Repeat after me: scientific method does not deal with unique events or entities.
I don't think this is true in any meaningful sense. It routinely happens in astronomy or geology that we have a single instance of something and study it closely. For instance, I believe Oklo is the only site known to have had natural nuclear chain reactions. And nobody thinks studying the planet Venus is unscientific because there's only one such planet.
You might say "ah, but we have many observations of Venus." Well, we have many observations of the universe, too!
If a unique entity or event can be analyzed using the same theories and tools as other entities, it's fair game for science. And the people who do anthropics are trying to apply statistics, which is a pretty general tool. You might think their methods are unscientific, but it's not clear to me why the topic is objectionable.
Let me think of an example...
Imagine a universe comprised entirely of moving white balls. We study them and have a model that can predict their movements.
Suddenly, a black ball appears. We have never seen one before. But we observe it and find that it obeys the same laws of motion. So we conclude that the black ball is not unique in a sense that it is a BALL. We observed a lot of balls before.
But we never observed a BLACK ball before and if it remains unique, there is nothing science can tell us about its blackness.
The same thing applies to Venus. If we wo...
A post by Nick Land who some of you are probably already following either on his blog Outside In or at Urban Future.