I Life on the Edge: is it still alive?

  • Thread starter Thread starter sophiecentaur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Edge Life
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the book "Life on the Edge" by Jim Al-Khalili and Johnjoe McFadden, which explores the intersection of biology and quantum mechanics. While the book presents an engaging case for quantum biology, participants express skepticism about its scientific validity, with concerns about the potential for fringe science and exploitation in this field. Some mention recent research suggesting that quantum mechanics may play a role in biological processes, such as avian navigation, but emphasize the need for peer-reviewed evidence to support these claims. Overall, the conversation reflects a mix of intrigue and caution regarding the scientific implications of quantum biology. The topic remains contentious, with calls for more credible research to substantiate its claims.
  • #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 48 ·
2
Replies
48
Views
1K
Replies
44
Views
11K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
6K
Replies
9
Views
5K
Replies
12
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
5K