Philosophy of books vs. books about philosophy

Gerald Jackson48 said:👍

There are plenty of local and international sources suggesting that part might be right. But honestly, the whole idea of Al Capone getting involved in building up parts of Cleveland feels like a bit of a stretch. Still, who knows? I really ought to dig into this more.

Could be, but if there are tons of middlemen and endless paperwork between him and those skyscrapers... if he didn't pull the trigger himself, does it even matter? If the chain is too long or spread too thin, I don't think you can really call it a significant connection.

Yanis Varoufakis on "eternal Marx"

pescanik.net/vecni-marks

A look at Shlomo Avineria’s book, Karl Marx : Philosophy and revolution / Karl Marks : filozofija i revolucija “, published by Yale University Press in 2019.

I recently finished reading Jeanne Hersch (1910–2000) and her work The History of Philosophy: Philosophical Wonder (the original was written in French, L'étonnement philosophique, likely published around 1981). For her doctorate in 1931, she studied under the French philosopher Henri Bergson, whom she provides a very fine description of in this volume. Apparently, Bergson himself was quite impressed by his student's work. In 1933, she moved to Berkeley, California, to further her studies—though she was born and raised in Geneva—where she met Martin Heidegger. 🙏 Nevertheless, she did not succumb to Heidegger's influence; in fact, she once remarked elsewhere:

The ideas he presented were not submitted to our free judgment, in accordance with the liberal stance a philosopher ought to maintain: instead, he imposed them upon us.

>

Quite a scathing critique. 😁>

However, I believe Jeanne Hersch had an even better mentor—none other than Karl Jaspers. 🙏

Her description of Jaspers is so compelling that I immediately found myself diving into Jaspers's 1937 lectures on existentialism. 🙂

As for her book The History of Philosophy: Philosophical Wonder, she skips over many philosophers, though that was entirely intentional, according to her own admission. Personally, I found her treatment of Jaspers, Martin Heidegger, Edmund Husserl, Søren Kierkegaard, and perhaps even Friedrich Nietzsche to be the most engaging parts—which, coincidentally, are the final philosophers she covers in the book. You can truly sense the connection between her and both Heidegger and Jaspers, given that she knew them personally.

Bertrand Russell: "The Problems of Philosophy" (1912)

Alright, just finished this one. It’s my second philosophy book and honestly? Not bad. A solid pick if you're just starting out. It dives into critiques of Berkeleyan idealism and the whole Kantian system. There’s a section on how we categorize knowledge and another on intuitive knowledge—though I skipped the latter since I already get the gist from math. Russell leans toward a version of Platonic ideas, calling them "universals." They aren't mental constructs or physical things, either; take something like a mathematical relation, for example.

Posted from Slack
- Volver

Good morning, everyone.

What’s on your reading list this morning? I’ve been spending some time with Capra lately. As is the case with most readers, I find myself starting from the end. Here is a brief excerpt from the final pages:

* ........ moving from linear systems of resource depletion and the accumulation of products and waste toward cyclical flows of matter and energy; shifting from an obsession with objects and natural wealth toward a focus on services and human resources; transitioning from seeking happiness in material possessions to finding it in human connections. To borrow the words of David Suzuki:

Family, friends, community—these are the primary sources of profound satisfaction and love. We visit family members, maintain ties with our mentors, and share meaningful moments with friends. We undertake difficult challenges to help others, to save the frogs, and to protect the wilderness, and we find purpose in those efforts. Nature and service provide us with spiritual fulfillment. None of these joys deplete the Earth's resources, yet they leave us deeply replenished. They are complex and far closer to true happiness than simple pleasures like a Coca-Cola or a new minivan.*

For those anti-physics types who aren't exactly eager to get their hands dirty with heavy equations but still want to grasp the essence of quantum mechanics and where the catch lies, I’d highly recommend Capra and the era of change. The book is worth the read for more than just the science; he bridges everything from Newtonian mechanics through quantum theory all the way to capitalism, touching on biology and social structures along the way. That said, since his background is in physics, he really shines when discussing the hard sciences—biology included. His take on the social sciences feels a bit less grounded.

I’ve been told that his book Tao physics is actually even better when you're diving into quantum territory, though I haven't managed to get my hands on a copy yet.

