Science ebook recommendations

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Sir Roger Penrose, Emeritus Professor of Mathematics at Oxford University, is most assuredly not in that category. He's one of the foremost living mathematical physicists.

As I said above. Knowing something about math doesn't mean he knows anything about cognitive science. He's absolutely a woo-master in that category and needs to shut up.

You want an astrophysicist performing your appendectomy?

[FlorenceArt]

Originally Posted by kennyc

As I said above. Knowing something about math doesn't mean he knows anything about cognitive science. He's absolutely a woo-master in that category and needs to shut up.

You want an astrophysicist performing your appendectomy?

I think that Lanza is in a similar situation, as he is apparently a brilliant biologist, but from the little I have read he doesn't seem to have a clear grasp of physics (not that I have any by the way).

The Nirmukta.com article seems very interesting but I'll have to wait until I'm home from work to read it.

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by FlorenceArt

I think that Lanza is in a similar situation, as he is apparently a brilliant biologist, but from the little I have read he doesn't seem to have a clear grasp of physics (not that I have any by the way).

The Nirmukta.com article seems very interesting but I'll have to wait until I'm home from work to read it.

Lanza gets it so wrong though, that I can't believe for a second that it's just that he doesn't have a grasp on physics.

Recently on NPR's program OnPoint, they had the author of the book Grain Brain, a neurologist I believe, who likened gluten to a terrorist. He seemed very polished, but everything he said about gluten was speculation (although delivered as fact), or misstated facts refuted by scientists. Everything he had to say seemed like it was precision engineered to play into people's health fears, while also supporting the anti-gluten diet fad that he helped create. Essentially, the guy was a snake oil salesman.

I get the sense that Lanza is making the same sort of sales pitch. It's always a bad idea to assume ill intent when incompetence will do, but Lanza just seems like he should be too informed (especially after years of skeptics pointing out the flaws in his arguments) to be honestly claiming biocentrism is a real thing.

[FlorenceArt]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

Lanza gets it so wrong though, that I can't believe for a second that it's just that he doesn't have a grasp on physics.

Recently on NPR's program OnPoint, they had the author of the book Grain Brain, a neurologist I believe, who likened gluten to a terrorist. He seemed very polished, but everything he said about gluten was speculation (although delivered as fact), or misstated facts refuted by scientists. Everything he had to say seemed like it was precision engineered to play into people's health fears, while also supporting the anti-gluten diet fad that he helped create. Essentially, the guy was a snake oil salesman.

I get the sense that Lanza is making the same sort of sales pitch. It's always a bad idea to assume ill intent when incompetence will do, but Lanza just seems like he should be too informed (especially after years of skeptics pointing out the flaws in his arguments) to be honestly claiming biocentrism is a real thing.

I guess it's hard to recognize your mistakes, especially if they helped make you a minor celebrity. This kind of "theory" is highly likely to get a higher share of media attention than it deserves.

Also, I just wanted to mention that the nirmukta link Kenny posted is a great article, worth reading IMO whether or not you're interested in Lanza's theory.
http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/bioce...ious-universe/

[bfisher]

I just finished "The Monkey's Voyage: How Improbable Journeys Shaped the History of Life" by Alan de Queiroz. It's about the biogeographical concepts of vicariance and dispersalism as competitive theories for the spatial distribution of life on earth. Per the title, de Queiroz is a dispersalist. The writing style is quite readable, and he describes some of the personalities involved. I have no biology background whatsoever, and I never felt lost reading this. A good read.

[Rizla]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Precisely - it's simply a statement of the "anthropic principle", which basically says that if the universe were significantly different to the way it is, we wouldn't be here to observe it.

Yes, but why is the universe so perfectly balanced for life? It's not only perfectly tuned for humans, but for all carbon-based life. Coincidence?

[Rizla]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

I think the title of this thread is "science ebook recommendations", and not "pseudoscience ebook recommendations". Looks to be standard Deepak Chopra-style malarky that is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of quantum physics - that an "observer" has to be conscious, or even alive. Or maybe it's based on the all too astute observation about what people will buy when you affix the word "quantum" to it.

