Michael Prescott's Blog Occasional thoughts by the bestselling author of nine suspense novels
The Midas touch
Stephen E. Braude's new book, The Gold Leaf Lady and Other Parapsychological Investigations, isn’t even out yet, but a blogger named Jason Kuznicki has already taken aim at it, on the basis of an excerpt that appears on the publisher's Web site.
The tone of Kuznicki's review is captured by its title: "University of Chicago Press: Why Are You Publishing This Nonsense?" Skeptics are always sure they know what is or is not nonsense. Kuznicki is no exception...
Stephen E. Braude's new book, The Gold Leaf Lady and Other Parapsychological Investigations, isn’t even out yet, but a blogger named Jason Kuznicki has already taken aim at it, on the basis of an excerpt that appears on the publisher's Web site.
The tone of Kuznicki's review is captured by its title: "University of Chicago Press: Why Are You Publishing This Nonsense?" Skeptics are always sure they know what is or is not nonsense. Kuznicki is no exception...
As part of his post, Kuznicki refers to a positive review of Braude's book in the journal Antimatters. Here we find some other misinterpretations and one glaring omission. Kuznicki begins his assault on the Antimatters reviewer, whom he does not name, with this broadside:
Kuznicki then goes on to quote a longer passage from the Antimatters review. (Because it isn't clearly identified, on my first reading I thought it was a quote from Braude's book, but it's not.) He prefaces the quotation with the caveat that "the following critique of mainstream science — in favor of parapsychology — is wrong from start to finish."
Again, though, it seems as if Kuznicki has misunderstood the passage. The passage he cites is not a "critique of mainstream science — in favor of parapsychology." It is a simple acknowledgment of a blind spot shared by both mainstream science and parapsychology – namely, that neither has so far developed a satisfactory explanation of how matter interacts with matter. As the Antimatters reviewer notes, there are algorithms in physics that successfully predict such interactions, but the algorithms don't explain the mechanism. The mechanism itself remains mysterious – just as the mechanisms of psi are mysterious.
Bafflingly, Kuznicki jumps in to announce that "mechanism is conspicuously absent in most accounts of parapsychological phenomena, too." Of course it is. That is precisely the point of the quoted passage, as even the most casual reading ought to make clear. "In its place," he continues, "we get not the modest silence of the scientific method, but a noisy insistence that no one can possibly explain these things." Wrong again. Parapsychologists do not say that the mechanism cannot possibly be explained, only that it is unknown at present. (Some of them have made tentative stabs at a theoretical explanation, though not, I think, with much success so far.)
So much for the misinterpretations. How about the glaring omission? It concerns the Antimatters reviewer himself, who remains anonymous throughout all of this fulmination. Why does he go unnamed?
Well, maybe because he is Ulrich Mohrhoff, a famed quantum physicist and the originator of the influential Pondicherry interpretation of quantum mechanics. Now, it's a safe bet that most readers, gauging the scientific expertise of an unknown blogger against that of a leading quantum physicist, would put their money on the physicist. Which is perhaps why Mohrhoff must be made a nameless unperson. If he were identified, Kuznicki's conclusions would suddenly look a lot less authoritative.
Kuznicki's review is a sadly typical product of the skeptical mindset. Rather than grappling with the evidence as presented, it omits the most salient facts and casts derision on the resulting straw-man case. Like much skeptical material, it exhibits what we might regard as a reverse Midas touch - turning the potential gold of exciting new discoveries into the worthless dross of preconceived, half-digested banalities.
The review does have one positive feature, though: it reminds us that Dr. Braude's book will be coming out soon – on October 1, in fact. Reserve your copy now! September 11, 2007 in Books Permalink
Contrary to what one reviewer of this book wrote, science isn’t a myth.But the reviewer never says that science is a myth. (Click here for the review; PDF file) Here is what he does say:
Braude dispels a widespread myth: that parapsychological data derived from formal experimentation are necessarily superior to data from outside the lab.Which is hardly the same thing as calling science a myth. It's a recognition of the obvious fact that some perfectly valid data can be gathered outside the laboratory. This is true of many sciences. Try studying the migratory patterns of birds without leaving the lab.
