>>14122281I've not heard it called that but I've certainly heard the principle. It's incredibly problematic because it keeps failing to match observations.
1. Our sun is incredibly large. 100 years ago the argument was that there was nothing special about our sun in the universe. It was an average star of average size. Oh boy were we wrong. The vast majority of stars are tiny. So tiny we didn't even know our nearest neighbor was a red dwarf until the last century. This is a case of observation bias. Our sun is in a small percentage of very large stars.
2. The sun is strangely metal rich. At 4.6 billion years old it should be a popularion II star but it has almost the metallicity of a population I star. That's weird and certainly gives us an advantage in materials for the formation of our planet.
3. Our sun is unusually quiet. An observation of other stars of the same size shows us that our sun is not at all typical of other stars of its size. It's plainly bonkers how quiet our sun is.
4. Our solar system doesn't match most other solar systems observed. First off, the sun has no companion. That's not typical. Second the relatively regular motion of the planets is so weird we've rarely seen its equal. This could be a case of observation bias since the techniques used to identify planets 'transitions and doppler shift' mostly find planets close to their stars. Still, with nearly every star being found with a solar system already and so incredibly rarely one like our own the odds don't look good.
Then we get into strange things about our planet. Faint young sun paradox still has no explanation. It's just weird. The chance encounter with Theia giving our planet an extra half a core allowing it to stay warm for so long and drive volcanism and plate techtonics may very well be a part of that. We are certainly unique of all our neighbors.
The moon is just freakishly large. We've seen nothing of its equal in our solar system or any others.
