In Defense of the Presumptuous Philosopher

I don't think the presumptuous philosopher (seen via Less Wrong) is that presumptuous. The Self-Indication Assumption fits the evidence that is usually part of the Copernican Litany and fits it better.

The evidence for the Copernican Litany is in three categories:

• Evidence that is both solidly established and fits the Copernican Litany well. This is limited to the fact that Solar System is but one of many stellar systems and the Holocene is but one of many eras.
• Evidence that is not solidly established at all. Marxism (that supposedly dethroned the Bourgeoisie) and Freudianism (that supposedly dethroned the conscious mind) are the best examples.
• Evidence that is solidly established and made to fit the Copernican Litany only by distortion. Examples include the fact that the Solar System is in the outskirts of the Galaxy or that there are many galaxies.

The evidence that is supposed to fit the Copernican Litany also fits the following scenario: What we thought was the universe is but a small part of the universe. The parts of the Copernican Litany that don't work usually say that something already known to exist is far more important than realized. This only applied to Copernicus's original theory that said the Sun is far more important than realized.

The Expanding Universe pattern fits Copernicus and Bruno. It fits evolution, once you regard the universe as consisting of space and time instead of merely space. It fits the development of astronomy. It does not fit Marxism, Freudianism, or animal rights.

Meanwhile, given a choice between two theories, it makes sense to bet on the one with a larger universe.