66. 13 Things That Don't Make Sense, Michael Brooks (Podcast)

[alextsakiris]

Guest: Michael Brooks, science journalist and author of 13 Things That Don?t Make Sense: The Most Baffling Scientific Mysteries of Our Time.

Micheal?s blog post on his dialog with Rupert Sheldrake

Click here to read more ...

[David Bailey]

An interesting discussion - but it seemed to cut off about half way through!

David

[mcairo]

Just as it has occurred with past uploads, the latest episode of Skeptiko was partially uploaded. The podcast is cut off at 32:54.

Please let us know when you have repaired the problem. My itunes uploads the podcast automatically, and for me to get the full version, I will have to erase the half version.

thanks,
Marcel

[Tor]

Yes, this was quite interesting Alex!

I remember when I had a list of all the unexplained things in physics hanging by my desk at the university. It included some of these 13 things.

Looking forward to hearing the rest of the interview!

Tor

[alextsakiris]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

An interesting discussion - but it seemed to cut off about half way through!

David

sorry... now fixed.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally Posted by alextsakiris

Guest: Michael Brooks, science journalist and author of 13 Things That Don?t Make Sense: The Most Baffling Scientific Mysteries of Our Time.

Micheal?s blog post on his dialog with Rupert Sheldrake

Click here to read more ...

I haven't listened to the podcast as of yet, but I have just ordered his book from amazon.

I notice that he has a chapter on free will and that he attempts to make the case that it's very likely we have no free will whatsoever. If he means by this that consciousness is entirely causally inefficacious i.e that consciousness per se has no effect on the physical world whatsoever, then I'm afraid he's just flat out wrong as I have proved.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Ian

I notice that he has a chapter on free will and that he attempts to make the case that it's very likely we have no free will whatsoever. If he means by this that consciousness is entirely causally inefficacious i.e that consciousness per se has no effect on the physical world whatsoever, then I'm afraid he's just flat out wrong as I have proved.

I suspect he's perfectly happy to say that consciousness is causally efficacious, but that it isn't a source of libertarian free will.

His 13 things include homeopathy: please. Nonlife ... life is a continuum: no kidding. Cold fusion: really?

~~ Paul

[Interesting Ian]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

I suspect he's perfectly happy to say that consciousness is causally efficacious, but that it isn't a source of libertarian free will.

I really wish you would stop referring to "libertarian free will"! I am hazy about what it means and I don't think either you or anyone else has ever supplied a satisfactory definition.

He's almost certainly referring to the experiments carried out by Benjamin Libet. On the face of it these experiments appear to show that our conscious decisions are actually determined by prior physical activity in the brain occurring from a third to half a second beforehand!

So on the face of it these experiments seem to strongly suggest that consciousness is not in fact causally efficacious. It is always the prior physical activity in the brain which both causes our decision to act in a certain way and the act itself. In other words Libet's experiments seem to suggest epiphenomenalism.

There are a couple of considerations which might detract from the epiphenomenalist's delight here. For a kick off the existence of the veto. One would have to argue or demonstrate that similarly the veto is also preceded by appropriate physical activity in the brain. And can one really say when one has chosen to move ones hand to the accuracy of one third of a second?

Not that any of this matters since I have proven that epiphenomenalism is incoherent.

His 13 things include homeopathy: please. Nonlife ... life is a continuum: no kidding. Cold fusion: really?

~~ Paul

You've exhaustively examined all the evidence have you?

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Cold fusion: really?

~~ Paul

Cold fusion is interesting. Brian Josephson certainly thinks there is something interesting going on, and even after all these years there are unexplained features - excess energy, nuclear transformation, etc. See his website for some links.

Modern science - driven by the media - has to pretend it can 'evaluate' claims like those of Fleischman and Pons, and deliver a 'verdict' in a short period of time.

David

[anonymous]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

Cold fusion is interesting. Brian Josephson certainly thinks there is something interesting going on, and even after all these years there are unexplained features - excess energy, nuclear transformation, etc. See his website for some links.

Modern science - driven by the media - has to pretend it can 'evaluate' claims like those of Fleischman and Pons, and deliver a 'verdict' in a short period of time.

David

Really?

If so, it would be Fleischman and Pons's fault for going public in the mass media before publishing in scientific journals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fu...s_announcement

In mid-March, both research teams were ready to publish their findings, and Fleischmann and Jones had agreed to meet at an airport on March 24 to send their papers to Nature via FedEx.[19] Fleischmann and Pons, however, broke their apparent agreement, submitting their paper to the Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry on March 11, and disclosing their work via a press conference on March 23.[17] Jones, upset, faxed in his paper to Nature after the press conference.[19]

However, this report by the Energy Research Advisory Board seems reasonably fair to me.

"A Report of the Energy Research Advisory Board to the United States Department of Energy"
Cold Fusion Research: Title Page

The Panel recommends against the establishment of special programs or research centers to develop cold fusion. However, there remain unresolved issues which may have interesting implications. The Panel is, therefore, sympathetic toward modest support for carefully focused and cooperative experiments within the present funding system.

More likely, in my opinon, the verdict against cold fusion arose behind the scenes. There are powerful vested interests in hot fusion research and theoretical nuclear physics that influence scientific opinion and what research is allowed and funded. Anything that makes the existing powers obsolete will not be welcomed.

Keeping funding within the "present funding system" would allow the existing power hierarchy to maintain control of cold fusion research funding.