Subtitle: "Spiritual Implications of the New Physics" (The back cover says he has "written extensively on new paradigms from a multi-disciplinary point of view.")
I was given this to find out what I thought of it. By page 11 he claims that for 30,000 years men worshiped the "Mother Goddess," apparently blissfully unaware that the story’s bogus; and that 8,000 years ago we invented agriculture and religion; and that before there was agriculture there were no wars.
By this point so many red flags were up that I was hard put to find a reason to read farther. But I promised to look at it, so I soldiered on. I skipped to chapter 3, What is the Quantum All About? On page 25 he screws up Einstein’s theory of special relativity, and claims that it undermined the "classical model", which if you use his definition it didn’t. On page 27 he cites Lazlo for the assertion that photons are nonlinear waves in a medium; which is pretty far from being an established theory, to put it mildly—the usual linear model is a lot simpler. On page 28 he says "we experience life not in isolated segments but in wholes (quanta)." Insofar as that means anything at all it misrepresents classical theory. On page 29 he misstates the definitions of wave function and superposition; on page 31 he claims that scientists are unwilling to admit that the human mind can be in error (conclusive proof that he’s never been at a science convention); on page 32 he emits gibberish about Bose-Einstein condensates "with the aid of which we can distinguish conscious from non-conscious systems," and I gave up. Sorry. The physics was wrong and so was the attempted use.
I picked a random chapter later to see if I could figure out what he’s driving at—it seems to be a kind of "we’re all part of the whole" pantheism. But I’m not going to bother to see how he gets there.
I spent 15 minutes so you don't have to. The book is a sad waste of innocent trees.
7 comments:
I'd have been very hard pressed to get past the title! Sure, it's unfair to imagine you can judge the entire argument from the title, but after reading your description, I'd say I was darn close. If a friend insisted that I read it, there would have been a sinking feeling . . . .
My husband and I call these "I can feel my skeleton" sentiments, after a long-ago acquaintance who liked to spout muzzy-headed deep thoughts when he was a little too stoned.
T99 - Heh. I thought weed might be a factor as well.
I suspect that Marija Gimbutas is mentioned in that first chapter, and maybe Mary Daly. Gimbutas is a real anthropologist, but prone to huge logical leaps that cause other anthropologists to roll their eyes. The Mother Goddess preceding our current crop of deities before the violent arrival of the Indo-Europeans in Europe was one of the big theories she was (is?) known for. It was plausible enough at the time, though no supported. Forty years later, it is still unsupported, even though we are looking for it. It remains possible. However, the idea that societies which adopt agriculture would then switch away from goddesses does fly in the face of what we have observed since then.
A good title ought to try to summarize what you're doing in the book, so I'd call it very fair to judge a book by its title.
He doesn't mention Gimbutas: this is all "settled science" that doesn't even need elaboration. Never mind that there's no evidence, and no easy way to tell a doll from a medicine charm from an idol from a mantelpiece dustcatcher. (60,000 years is a long time, with room for eras of relative luxury and conspicuous consumption then as now.)
"I can feel my skeleton" is great.
"Settled science" has a way of going with "no evidence," doesn't it? Hard to argue against it, which leaves a free play for theories that foster the emotional wavelength you're trying to broadcast on (generally to pick up clueless young women in bars) (or sell a lot of books).
I enjoyed reading "Not Even Wrong" by Peter Woit, inspired by Wolfgang Pauli's famously devastating put-down of an unfalsifiable and therefore fatuous theory.
Yes. Woit's a theorist, and runs a blog I read. From time to time he posts videos from conferences, and I like to see how far I can get before I get totally lost. Not nearly far enough, but it is an interesting ride.
Taking the cue from CS Lewis, I often say I am especially suspicious of things that everyone knows but no one seems to know where the proof is. They just speak condescendingly of those who seem not to know.
This type of skepticism - which also has its limits but is a good shorthand, may be how I became a liberal years ago. It is certainly how I left being one years later.
Thanks for the Woit ID. I just went over and read a bit there.
Post a Comment