Sam Martinez9 said:Posted from Slack
- Volver

Good morning, everyone.

What’s on your reading list this morning? I’ve been spending some time with Capra lately. As is the case with most readers, I find myself starting from the end. Here is a brief excerpt from the final pages:

* ........ moving from linear systems of resource depletion and the accumulation of products and waste toward cyclical flows of matter and energy; shifting from an obsession with objects and natural wealth toward a focus on services and human resources; transitioning from seeking happiness in material possessions to finding it in human connections. To borrow the words of David Suzuki:

Family, friends, community—these are the primary sources of profound satisfaction and love. We visit family members, maintain ties with our mentors, and share meaningful moments with friends. We undertake difficult challenges to help others, to save the frogs, and to protect the wilderness, and we find purpose in those efforts. Nature and service provide us with spiritual fulfillment. None of these joys deplete the Earth's resources, yet they leave us deeply replenished. They are complex and far closer to true happiness than simple pleasures like a Coca-Cola or a new minivan.*

The other day, a volunteer from Catholic Charities reached out and mentioned how the disaster really forced people to realize what actually matters—focusing on people and solidarity.

And honestly? She's right. But when you look at what happened back in the Midwest, the reality is that those folks lost their homes and buildings—tangible, physical stuff that their entire lives depend on. People expect friends, both old and new, to step up and help them get back on their feet—meaning keeping their jobs and having a roof over their heads. A few kind words and some sympathy go a long way, sure, but sometimes love and caring for one another has to be very, very practical.

Sam Martinez9 said:For those anti-physics types who aren't exactly eager to get their hands dirty with heavy equations but still want to grasp the essence of quantum mechanics and where the catch lies, I’d highly recommend Capra and the era of change. The book is worth the read for more than just the science; he bridges everything from Newtonian mechanics through quantum theory all the way to capitalism, touching on biology and social structures along the way. That said, since his background is in physics, he really shines when discussing the hard sciences—biology included. His take on the social sciences feels a bit less grounded.

I’ve been told that his book Tao physics is actually even better when you're diving into quantum territory, though I haven't managed to get my hands on a copy yet.

Especially if they have a soft spot for pseudoscience... 😁

Sam Martinez9 said:For those anti-physics types who aren't exactly eager to get their hands dirty with heavy equations but still want to grasp the essence of quantum mechanics and where the catch lies, I’d highly recommend Capra and the era of change. The book is worth the read for more than just the science; he bridges everything from Newtonian mechanics through quantum theory all the way to capitalism, touching on biology and social structures along the way. That said, since his background is in physics, he really shines when discussing the hard sciences—biology included. His take on the social sciences feels a bit less grounded.

I’ve been told that his book Tao physics is actually even better when you're diving into quantum territory, though I haven't managed to get my hands on a copy yet.

Haven't read it... putting it on my "do not read" list immediately. I hit a wall with the other gender.
(My version of the other gender told me enough theory for one day and handed me a vacuum cleaner instead.
Have you read "The Emperor's New Mind" by Roger Penrose? It starts off heavy with numbers and math, talking about Turing's machine and all that, but it picks up later.
He argues that there's a "significant quantum component" present in consciousness. He has plenty of critics, of course... people will probably just shrug and say R. P. is a prime example of someone with massive potential who barely scratched the surface.

Sam Martinez9 said:Posted from Slack
- Volver

Good morning, everyone.

What’s on your reading list this morning? I’ve been spending some time with Capra lately. As is the case with most readers, I find myself starting from the end. Here is a brief excerpt from the final pages:

* ........ moving from linear systems of resource depletion and the accumulation of products and waste toward cyclical flows of matter and energy; shifting from an obsession with objects and natural wealth toward a focus on services and human resources; transitioning from seeking happiness in material possessions to finding it in human connections. To borrow the words of David Suzuki:

Family, friends, community—these are the primary sources of profound satisfaction and love. We visit family members, maintain ties with our mentors, and share meaningful moments with friends. We undertake difficult challenges to help others, to save the frogs, and to protect the wilderness, and we find purpose in those efforts. Nature and service provide us with spiritual fulfillment. None of these joys deplete the Earth's resources, yet they leave us deeply replenished. They are complex and far closer to true happiness than simple pleasures like a Coca-Cola or a new minivan.*

Robert Goodwin: "A short introduction to philosophy"

It's just a quick rundown of philosophical history and 20th-century thought.