Lanza argues that reality is inextricably bound up with the act of observation and therefore consciousness, and that the study of consciousness has been woefully neglected by physics. I see nothing 'Deepak Chopra-style malarky' in that.

I love that the book description on Amazon has this gem: "Robert Lanza is one of the most respected scientists in the world". Strangely, it omits the fact that Lanza is a medical doctor, and not a physicist or evolutionary biologist.

From wiki:

Robert Paul Lanza is an American medical doctor, scientist, Chief Scientific Officer of Advanced Cell Technology and Adjunct Professor at the Institute for Regenerative Medicine, Wake Forest University School of Medicine

Throughout history non-specialists have made breakthroughs in science. Your ad hominem criticism is narrow-minded. Read the book. You might surprise me.

[Rizla]

Originally Posted by FlorenceArt

Of course modern science doesn't explain that. Modern science has proved that animal life evolved to adapt to their environment. That includes the laws of physics. If the laws of physics were different, life would be different, but how can we say that our laws of physics are the only ones that would allow life? We can't, so the argument is worthless.

Have you looked into those "laws of physics"? Lanza is referring to constants that affect not just to our type of life, but to constants that would affect the development of complex structures. I've seen this stuff in other books, so I'm surprised not more people are open to the possibility. It's not that controversial an interpretation anymore.

I'm only about 60% of the way through, and I don't agree with everything he says. I agree with the Engadget review that he is sometimes 'lazy' which surprises me too. But he throws enough muck at conventional interpretations of modern physics for some of it to stick. I'm enjoying the book. It's a real mind-twister and makes you look at the world in a different way. I'm guessing the vast majority of the book's critiques on this thread haven't read it either.

[Rizla]

On the Anthropic Principle:

“A man in front of a firing squad of one hundred riflemen is going to be pretty surprised if every bullet misses him. Sure he could say to himself, ‘Of course they all missed; that makes perfect sense, otherwise I wouldn’t be here to wonder why they all missed.’ But anyone in his or her right mind is going to want to know how such an unlikely event occurred.”

[Rizla]

Originally Posted by kennyc

As I said above. Knowing something about math doesn't mean he knows anything about cognitive science. He's absolutely a woo-master in that category and needs to shut up.

You want an astrophysicist performing your appendectomy?

Glad to see you back, Kenny, I think.

[rkomar]

Originally Posted by Rizla

Lanza argues that reality is inextricably bound up with the act of observation and therefore consciousness, and that the study of consciousness has been woefully neglected by physics. I see nothing 'Deepak Chopra-style malarky' in that.

Stuff happens all over the universe without observation. What scientist could seriously believe that nothing gets decided until something is conscious of it? There is a general misunderstanding of what "observation" really means with respect to quantum physics.

[Rizla]

Originally Posted by rkomar

What scientist could seriously believe that nothing gets decided until something is conscious of it? There is a general misunderstanding of what "observation" really means with respect to quantum physics.

Why is it not possible "that nothing gets decided until something is conscious of it."? That is exactly how the sub-atomic world works and the double-split experiment is proof of the principle manifesting at a macroscopic level.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Rizla

Why is it not possible "that nothing gets decided until something is conscious of it."? That is exactly how the sub-atomic world works, and Schrodinger's cat is an example of the principle manifesting at a macroscopic level.

No it's not. You misunderstand what is really happening.

[Rizla]

Originally Posted by kennyc

No it's not. You misunderstand what is really happening.

Care to elaborate?

[rkomar]

Originally Posted by Rizla

Why is it not possible "that nothing gets decided until something is conscious of it."? That is exactly how the sub-atomic world works and the double-split experiment is proof of the principle manifesting at a macroscopic level.

The vast majority of subatomic interactions take place outside of experiments with detectors and conscious observers. They seem to do fine without us being present and paying attention. It seems to me that a theory that requires consciousness is just introducing unnecessary complications.