[FRIAM] Book publishing advice needed

[∄ uǝlƃ]

Yes, "physics envy" is VERY far off. 1) As I tried to claim before, physicists don't speak with authority in that way. The way these people speak is very different from the way physicists speak. 2) While Firestein knows some physics, my graphic artist friend has NO idea what quantum mechanics actually is, probably doesn't even know classical mechanics. So, even if they're envious of something, it's neither physicists' ways of being, nor the physics that physicists do.

But I'd go even further that they're not *envious* of anything. What they want is something, anything, to justify their rhetoric, which is basically that there's stuff we don't know (explicitly in Firestein's book on "Ignorance" and implicitly in my friend's claim that a good attitude mysteriously helps one recover from cancer). That's not envy. It's justificationism.

Now, when Nick and Frank talk about psychologists having physics envy (neither Firestein nor my friend fit that bill), *envy* does seem to come close. But I'd argue the same way with (1) and (2) above. They're not envious of physicists or physics. But they might be envious of ready access to plentiful DATA. And you can get that from some types of biology. In any case, that's not what I was talking about when I complained about everyone pulling woowoo quantum mechanics out of their hat everytime they want to say something about stuff we don't know.

Many people accused Penrose of the same thing, conflating quantum theory with consciousness merely BECAUSE they're both mysterious. And I sincerely doubt Penrose has "physics envy".


On 7/7/20 7:00 PM, Eric Charles wrote:
> "Envy" might not be the exact right word, but it isn't far off, is it? There is an inferiority complex of some sort, and a wish that you had whatever thing those specific other people /seem /to have. 

-- 
☣ uǝlƃ