[lorenzhs]

They've been criticised for twisting physics to support the conclusions they want to draw from it, even if there is an alternative and much simpler interpretation of the results, see http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=9053 — quote:

The group driving [Fake Physics] is small but determined, ideology-driven and well-funded by rich people with an ax to grind. The majority of the community is unwilling to take on the unpleasant and unrewarding task of challenging them. While Multiverse Fake Physics plays a large role in media coverage of fundamental physics, partially because of funding from the Templeton Foundation, there are very few actual papers on the subject and “research” in this area is a small fraction of what theorists are doing. Most physicists just hope that if they ignore this it will go away.

The Templeton Foundation, a religious organisation which has been funding them, has received a lot of criticism from the scientific community for linking science and religion.

I don't think we should dismiss Nautilus outright but I do feel like they get more traction on HN than they deserve.

[nikcub]

Nobody "deserves" attention - it is either good content or it isn't.

I'm not surprised at all that on one hand scientists will complain about public misconceptions in science but then bitch about and nitpick any genuine effort to bring science to the masses with popular media.

I've read all all of those articles and discussions twice over and reduced it to Richard Dawkins being unhappy about Freeman Dyson being a Christian and accepting a Templeton grant, while even the most ardent critic of the Templeton foundation would still concede they fund good science.

[wallace_f]

Without clinking-through each of the links given in the article you linked to, can you help me, as a layman, summarize the criticism of Nautilus with regard to multiverse physics? Is the criticism more that they are disproportionately covering it, or is it misrepresenting it?

Related: From the blog you linked, "not even wrong" is a phrase used as an attack by experts on outsiders, but it does not need to be an attack. It can simply be: "that is outside the realm of mainstream scientific research." I think experts would do well not to be condescending, but rather more explanatory here.

[lorenzhs]

Well I think it's a mixture of both, "disproportionate coverage" is a fair description, insofar as it misrepresents the activities and opinions of the research community (most of which appears to consider it hokum). I'll have to defer to the experts for the details, however, as I'm merely relaying their concerns.

[wallace_f]

I watch Sixty Symbols on Youtube and they have a number of episodes on string theory--which I've read necessarily implies extra dimensions(can't vouch for that conclusion personally), leading to multiverse theories. These episodes are straight from researchers themselves so I was surprised to read these ideas in the link provided, supporting your idea that the multiverse is hokum.

Anyways it's interesting.

[foldr]

I'm confused by the suggestion that there's some kind of religious motive behind this.

Mainstream Christian apologetics is usually rather critical of multiverse theories, since they're often used as a foil against fine tuning arguments. I can't think of a Christian apologist who uses the existence of the multiverse as part of an argument for God's existence.