Q. What makes the principle scientifically useful or a positive thing for science? What makes a principle not methodically useful, or even a negative thing for science? Whether anthropic principle is viewed in positive light or negative light by scientists. In what ways is it positive? How can using it help us understand cosmology and science better? If you argue that it is scientifically invalid, in what ways is it so? Does it serve non-scientific purposes? Do those get in the way of it being scientifically useful? Whether or not you believe anthropic standard is scientifically useful, you may want to consider any non-scientific purposes it serves Can it be a high-quality tool for getting the public interested in cosmology? Or possibly you are more interested in its relationship to religion How does it approach that?