Advocates of the highly speculative notion of "quantum biology" like to invoke the case of superconductivity as a "proof of principle" that macroscopic quantum effects can play a role in biology.
In 1994, Phil Anderson wrote a devastating critique of Roger Penrose's book Shadows of the Mind: A search for the missing science of consciousness. Anderson's review was entitled Shadows of Doubt, and contains the following relevant paragraph:
The review is also reprinted in More and Different. The preamble states the Penrose Fallacy: "all problems too difficult to be solved by the great brain of the author must be identical." (p. 186)
BTW: a review of the book by David Mermin just appeared in Physics Today.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
From Leo Szilard to the Tasmanian wilderness
Richard Flanagan is an esteemed Australian writer. My son recently gave our family a copy of Flanagan's recent book, Question 7 . It is...
-
Is it something to do with breakdown of the Born-Oppenheimer approximation? In molecular spectroscopy you occasionally hear this term thro...
-
If you look on the arXiv and in Nature journals there is a continuing stream of people claiming to observe superconductivity in some new mat...
-
I welcome discussion on this point. I don't think it is as sensitive or as important a topic as the author order on papers. With rega...
No comments:
Post a Comment