Kuznicki then goes on to quote a longer passage from the Antimatters review. (Because it isn't clearly identified, on my first reading I thought it was a quote from Braude's book, but it's not.) He prefaces the quotation with the caveat that "the following critique of mainstream science — in favor of parapsychology — is wrong from start to finish."
Again, though, it seems as if Kuznicki has misunderstood the passage. The passage he cites is not a "critique of mainstream science — in favor of parapsychology." It is a simple acknowledgment of a blind spot shared by both mainstream science and parapsychology – namely, that neither has so far developed a satisfactory explanation of how matter interacts with matter. As the Antimatters reviewer notes, there are algorithms in physics that successfully predict such interactions, but the algorithms don't explain the mechanism. The mechanism itself remains mysterious – just as the mechanisms of psi are mysterious.
Bafflingly, Kuznicki jumps in to announce that "mechanism is conspicuously absent in most accounts of parapsychological phenomena, too." Of course it is. That is precisely the point of the quoted passage, as even the most casual reading ought to make clear. "In its place," he continues, "we get not the modest silence of the scientific method, but a noisy insistence that no one can possibly explain these things." Wrong again. Parapsychologists do not say that the mechanism cannot possibly be explained, only that it is unknown at present. (Some of them have made tentative stabs at a theoretical explanation, though not, I think, with much success so far.)
So much for the misinterpretations. How about the glaring omission? It concerns the Antimatters reviewer himself, who remains anonymous throughout all of this fulmination. Why does he go unnamed?
Well, maybe because he is Ulrich Mohrhoff, a famed quantum physicist and the originator of the influential Pondicherry interpretation of quantum mechanics. Now, it's a safe bet that most readers, gauging the scientific expertise of an unknown blogger against that of a leading quantum physicist, would put their money on the physicist. Which is perhaps why Mohrhoff must be made a nameless unperson. If he were identified, Kuznicki's conclusions would suddenly look a lot less authoritative.
Kuznicki's review is a sadly typical product of the skeptical mindset. Rather than grappling with the evidence as presented, it omits the most salient facts and casts derision on the resulting straw-man case. Like much skeptical material, it exhibits what we might regard as a reverse Midas touch - turning the potential gold of exciting new discoveries into the worthless dross of preconceived, half-digested banalities.
The review does have one positive feature, though: it reminds us that Dr. Braude's book will be coming out soon – on October 1, in fact. Reserve your copy now! September 11, 2007 in Books Permalink
Just to say thanks, Micheal.
P.S. It seems our paradogmatist has missed a delightful excerpt from The Gold Leaf Lady in AntiMatters: a chapter on astrology! (http://tinyurl.com/29wo8j) Posted by: Ulrich Mohrhoff September 12, 2007 at 12:08 AM
P.S. It seems our paradogmatist has missed a delightful excerpt from The Gold Leaf Lady in AntiMatters: a chapter on astrology! (http://tinyurl.com/29wo8j) Posted by: Ulrich Mohrhoff September 12, 2007 at 12:08 AM
Another P.S. This time the URL (my name) points to a copy of this post at my blog, with some comments. Warm regards, Ulrich Posted by: Ulrich Mohrhoff September 12, 2007 at 04:36 AM
"As the Antimatters reviewer notes, there are algorithms in physics that successfully predict such interactions, but the algorithms don't explain the mechanism. The mechanism itself remains mysterious – just as the mechanisms of psi are mysterious."
Why is this a controversial point? Anybody who has read David Hume is aware of this. Posted by: Ben September 12, 2007 at 12:37 PM
Why is this a controversial point? Anybody who has read David Hume is aware of this. Posted by: Ben September 12, 2007 at 12:37 PM
Ben: Hume notwithstanding, in classical physics the fact that processes are just transmogrified algorithms could be overlooked. In quantum physics the same sleight of hand simply does not work. Quantum physics provides a stronger case than Hume. Posted by: Ulrich Mohrhoff September 12, 2007 at 07:18 PM
No comments:
Post a Comment