As for physics, I've moved on to:

Joanna Baker: "50 physics ideas you really need to know"

Just 50 straightforward essays covering everything from classical mechanics to relativity and quantum theory—no math equations to deal with. I also have a pretty interesting one by Albert Einstein: "The History of Physics," which tracks things from ancient tools all the way to quantum mechanics.

Sam Martinez9 said:Posted from Slack
- Volver

Good morning, everyone.

What’s on your reading list this morning? I’ve been spending some time with Capra lately. As is the case with most readers, I find myself starting from the end. Here is a brief excerpt from the final pages:

* ........ moving from linear systems of resource depletion and the accumulation of products and waste toward cyclical flows of matter and energy; shifting from an obsession with objects and natural wealth toward a focus on services and human resources; transitioning from seeking happiness in material possessions to finding it in human connections. To borrow the words of David Suzuki:

Family, friends, community—these are the primary sources of profound satisfaction and love. We visit family members, maintain ties with our mentors, and share meaningful moments with friends. We undertake difficult challenges to help others, to save the frogs, and to protect the wilderness, and we find purpose in those efforts. Nature and service provide us with spiritual fulfillment. None of these joys deplete the Earth's resources, yet they leave us deeply replenished. They are complex and far closer to true happiness than simple pleasures like a Coca-Cola or a new minivan.*

Charles Taylor - Sources of the Self (The Making of Modern Identity)

Going through this one for the second time—honestly, it hits even harder now than it did the first pass.

Harold Doyle3 said:Haven't read it... putting it on my "do not read" list immediately. I hit a wall with the other gender.
(My version of the other gender told me enough theory for one day and handed me a vacuum cleaner instead.
Have you read "The Emperor's New Mind" by Roger Penrose? It starts off heavy with numbers and math, talking about Turing's machine and all that, but it picks up later.
He argues that there's a "significant quantum component" present in consciousness. He has plenty of critics, of course... people will probably just shrug and say R. P. is a prime example of someone with massive potential who barely scratched the surface.

Real science is exhausting and tedious. It requires endless work, constant scrutiny, and facing nothing but criticism and skepticism until things finally crystallize over time.

It’s much easier to indulge people in popular literature. If you play that game, you can end up with more fame, influence, and money than you ever would grinding away at a university or staring at equations for ten hours a day. 😁

To be seen, look at how many academics here in the States, once they hit an age where they aren't making major breakthroughs, let their egos take over. They start making noise in the media, jumping into political debates, and generally talking out of turn (think Radman or Paar...).

Turning scientists into icons is incredibly damaging to the field. Even within academia itself, (research shows there's a massive bias toward the work of famous colleagues, despite a system specifically designed to prevent that), let alone among the general public. It's also useless to drag unresolved scientific debates to the masses by using simplified, populist methods that turn serious topics into partisan shouting matches.

Basically, if you aren't a specialist actively working in a specific field, you should completely ignore anything that isn't a peer-reviewed, published, and ideally replicated study that has reached a broad consensus. Names like Penrose, Paar, Djikic, or Einstein shouldn't carry any weight when they step outside strict scientific protocols. Their personal reputation shouldn't give extra validity to ideas that haven't become established scientific standards or moved beyond being mere fringe theories.

Unfortunately, most people don't care about rigorous papers; they prefer authority figures. So, if you want to stop pseudo-scientific nonsense from flooding the airwaves, you have to deal with "science popularization." But for anyone taking this seriously, it’s all just noise and a circus not worth the attention.

bluemason3 said:Real science is exhausting and tedious. It requires endless work, constant scrutiny, and facing nothing but criticism and skepticism until things finally crystallize over time.

It’s much easier to indulge people in popular literature. If you play that game, you can end up with more fame, influence, and money than you ever would grinding away at a university or staring at equations for ten hours a day. 😁

To be seen, look at how many academics here in the States, once they hit an age where they aren't making major breakthroughs, let their egos take over. They start making noise in the media, jumping into political debates, and generally talking out of turn (think Radman or Paar...).

