oh how I have grown (a very late review of "The Tao of Physics")

[gusl]

In 1996, I found Fritjof Capra's "The Tao of Physics" to be the greatest book ever.

I just looked at it again, and it only took me a couple of minutes to see that it's clearly a classic exemplar of psychoceramics.

Capra sets up this strawman of naive foundationalism (which, possibly, many naive scientists subscribe to), upon which Newtonian theory is built. Then he mentions Geoffrey Chew's "bootstrap philosophy", which "constitutes the final rejection of the mechanistic worldview in modern physics". His thesis is that understanding quantum physics requires a coherentist worldview, like the view espoused by Hindu and Buddhist philosophies. It seems to me that one of the central ideas of this book is based on a pun on the word "consciousness": Capra equates "observer of quantum system" with "human consciousness".

Now, it seems a priori plausible to me that some Eastern philosophies are more receptive to the reality of quantum physics than our Western philosophies. It's possible that Capra has hit on good ideas regarding this connection, but looking for this needle on this haystack of a book does not seem worthwhile. Furthermore, given that the level of attention required for critical reading is a finite resource, this book may also be harmful to your mind.

If I had to psychoanalyze Capra, I would guess that this book was motivated by (1) some kind of nihilism: he wanted give up on real science without feeling bad about it (2) possibly, maybe he had a certain disdain of old-school physicists who have little awareness of their own philosophy. Unfortunately, Capra forgets to ask himself "what am I really saying?", neglects the skeptical perspective, and as a result, goes off the rails.

Comments

[letters-in-sand.livejournal.com]

parallel-ly, I had a similar experience last weekend when I picked up and looked through a copy of the dancing wu-li masters by Gary Zukav, which I thought was teh awesome in '99.

[simrob.livejournal.com]

I should do that too, then, because I used to think the dancing wu-li masters was teh awesome as well.

[spoonless.livejournal.com]

I've heard that both of those books--Tao of Physics and Dancing Wu-Li Masters--are just packed full of crap. I've never personally had the misfortune of reading them, but I think I have a pretty good idea of what they say. Basically, just denying that quantum mechanics is mechanical or materialist... and as you say, confusing the word "observer" with "conscious observer" (since most "observers" that physicists speak are measuring devices like a silicon detector or a computer hard drive, which are cleary not conscious).

What would constitute "naive foundationalism" to you (versus informed foundationalism)?

I still think the biggest problem with philosophers of science is that too many of them think that Newton's theory was disproven and is no longer true, whereas most scientists see it as still true... it's just been expanded upon. We certainly never would have been able to discover quantum mechanics if we hadn't fully accepted Newton's theory first. I see a Western materialist worldview as a necessary prerequisite for getting to the point where you can discover quantum mechanics, or have any hope of understanding it.

"naive foundationalism"

[gustavolacerda.livejournal.com]

I mean roughly, the narrow-minded and stupid idea that the current basic terms and axioms of scientific theory are static, not subject to revision, "holy" in some way. In reality, you sometimes have concurrent conceptual systems, not perfectly integrated with each other.

Someday, I should read up on synthesis of foundationalism and coherentism, e.g. "founherentism".

Reasonable philosophers (e.g. Kuhn) wouldn't be that uncharitable towards "normal scientists".

Re: "naive foundationalism"

[spoonless.livejournal.com]

It sounds to me like the naive foundationalism you're describing would be one similar to "rationalist foundatialism" where all beliefs are deductively derived from some axiomatic beliefs.

I think that most science is done in an empiricist framework, where all beliefs are presumed to come from experience/observation, not from deduction or reason. So if science is based on foundationalism, it's a very different type from the naive one you're describing (or what Capra imagines to be true).

Reading the descriptions of foundationalism and coherentism on Wikipedia makes me think that both are starting from really bad assumptions about what a belief is. But of the two, foundationalism seems a lot less dangerous (at least empiricist foundationalism). I guess I should look into foundherentism too because I don't really see why these would be the only options.