Science and the fallacy of abstractionism

Current writing on various scientific topics is replete with the fallacy of reification. Examples are everywhere. (One can devote a daily blog to the subject.) This is the error of making concrete what is an abstraction; i.e. treating an abstraction as if it were a real entity. [1.] I want to take a look at a recent example.

Quotes and comments;

A. ' Alejandro Jenkins got the cover story of Scientific American for speculating about “life in the multiverse,” according to Science Daily. Jenkins noted that the existence of life in our universe is constrained by requirements for the laws of physics (the Anthropic Principle). [2.]

- There's no such thing as 'requirements for the laws of physics' (if this awkward phrase has any meaning at all). Jenkins is reifying an abstraction. He's reifying 'requirements' as no such thing exists. These are abstractions; collectively an abstraction. An abstraction can't make demands or require anything; nor does it have creative powers.

B. 'Life on Earth can exist because these requirements are satisfied in our universe. Jenkins noted that the existence of carbon, for instance, is possible because of precise values for physical constants. So far, this is like natural theology: “So how is it that such a perfect balance exists? Some would attribute it to God, but of course, that is outside the realm of physics.” [2.]

- He's reified life. There is no such thing as life. What we see are living organisms.

He's also mistaken in thinking that if something necessary to X exists, that X necessarily exists. This is a logical fallacy.

Need we point out that 'multiverse' is another abstraction. It doesn't exist. (While the term universe is in a sense an abstraction, it at least refers to something we know is real.)

If matter is all there is, how can anything be beyond physics?

Since references to God are out, we might wonder how he knows what explanations are legitimate? Is it by studying the interior of stars? This is just another example of someone not realizing they're doing philosophy; someone who's engaged in metaphysical speculation but imagines it's some kind of 'neutral' science.

Summary;
What he's done (and he's not alone) is to give creative powers to the laws of physics. (Which are abstractions formulated from observations.) This process is rampant among advocates of evolution. Examples of reification include natural selection and chance; where these are spoken of as actual entities, and ones that have creative powers (i.e. are responsible for creating organs and organisms). So integral is this process to the theory of evolution that it's hard to see how it could survive without it.

e.g. A typical Evolutionary scenario has 'life' being created by 'time' and 'chance' and the play of 'physics'. The first 'primordial cell' then 'evolved' into more and more 'complex' organisms; a 'process' that culminated in the 'emergence' of 'intelligence' and 'personality'.) All of these are abstractions of one sort or the other. So Evolutionary theory then is a long string (chain) of abstractions that somehow created the planet and all life forms on it. (I guess we could call that the power of positive thinking.)

In all this he just assumes that matter is all there is. This again isn't 'science' but metaphysics.

Notes;
1. Reification;
- also known as hypostatisation, concretism, or the fallacy of misplaced concreteness; is a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete, real event, or physical entity. In other words, it is the error of treating as a "real thing" something which is not a real thing, but merely an idea. - wiki
2. What Value Do Evolutionary Explanations Provide? Creation/Evolution Headlines 01/13/2010
#1. We’re here because we’re here
3. From interview with Jenkins; Science Daily
"For example, if the fundamental forces that shape matter in our universe were altered even slightly, it's conceivable that atoms never would have formed, or that the element carbon, which is considered a basic building block of life as we know it, wouldn't exist. So how is it that such a perfect balance exists? Some would attribute it to God, but of course, that is outside the realm of physics."
- 'Building block of life' is another abstraction. (You notice sand is never considered to be a 'building block' of computers.)
- How does he know what is or is not outside the realm of physics. (Physics is another abstraction; here it sounds like it issues edicts on what it can or cannot be. It sounds quite PC by the way.)
4. 'The theory of "cosmic inflation," which was developed in the 1980s in order to solve certain puzzles about the structure of our universe, predicts that ours is just one of countless universes to emerge from the same primordial vacuum.
- Theories don't predict anything; theories aren't people. Cosmic inflation eh? Isn't this another reification? (Just asking.)
- Primordial vacuum? Sounds like more abstractionism to me. (Is it? I don't know... but it sure sounds like it.)
5. 'Given some of science's current ideas about high-energy physics, it is plausible that those other universes might each have different physical interactions. So perhaps it's no mystery that we would happen to occupy the rare universe in which conditions are just right to make life possible. This is analogous to how, out of the many planets in our universe, we occupy the rare one where conditions are right for organic evolution.
- You have to love it. Here some amorphous 'conditions' are responsible for organic evolution. (Organic Evolution being another reification.) If you have the right 'condition's then presto! particle physicists sprout up all over (smiling and holding magazine covers).
- I think we see here how the multiverse notion has 'evolved' as a way of getting rid of mystery. One of the tenets of scientism is that no mysteries are allowed... that when scientists have completed their 'mapping project' they'll be able to answer all questions, and no mysteries will be left. (It's a mystery how they know all this in advance... but heh, that's just how it is.)
6. '...And without gravity, matter wouldn't coalesce into planets, stars and galaxies.
- I wonder if gravity isn't an abstraction. Wasn't it because early physicists thought of gravity as a concrete entity that they imagined aether existed?