Life on the Edge: is it still alive?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter sophiecentaur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Edge Life
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

This thread discusses the intersection of biology and quantum mechanics, particularly in the context of the book "Life on the Edge" by Jim Al-Khalili and Johnjoe McFadden. Participants explore the implications of quantum biology, its credibility, and the potential for exploitation of its concepts. The discussion touches on theoretical, speculative, and experimental aspects of quantum biology and its relevance to understanding life.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express interest in the ideas presented in "Life on the Edge," noting its readability and the intriguing connection between biology and quantum mechanics.
  • Others question the scientific validity of claims regarding quantum biology, suggesting that some ideas may be fringe or speculative.
  • There are discussions about the potential misuse of quantum concepts in areas like alternative medicine, with concerns about exploitation in the quantum biology arena.
  • Some participants reference specific research related to birds' navigation and quantum entanglement, indicating that there is ongoing research in this area, though its acceptance is debated.
  • Participants express skepticism about the credibility of claims made by popular science communicators, highlighting the need for rigorous scientific validation.
  • There is a request for summaries of specific scientific conjectures from the book, indicating a desire for more concrete information rather than speculative ideas.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the validity of quantum biology as presented in the book. There are competing views regarding its scientific grounding, with some arguing for its potential and others expressing skepticism about its claims and relevance.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the discussion involves speculative ideas that may not have strong theoretical support. The exploration of quantum biology is seen as a mix of established science and fringe theories, with varying levels of acceptance among participants.

  • #31
PeterDonis said:
But the fact that a journal is not a fringe journal does not automatically mean that all cites from that journal are acceptable sources for all discussions. Being from a non-fringe journal is a necessary condition, but not a sufficient one.

My concern was that the word "unsuitable" applied to a reference is either ambiguous, depending on context; or else pejorative; if the latter, this might imply that a comment making use of such a reference has violated forum rules. So we are talking not merely about a source but about whether citing that source is a permissible behavior, with "not permissable" potentially leading to moderation. The other way to use "unsuitable" might be to describe a study or other source as not making a compelling argument. However this isn't typical usage for that word.

Be that as it may, @DrChinese has resolved any concern I might have had very nicely in his response #27, which you seem to be in concordance with. This paragraph in particular from that comment really cleared things up for me:
DrChinese said:
Not that my opinion matters: but if the speculative elements of posts are reasonably identified (so that the casual reader is alerted), then often further discussion can occur without hitting the fringes. Sometimes I comment on the quality of the references precisely so that discussion can continue, with caveats in mind. I think that many PF posters operate similarly. (If I really thought forum rules were being badly violated, I would simply report the post.)
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
DrChinese said:
:welcome:

"there is no known science in support, so they are wrong." That's a big difference from saying "there is no known science in support, but we are right anyway."

False bifurcation. Those may seem very different from the perspective of one arguing the truth of one side or the other, but the similarity is strong where it is important. Both claim certainty whether something is or isn't based not on what is known, but on a lack of knowledge.
.
No known, well vetted science supporting something could suggest it is very unlikely to be observed. It does not provide certainty of non-existence nor impossibility.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
44
Views
13K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
6K
Replies
12
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K