Turning scientists into icons is incredibly damaging to the field. Even within academia itself, (research shows there's a massive bias toward the work of famous colleagues, despite a system specifically designed to prevent that), let alone among the general public. It's also useless to drag unresolved scientific debates to the masses by using simplified, populist methods that turn serious topics into partisan shouting matches.

Basically, if you aren't a specialist actively working in a specific field, you should completely ignore anything that isn't a peer-reviewed, published, and ideally replicated study that has reached a broad consensus. Names like Penrose, Paar, Djikic, or Einstein shouldn't carry any weight when they step outside strict scientific protocols. Their personal reputation shouldn't give extra validity to ideas that haven't become established scientific standards or moved beyond being mere fringe theories.

Unfortunately, most people don't care about rigorous papers; they prefer authority figures. So, if you want to stop pseudo-scientific nonsense from flooding the airwaves, you have to deal with "science popularization." But for anyone taking this seriously, it’s all just noise and a circus not worth the attention.

The average person shouldn't be digging through scientific papers anyway. Take me, for example—I studied math, yet I still find most math papers totally incomprehensible and way too dense. They're written for hyper-specialized experts within a tiny niche of mathematics.

Pseudoscience is what pretends to be science but is actually garbage. Popular science literature isn't "science" per se, but it's useful for general knowledge. Nobody cares about the probability integral of two particles colliding, but knowing the concept of mathematical probability? That's actually good to know.

Nicholas Gonzalez87 said:The average person shouldn't be digging through scientific papers anyway. Take me, for example—I studied math, yet I still find most math papers totally incomprehensible and way too dense. They're written for hyper-specialized experts within a tiny niche of mathematics.

Pseudoscience is what pretends to be science but is actually garbage. Popular science literature isn't "science" per se, but it's useful for general knowledge. Nobody cares about the probability integral of two particles colliding, but knowing the concept of mathematical probability? That's actually good to know.

The average person isn't going to dig through the technical methodology, but anyone can wrap their head around an abstract and a conclusion.

The real issue is that for most people, telling the difference between pseudoscience and pop science is an uphill battle. Sometimes it’s hard to even distinguish legitimate research from pure pseudoscience when it's tucked away in those predatory journals. And honestly, if someone actually possesses the tools to tell them apart, they probably don't even need the pop science version to begin with.
Chapter 22 just feels like one more battlefield for indoctrination before you finally get to any actual science.

We need to start teaching scientific literacy in high school, specifically through a solid curriculum on research methodology. I'm talking about both the hands-on fieldwork side and the statistical data processing. This would cover the fundamentals needed to actually make sense of about 90% of published scientific papers. Now, obviously, this isn't going to teach anyone formal mathematics, theoretical physics, or comparative literature. But it would provide the groundwork for almost any quantitative experimental study. It’s about understanding how research actually works at its core. And let's be realistic—nobody expects a teenager to be performing at a post-doc level.

We can build public awareness through popular science books, which makes sense given that nobody has the time to become an expert in every single field. Most people just need a clear, simplified summary of how a specific area works. That said, you can't really distinguish actual science from pseudoscience if your entire understanding is based solely on pop literature.

Amanda Flores88 said:The other day, a volunteer from Catholic Charities reached out and mentioned how the disaster really forced people to realize what actually matters—focusing on people and solidarity.

And honestly? She's right. But when you look at what happened back in the Midwest, the reality is that those folks lost their homes and buildings—tangible, physical stuff that their entire lives depend on. People expect friends, both old and new, to step up and help them get back on their feet—meaning keeping their jobs and having a roof over their heads. A few kind words and some sympathy go a long way, sure, but sometimes love and caring for one another has to be very, very practical.

If you look at this from a different perspective, there’s a profound side to this story that often gets overlooked. Thousands of people, both here in America and from all over the world, stepped up and gave away everything they had—campers, food, clothing, blankets... even hard-earned cash—to help those who lost everything. They could have easily kept it all. It would have been so simple to just say, "I need this too," or to play it safe by thinking, "I might not need it today, but I might need it tomorrow." Instead, they chose to give.

bluemason3 said:Especially if they have a soft spot for pseudoscience... 😁

These aren't exactly scientific textbooks, nor are they physics manuals written for practicing physicists. They are philosophical works. That said, his philosophy isn't untethered; it’s firmly rooted in science—specifically, in the realm of physics.

