It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


How to spot quantum quackery

page: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on Sep, 25 2010 @ 05:04 AM

Originally posted by didact

I wouldn't argue with Krauss' statements, other than the fact that he so casually disregards any possible links between QM and some of these 'metaphysical' theories, and rules all such links as 'nonsense'. He's entitled to his own opinions, but as Bill Bryson demonstrates again and again in A Short History of Nearly Everything, Science has continually, throughout history, thought they've figured out this or that, and in reality we know so very little about the universe...either macro-ly or micro-ly. To close the scientific mind to any possibility is what is nonsense, considering what little we know as humans.

I agree with you. In my view it is stupid to suggest that QM is not linked to metaphysics or even the practice of magic. Perhaps it is a blessing that Science continues its research at a snail pace and turns its back on occult mysteries.

I have this notion that if QM was promoted as an alternative science and suported by mainstream scientists , we would have a whole generation of Harry Potters within 50 years. They might not fly on broomsticks or wave little wands but they would certainly have unusual problem-solving abilities.

edit on 25-9-2010 by crowdedskies because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 25 2010 @ 08:16 PM
reply to post by Pauligirl

Ok. Anything does not fit in with the ideals of anti-spiritualism and obcessive rigid materialism is quackery.... Gotcha.... Must be nice to be soo sure of one's self.
But one must really point out that is not the true spirit of science.

edit on 25-9-2010 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 09:02 AM
Like it or not, but the 'enfant terrible' of science and philosophy, epistemology, is an unavoidable facet of any debate on this level of knowledge/understanding.

We can formulate questions and arrive at answers, but nothing will be better than the tools we use.

If I understand Beebs correct, there's a criticism against deductional, linear, leftbrain-thinking. And this is true. Deductional reaoning is, on its own, filled with more holes than a swiss cheese. Especially if it's in a reductionist context.

On the other hand, right-brain 'patterned' thinking (leniently included in 'inductive reasoning') has shortcomings also, which new-age models of 'synchronicity' etc. sadly demonstrate.

That we, theoretically, can't be sure of eventually arriving at ultimate answers, shouldn't be a black/white situation. It's only a question of developing mindsets, which accept approximate answers instead of the present 'all or nothing'.

When it comes to the point, even our best thinkers react from individual preferences, and the ability to relate to the concept 'relative realities' isn't big.

There's a seeming dichotomy between exclusive deductive/reductional reasoning and inclusive inductive reasoning. But they are only tools, and in a yin/yang way, they can actually unite in a higher degree of synthesis.

new topics
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in