Guarding the Wall: tunnels, bridges and tendrils

[Prashant Kumar]

First your last. I do think that I understand the Choprans. I just think
their motivations are not separable from those of charlatans and medicine
men. So what if they appeal to scientific evidence? They are just choosing
the dominant epistemic schemata to capitalise off; a lot of 20thC
pseudoscientific misadventure looks like physics-envy. I'm not dismissing
his effect, I just think that there's not a lot we can do *to *him and
where he comes from, and so we should focus on constructive methods of
popularisation. And, as I said before, if I'm defensive regarding DC's
relation to real science it is because in spreading around his crap he
makes it harder -- given the sociopolitics of science -- to be study fringe
areas (by this I mean mainly funding opportunities).

I do honestly think quantum mechanics can be presented *more *intuitively.
It's just that for most of its existence, QM has been taught historically
-- emphasis is *always* on how different it is from classical physics.
People usually don't see the mathematical structure of the theory, axioms
up, until the final year of their degrees. Fewer still understand the
construction of or experimental evidence for it. We know, however, how to
do calculations. But the "metaphysical overlay", which lends intuition,
isn't taught; it comes in or it doesn't. Once you've got this though, it
becomes very easy to see problems in the theory. But, honestly, to turn
this preanalytic feeling of weirdness into something more concrete requires
rather a lot of work. The *real *weirdness that remains after permuting
equivalent mathematical descriptions, as well as metaphysical
interpretations, is really rather remote from the theory's more familiar
consequences.

P.


On 22 April 2013 11:37, <bandwraith at aol.com> wrote:

> P. I like you and I'm glad you're around, but please, you are confusing me
> with someone else. I made no comments about "Rules of Thumb" or "Theories."
> I'm sure my knowledge of the scientific method is as sophisticated as
> yours. DC is topical in a popular sense, regardless of what "your
> generation" may be paying attention to, or not. And I have no major qualms
> with the way science is practiced, of course it is not democratic. It's
> funding, however, at least in America, is subject to democracy and all
> its flaws. That's a big reason why the SCSC is at CERN and not Texas. That
> battle may also have been before your time.
>
> I have no desire to convert you to Chopra-ism. I think he's an ass. I'm
> sure you're more familiar with him than I am. He never made it past my
> Woo-Woo filter. You seem too defensive regarding his relationship to "real"
> science, however.
>
> Your statement: "Quantum mechanics is not unintuitive," is self-serving at
> best, and does not jibe with my take on the subject. I won't trot out the
> famous physicists who disagree with you.
>
> The scientific popularization industry, massive or not, is having a tough
> slog. It's task may be impossible. Brian Greene, for example, a fairly
> respectable math/physicist with a foot in both the popular and academic
> worlds, reports that his brother is a member of the Hare Krishna Movement
> (which you may also know more about than me), and states that he has had
> many discussions with him regarding QM, String Theory and Krishna. His
> brother apparently claims that all the insights hard won by physics are
> right there in Krishna-ism. Brian reports this familial anecdote in a
> neutral manner. God, apparently, is not really one of the dependent
> variables. Control Group? Perhaps.
>
> My gripe is that you don't seem to want to make the effort to understand
> those people who listen to Chopra and why. I think that phenomenon is
> important, deserves to be examined and is dismissed at a risk to us all.
> Also, Chopra's article, which I cited, was not about Woo-Woo per se, but
> censorship at TED. Other than that I'm fine, accept that you still owe me a
> response regarding the nature of mathematics, but at this point, you've
> probably successfully dodged that one.
>
>
>
>
>  -----Original Message-----
> From: Prashant Kumar <siva.prashant.kumar at gmail.com>
> To: bandwraith <bandwraith at aol.com>
> Cc: pynchon-l <pynchon-l at waste.org>
> Sent: Sun, Apr 21, 2013 7:52 pm
> Subject: Re: Guarding the Wall: tunnels, bridges and tendrils
> .
>  A., we do use rules of thumb in science; we call them "theories". And re
> your other point, you're using, again, a waaaay oversimplified version of
> science. See my previous post in another thread. Besides, I said suffrage
> wasn't universal.
>
>  They have it, and in excess; surely you aren't unaware of the massive
> scientific popularisation industry. More physicists per capita are
> dedicated to explication than any other kind of scientist. Some of the
> public will listen to them, and others Chopra. Those wholisten to Chopra
> would've been swindled in any age; the need to have one's fears assuaged by
> hand waving is universal.
>
>  Quantum mechanics is complicated. And it's not even close to the whole
> story. If people really care, they can find out. There's no lack of
> resources. But it is different and hard, and most people are attached to
> their familiar notions of the world. Quantum mechanics is not
> unintuitive. Learning physics is about learning to change your intuitions.
>
>  Also, Chopra isn't topical. He's been at it since before I was born. My
> generation doesn't even know who he is, largely.
>
>  I suppose I don't really understand what your gripe is, b.?
>
>  P.
>
> On Monday, April 22, 2013, wrote:
>
>> I will agree that I'd rather be reading and discussing Lakatos, Polanyi,
>> Feyerabend, Kuhn, Popper, etc., but DC and company seem to be more topical.
>> What can we do? Admit that Quantum Mechanics is unsettling. It disturbs
>> common sense notions of causality and reality and does not replace them
>> with anything but more uncertainty. And in the same breath- people need
>> more than that. And especially now, they should have it. "Brainfarts" and
>> "throwing out the trash," are not good enough, which doesn't mean that I
>> agree with Chopra.
>>
>> In the case of Oz- he was a great cardiac surgeon. I'm not sure if he's
>> still operating. I never watch him on t.v.- but I do recall him addressing
>> issues that would certainly qualify as "crack pot." It should be noted that
>> cardiac sugery may involve cutting and blood, but is not necessarily on
>> the cusp of theoretical science. His surgical skill gave him a platform.
>> That said, he didn't need the money and the comments I heard were
>> pre-Oprah.
>>
>> Here's something- Quantum Mechanics is hugely important, right now, and
>> for our future. Science and technology, in general, are absolutely
>> essential for our continuued existence. If you disagree with these notions,
>> please explain why and provide alternative scenarios. Given these
>> realities, would you rather have the majority of people, who will never be
>> able to understand QM, etc., on your level, hating QM and the wonders of
>> modern technology, or, embracing them, with the hope that they may help us
>> to ease suffering, solve the energy crisis, maybe allow us to live in a
>> sustainable and generally peaceful world? Chopra, et. al., may be spinning
>> faerie tails, but they are supplying a need which you may have turned your
>> back on, and in a way which will not be immune from correction as the
>> evidence roles in.
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Prashant Kumar <siva.prashant.kumar at gmail.com>
>> To: bandwraith <bandwraith at aol.com>; pynchon -l <pynchon-l at waste.org>
>> Sent: Sun, Apr 21, 2013 11:31 am
>> Subject: Re: Guarding the Wall: tunnels, bridges and tendrils
>>
>>  There is a line: it's when you contravene a body of experimentally
>> established evidence for some causal theory. Explaining how and or why is
>> usually very complex and so any communication is using simplified hand wavy
>> explanations; there is a certain appeal to authority on matters of quantum
>> physics in popular media. Of course, DC his cabal of "non-local
>> consciousness" evangelists (that's what I think) claim legitimacy partly by
>> virtue of their outsider "maverick" status. They've supposedly been ignored
>> by the mainstream --  the same mainstream whose authority we should trust?
>> Now we have a dilemma! and a certain percentage of the lay public will go
>> for the underdog. What can we do?
>>
>>  Scientific truth is democratic established democratically. After a
>> fashion, anyway: we vote, but with justification attached, and suffrage
>> isn't universal or evenly distributed. And each vote changes the field. A
>> stretch perhaps, but you'll agree there is the important element of an open
>> forum, and some notion of representation. It is part of DC's sell that he
>> tries to manipulate opinion with ridiculous claims and the associated
>> marketable crap. He places himself above the milieu and so supposedly able
>> to bridge a divide by seeing connections unavailable to others. But the
>> thing is that so what if quantum consciousness is true? what if our brains
>> are entangled with one another, and this vast sea of consciousness is
>> itself reality? What then? What does that really say about the human
>> experience? that we're connected? Well, yes, but we knew that. We are part
>> of systems we don't understand: economies, ecosytems, weather systems; all
>> of which themselves interact in complex ways. We are connected. And we
>> don't need Deepak Chopra's brainfarts to tell us so.
>>
>>  P.
>>
>>
>> On 22 April 2013 00:03, <bandwraith at aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> I generally agree, but would mention that scientists of the sort you
>> would consider legitimate, in general, have not done a particularly good
>> job of making clear where "the line" is, and by remaining, too often,
>> aloof, have left the field wide open for DC, et. al. Dawkins and company
>> have successfully muddied the waters, and turned the debate into something
>> worthy of Jerry Springer, and profitably so.
>>
>> "Academic jobs being the way they are..." is a dilemma which bridges the
>> cultural divide between The Arts and the Sciences, much like sexism and
>> racism, especially in the area of advancement. You have broadened the
>> discussion to include the economic dimension. Fair enough. It becomes the
>> market place of ideas.
>>
>> Scientific Truth may not be something which is amenable to a democratic
>> vote, but in the first world economies- where most Big Science is carried
>> out- allocation of funds comes down to politics and sociology, which
>> includes, to a large degree, Defense spending. It is worth considering what
>> that means for a civil and sustainable society, by people who are capable
>> of understanding and respecting both sides of the debate. That's what DC
>> pretends to be, and not without some legitimacy. He at least understands
>> the urgency for a greater mutual recognition and cooperation between The
>> Arts and Sciences, even as he capitalizes on it. There are other
>> signatories to column in response to TED's supposed censorship. What is
>> your take on them?
>>
>>  -----Original Message-----
>> From: Prashant Kumar siva.prashant.kumar at gmail.com
>> To: bandwraith <bandwraith at aol.com>; pynchon -l <pynchon-l at waste.org>
>>  Sent: Sun, Apr 21, 2013 7:55 am
>> Subject: Re: Guarding the Wall: tunnels, bridges and tendrils
>>
>>  My take on it is this: what DC and others does is manipulative (in that
>> it does prey on people who must necessarily "trust the experts") and shits
>> all over a nascent field; applications of quantum mechanics in the life
>> sciences is only slowly being studied for all the damage new agers have
>> done (academic jobs being the way they are, n
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20130422/3a0069dc/attachment.html>