I suppose I should probably say something more substantial than just "Walnut," but sometimes a single word captures the essence of a thought better than a rambling paragraph ever could. It’s a simple thing, really—just a nut. But there is a certain weight to it, isn't there? Much like how a single, quiet observation can occasionally carry more gravity than a loud, sweeping argument. Just a walnut. That's all. Sam Martinez9 says:
I haven't actually read it yet... but I'm putting it on my blacklist. I hit a bit of a snag when I got to that section about the opposite sex.
My partner looked at me and said, "Alright, enough with the theory—let's get to some practical application," right before shoving a vacuum cleaner into my hands.

Be grateful that the opposite sex was responsible for inventing both electricity and the vacuum cleaner.

Harold Doyle3 said:Haven't read it... putting it on my "do not read" list immediately. I hit a wall with the other gender.
(My version of the other gender told me enough theory for one day and handed me a vacuum cleaner instead.
Have you read "The Emperor's New Mind" by Roger Penrose? It starts off heavy with numbers and math, talking about Turing's machine and all that, but it picks up later.
He argues that there's a "significant quantum component" present in consciousness. He has plenty of critics, of course... people will probably just shrug and say R. P. is a prime example of someone with massive potential who barely scratched the surface.

I gave it a read back in the day, but honestly, it didn't quite click for me at the time. I suspect I simply lacked the necessary context; some ideas require time to settle and actually sink in before they make sense. When I dive into Capra’s work on physics, I get this distinct impression that things *have* to work exactly that way—if you catch my drift.

*I actually just stumbled upon this insight from Capra regarding Penrose: "There are, however, other attempts—mostly by physicists and mathematicians—to explain consciousness as an inherent property of matter itself, rather than a phenomenon tied strictly to biological life. A standout example is the approach taken by mathematician and cosmologist Roger Penrose, who posits that consciousness is a quantum phenomenon. Essentially, he argues that *we don't truly grasp consciousness because we lack a fundamental understanding of the physical world.*"

It’s interesting how Capra tackles the concept of consciousness here.

Sam Martinez9 said:Posted from Slack
- Volver

Good morning, everyone.

What’s on your reading list this morning? I’ve been spending some time with Capra lately. As is the case with most readers, I find myself starting from the end. Here is a brief excerpt from the final pages:

* ........ moving from linear systems of resource depletion and the accumulation of products and waste toward cyclical flows of matter and energy; shifting from an obsession with objects and natural wealth toward a focus on services and human resources; transitioning from seeking happiness in material possessions to finding it in human connections. To borrow the words of David Suzuki:

Family, friends, community—these are the primary sources of profound satisfaction and love. We visit family members, maintain ties with our mentors, and share meaningful moments with friends. We undertake difficult challenges to help others, to save the frogs, and to protect the wilderness, and we find purpose in those efforts. Nature and service provide us with spiritual fulfillment. None of these joys deplete the Earth's resources, yet they leave us deeply replenished. They are complex and far closer to true happiness than simple pleasures like a Coca-Cola or a new minivan.*

Elisabeth Moon: Speed of Darkness

Harold Doyle3 said:Haven't read it... putting it on my "do not read" list immediately. I hit a wall with the other gender.
(My version of the other gender told me enough theory for one day and handed me a vacuum cleaner instead.
Have you read "The Emperor's New Mind" by Roger Penrose? It starts off heavy with numbers and math, talking about Turing's machine and all that, but it picks up later.
He argues that there's a "significant quantum component" present in consciousness. He has plenty of critics, of course... people will probably just shrug and say R. P. is a prime example of someone with massive potential who barely scratched the surface.

I find this passage from Capri regarding the electron much easier to wrap my head around than the whole Schrödinger's cat dilemma:

*These subatomic building blocks are highly abstract entities possessing a dual nature. Depending on our perspective, they manifest as particles at times and waves at others; light exhibits this same duality, appearing as either electromagnetic waves or discrete particles.

