Why does cosmology need philosophy?
[...] Cosmologists have developed the multiverse theory for good reasons (see this Plus article). But as Ellis says: "There's absolutely no direct evidence and it never will be possible to get direct evidence. If you can't test the theory you have to say, 'Is this now a scientific proposal or a philosophical proposal?' In my view this is scientifically inspired philosophy, not science, because I think you should draw a hard line."
In view of this untestability some people have suggested that we should weaken the requirements of science. 'If we have a really strong theoretical argument, [people have suggested] we should say, 'It's so good, we no longer need to test it in the way we've taken for granted up to now,'"explains Ellis. "I think that's very dangerous and I think it would allow all sorts of pseudo-sciences to be reclassified as science. I don't think we want to see that happen." [...]
[...] Cosmologists have developed the multiverse theory for good reasons (see this Plus article). But as Ellis says: "There's absolutely no direct evidence and it never will be possible to get direct evidence. If you can't test the theory you have to say, 'Is this now a scientific proposal or a philosophical proposal?' In my view this is scientifically inspired philosophy, not science, because I think you should draw a hard line."
In view of this untestability some people have suggested that we should weaken the requirements of science. 'If we have a really strong theoretical argument, [people have suggested] we should say, 'It's so good, we no longer need to test it in the way we've taken for granted up to now,'"explains Ellis. "I think that's very dangerous and I think it would allow all sorts of pseudo-sciences to be reclassified as science. I don't think we want to see that happen." [...]