple universes, an idea which is counter-intuitive, but so is the fact that the earth goes round the sun. Not being a scientist, I see the difference between science and philosophy very simply: scientists say, we can do this, and the philosopher replies, yes , but should we? He mentions the question 'Why is the universe subject to the laws of physics? Again, being a simple non-scientist, my reply would be: Because it is. If it were not, it would not exist in its present form. Out of the countless forms that the universe could have taken, this is the one that emerged.
I look forward to hearing the comments of our scientifically-educated members. Some times I feel I am approaching an understanding of things like space and time, but then I try to imagine infinity and I my finite mind reaches a dead end.
Wow! What an article-my head's still reeling,and not with the produce of the vine,either. I am always worried when people of all levels of intelligence are fanatical and dogmatic. When Science is becoming too arrogant they are probably riding for a fall-I'm generalising here,of course there are many scientists who are appropiately humble. Ethics and Philosophy need to attract more great minds,maybe.