This dual nature of both matter and light is quite bizarre. At first glance, it seems impossible to accept that something can simultaneously be a particle—an entity confined to an incredibly tiny space—and a wave, which spreads out over a vast area. Yet, that was precisely what physicists were forced to confront. The situation felt hopelessly paradoxical until it was realized that the terms "particle" and "wave" are classical concepts that aren't quite suited for describing atomic phenomena. An electron isn't strictly a particle or a wave; rather, under certain circumstances, it behaves like one or the other. While acting as a particle, it can develop its wave-like characteristics at the expense of its particle-like traits, and vice versa, undergoing a constant transformation between the two. This implies that neither the electron nor any other atomic *body* possesses any intrinsic properties that exist independently of its environment.

bluemason3 said:Real science is exhausting and tedious. It requires endless work, constant scrutiny, and facing nothing but criticism and skepticism until things finally crystallize over time.

It’s much easier to indulge people in popular literature. If you play that game, you can end up with more fame, influence, and money than you ever would grinding away at a university or staring at equations for ten hours a day. 😁

To be seen, look at how many academics here in the States, once they hit an age where they aren't making major breakthroughs, let their egos take over. They start making noise in the media, jumping into political debates, and generally talking out of turn (think Radman or Paar...).

Turning scientists into icons is incredibly damaging to the field. Even within academia itself, (research shows there's a massive bias toward the work of famous colleagues, despite a system specifically designed to prevent that), let alone among the general public. It's also useless to drag unresolved scientific debates to the masses by using simplified, populist methods that turn serious topics into partisan shouting matches.

Basically, if you aren't a specialist actively working in a specific field, you should completely ignore anything that isn't a peer-reviewed, published, and ideally replicated study that has reached a broad consensus. Names like Penrose, Paar, Djikic, or Einstein shouldn't carry any weight when they step outside strict scientific protocols. Their personal reputation shouldn't give extra validity to ideas that haven't become established scientific standards or moved beyond being mere fringe theories.

Unfortunately, most people don't care about rigorous papers; they prefer authority figures. So, if you want to stop pseudo-scientific nonsense from flooding the airwaves, you have to deal with "science popularization." But for anyone taking this seriously, it’s all just noise and a circus not worth the attention.

I’m with you there.

bluemason3 said:Real science is exhausting and tedious. It requires endless work, constant scrutiny, and facing nothing but criticism and skepticism until things finally crystallize over time.

It’s much easier to indulge people in popular literature. If you play that game, you can end up with more fame, influence, and money than you ever would grinding away at a university or staring at equations for ten hours a day. 😁

To be seen, look at how many academics here in the States, once they hit an age where they aren't making major breakthroughs, let their egos take over. They start making noise in the media, jumping into political debates, and generally talking out of turn (think Radman or Paar...).

Turning scientists into icons is incredibly damaging to the field. Even within academia itself, (research shows there's a massive bias toward the work of famous colleagues, despite a system specifically designed to prevent that), let alone among the general public. It's also useless to drag unresolved scientific debates to the masses by using simplified, populist methods that turn serious topics into partisan shouting matches.

Basically, if you aren't a specialist actively working in a specific field, you should completely ignore anything that isn't a peer-reviewed, published, and ideally replicated study that has reached a broad consensus. Names like Penrose, Paar, Djikic, or Einstein shouldn't carry any weight when they step outside strict scientific protocols. Their personal reputation shouldn't give extra validity to ideas that haven't become established scientific standards or moved beyond being mere fringe theories.

Unfortunately, most people don't care about rigorous papers; they prefer authority figures. So, if you want to stop pseudo-scientific nonsense from flooding the airwaves, you have to deal with "science popularization." But for anyone taking this seriously, it’s all just noise and a circus not worth the attention.

I actually disagree. I’d draw a parallel here with how we look at history. In both science and history, for the average educated person—someone who thinks reasonably well—individual data points, specific papers, or raw archival records don't hold much practical weight, not even for satisfying basic curiosity. What people actually care about is the big picture, the overarching narrative, the universal themes that allow them to connect with events, whether they are natural phenomena or historical shifts. You can't really learn anything about nature or human history by staring at isolated data sets or dusty archives; those are just the raw materials. Real learning happens through synthesis, interpretation, and broad conclusions. That’s the only part that actually matters to a human life. Reducing science to mere statistics, or history to a collection of snapshots, is a fool's errand. But hey, fools love that kind of stuff, so let them have it.

Nicholas Gonzalez87 said:The average person shouldn't be digging through scientific papers anyway. Take me, for example—I studied math, yet I still find most math papers totally incomprehensible and way too dense. They're written for hyper-specialized experts within a tiny niche of mathematics.

