Worst Sci-Books: "The Secret Life Of Plants" & "Mindwalk - The Tao of Physics

[Ivan Seeking]

While cleaning my office I found what has to be a top candidate:

The Secret Life Of Plants

I guess that since I mentioned this as a good Sci-Fi movie, I should include the book version of the movie Mindwalk - The Tao of Physics.

 

[JamesU]

why is this under skeptisism and debunking?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

For the debunking part of course.

Ah, I just realized why you asked. I am thinking about the worst science found in popular books, not a literary critique.

 

[JamesU]

"the physics of waves"

 

[Ivan Seeking]

"the physics of waves"

Why do you say that? Who is the author?

or have I stepped on some toes already?

 

[JamesU]

I don't know, I stole it from post #3 of this:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=75443

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Okay, that appears to be a comment about a difficult book, but not bad science.

 

[Math Is Hard]

My favorite book when I was 14 was The Philadelphia Experiment. I never saw the movie. I'm pretty sure all the stuff that enthralled me in the book has since been debunked.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

My favorite book when I was 14 was The Philadelphia Experiment. I never saw the movie. I'm pretty sure all the stuff that enthralled me in the book has since been debunked?

That's true. A little research reveals a story full of holes, with no supporting evidence, and plenty of contradictions. It is rare to find a story so completely debunked.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=57097&highlight=Philadelphia

 

[Chronos]

Dogpatch girls ask the hardest questions.

 

[matthyaouw]

The Atlantis enigma, if indeed you can call that science :P

 

[arildno]

While cleaning my office I found what has to be a top candidate:

The Secret Life Of Plants

That's the one claiming that plants get scared if a plant murderer walks in upon them, isn't it?

 

[selfAdjoint]

For me it's The Dancing Wu Li Masters, hands down. That's because it is such a GOOD book, so persuasive, and teaches such BAD physics.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

For me it's The Dancing Wu Li Masters, hands down. That's because it is such a GOOD book, so persuasive, and teaches such BAD physics.

Interesting... someone recomended that book to me. I may read it anyway for entertainment value or just to know what I may be up against if I ever argue quantum physics with someone.

 

[Francis M]

My favorite book when I was 14 was The Philadelphia Experiment. I never saw the movie. I'm pretty sure all the stuff that enthralled me in the book has since been debunked.

Ivan Seeking- That's true. A little research reveals a story full of holes, with no supporting evidence, and plenty of contradictions. It is rare to find a story so completely debunked.

I think I say a show on this on TLC. It was pretty much big time, hard core debunked.

 

[google]

Oh my, bad science is something I have seen in Gens VII. A lot of inaccuracies in its elucidation of ligand complexes. Normally I'd expect some problems with General chemistry texts but never with biology.The discipline is simple to understand at any level; yet people still tend to make mistakes in their organization and understanding of higher and more complex ideas in biology, why then do they bother writing books??

 

[Loren Booda]

In Search of Ancient Astronauts has bugged me since my adolescence.

 

[skeptic]

I don't think that there is any hope of controlling, or any need to control, whatever rubbish is read by the general public. What astonishes me is that universities etc., often do not weed out such books. My local university, for instance, has Secret Life of Plants on its shelves, as well as all of the works of Harold Aspden (a well-known anti-relativist and promoter of 'free energy'). They have several copies of the Aspden books; apparently because some were bought by the university, and others were presented, free, by Aspden. That may explain why CERN (Geneva) also had a copy of one of them.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I don't think that there is any hope of controlling, or any need to control, whatever rubbish is read by the general public. What astonishes me is that universities etc., often do not weed out such books. My local university, for instance, has Secret Life of Plants on its shelves, as well as all of the works of Harold Aspden (a well-known anti-relativist and promoter of 'free energy'). They have several copies of the Aspden books; apparently because some were bought by the university, and others were presented, free, by Aspden. That may explain why CERN (Geneva) also had a copy of one of them.

Perhaps it is sometimes good to have examples of bad science to point to.

 

[skeptic]

I agree; the quickest way to teach physics is often to pick on bad examples from the outset. The problem is that very few people (apart from Gardner or Gould) actually take/took the trouble to point out errors in popular pseudoscientific books. And even when they do/did, they are/were unlikely to reach the target readership.