I find the anthropic reasoning to be structurally incoherent when evaluated with rigorous probabilistic reasoning. Conditioning on the fact of existence does not dissolve the explanatory asymmetries introduced by fine-tuning nor does it render hypotheses about design/multiverse/underlying law epistemically inert in any way. That's an illusion that arises from conflating necessity of explanation with inevitability of observation (yet these are not interchangeable categories).
I don't think it quite hits the target because the real question isn't how probable...
What you've articulated resonates strongly, but I suspect the distinction you're pointing to (evidentiary norms in science vs the preformal heuristics guiding scientific practice) only scratches the surface of a far deeper structural misalignment. The deeper problem, as I see it, is that we lack a coherent theory of pre-paradigmatic cognition (i.e., a formal account of how conceptual priors/aesthetic heuristics/anticipatory abstractions function PRIOR to stabilization within institutions.)
So the core tension is between epistemology as a theory of justifica... (read more)