Pseudoscience is what pretends to be science but is actually garbage. Popular science literature isn't "science" per se, but it's useful for general knowledge. Nobody cares about the probability integral of two particles colliding, but knowing the concept of mathematical probability? That's actually good to know.

Agreed.

bluemason3 said:The average person isn't going to dig through the technical methodology, but anyone can wrap their head around an abstract and a conclusion.

The real issue is that for most people, telling the difference between pseudoscience and pop science is an uphill battle. Sometimes it’s hard to even distinguish legitimate research from pure pseudoscience when it's tucked away in those predatory journals. And honestly, if someone actually possesses the tools to tell them apart, they probably don't even need the pop science version to begin with.
Chapter 22 just feels like one more battlefield for indoctrination before you finally get to any actual science.

We need to start teaching scientific literacy in high school, specifically through a solid curriculum on research methodology. I'm talking about both the hands-on fieldwork side and the statistical data processing. This would cover the fundamentals needed to actually make sense of about 90% of published scientific papers. Now, obviously, this isn't going to teach anyone formal mathematics, theoretical physics, or comparative literature. But it would provide the groundwork for almost any quantitative experimental study. It’s about understanding how research actually works at its core. And let's be realistic—nobody expects a teenager to be performing at a post-doc level.

We can build public awareness through popular science books, which makes sense given that nobody has the time to become an expert in every single field. Most people just need a clear, simplified summary of how a specific area works. That said, you can't really distinguish actual science from pseudoscience if your entire understanding is based solely on pop literature.

I'm with you that teaching kids the fundamentals of scientific methodology and statistics in high school is a good move, but if we really want to get somewhere, we should be focusing on what science actually represents: a way of thinking that stands in direct opposition to blind belief. Statistics and methodology are vital tools, sure, but they’re primarily for the people who are going to spend their lives in labs or writing academic papers—which, let's face it, isn't most people. The true heart of science is critical thinking. And that skill is becoming more essential by the second, especially now that everyone has a megaphone and a social media platform to broadcast whatever opinions they happen to hold.

bluemason3 said:Real science is exhausting and tedious. It requires endless work, constant scrutiny, and facing nothing but criticism and skepticism until things finally crystallize over time.

It’s much easier to indulge people in popular literature. If you play that game, you can end up with more fame, influence, and money than you ever would grinding away at a university or staring at equations for ten hours a day. 😁

To be seen, look at how many academics here in the States, once they hit an age where they aren't making major breakthroughs, let their egos take over. They start making noise in the media, jumping into political debates, and generally talking out of turn (think Radman or Paar...).

Turning scientists into icons is incredibly damaging to the field. Even within academia itself, (research shows there's a massive bias toward the work of famous colleagues, despite a system specifically designed to prevent that), let alone among the general public. It's also useless to drag unresolved scientific debates to the masses by using simplified, populist methods that turn serious topics into partisan shouting matches.

Basically, if you aren't a specialist actively working in a specific field, you should completely ignore anything that isn't a peer-reviewed, published, and ideally replicated study that has reached a broad consensus. Names like Penrose, Paar, Djikic, or Einstein shouldn't carry any weight when they step outside strict scientific protocols. Their personal reputation shouldn't give extra validity to ideas that haven't become established scientific standards or moved beyond being mere fringe theories.

Unfortunately, most people don't care about rigorous papers; they prefer authority figures. So, if you want to stop pseudo-scientific nonsense from flooding the airwaves, you have to deal with "science popularization." But for anyone taking this seriously, it’s all just noise and a circus not worth the attention.

You know that Planck was terrified of presenting his "crazy" idea regarding blackbody radiation?
Why do you think that was?
If you ask me, it was because of rigid attitudes like these—the fear of being branded a charlatan.

Roger Penrose actually added a disclaimer about this, noting that his book isn't a formal scientific text, but rather his own subjective musings on consciousness.

He asks more questions than he provides answers, but then again, a well-posed question is half the answer.

@mravac

You’re better off sticking with Penrose ' The Road to Reality'. Capra gets way too caught up in all that mystical stuff.

I mean, sure, Penrose dives into some metaphysical obscurity himself, but at least he stays grounded in philosophy. Capra is more like New Jersey mysticism.