THE UNIVERSE is the way it is because if it weren't we wouldn't be here to see it. Profound insight or empty truism? This is the "anthropic principle", and in the past few years it has been embraced by many cosmologists to explain some of the most mystifying features of the Universe. But it leaves other scientists feeling deeply troubled.
One of them is cosmologist Paul Steinhardt of Princeton University in New Jersey, who claims that the anthropic principle is sloppy and unscientific. "It's corrupting science," he says. His view is shared by physicist Gordon Kane of the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, who believes that string theory will make the anthropic principle redundant. The pro- and anti-anthropic camps are debating just about the most profound question there is: why are we here? But the final answer might not please either side.
What makes the debate more difficult is ...
Subscribe today at only USD $5.95 for your first 4 issues and get New Scientist, the world's leading science & technology news magazine delivered direct to your door every week
As a magazine subscriber you will benefit from instant access to:
