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
SUMMARY

The forum discussion centers on the book "Life on the Edge" by Jim Al-Khalili and Johnjoe McFadden, which explores the intersection of quantum mechanics and biology. Participants express skepticism about the scientific validity of quantum biology, particularly regarding claims of quantum entanglement aiding bird navigation. Despite some interest in the topic, many threads on the subject have failed to gain traction, often being dismissed as fringe science. The discussion highlights the need for credible research and peer-reviewed references to substantiate claims made in this emerging field.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of quantum mechanics principles, particularly entanglement.
  • Familiarity with biological processes and their statistical significance.
  • Knowledge of peer-reviewed scientific research methodologies.
  • Awareness of the historical context of quantum biology, including key figures like Schrödinger.
NEXT STEPS
  • Research "Quantum Compass for Birds" and its implications in quantum biology.
  • Explore peer-reviewed papers on magnetoreception in animals, such as the 2009 study by Ritz et al.
  • Investigate the role of quantum coherence in biological processes.
  • Review critiques of fringe science in quantum biology to understand the boundaries of accepted research.
USEFUL FOR

Researchers, biophysicists, and science communicators interested in the intersection of quantum mechanics and biology, as well as those evaluating the credibility of emerging scientific theories.

  • #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
12K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
5K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K