What the Bleep do we know!?

[JamesSD]

This movie is bad science, and is a bad way of presenting the possibilities of science to the mainstream.
It promulgates the myths and falsehoods that the media and the (sorry to bring this up) religions have already created- that science is a belief. Because it shows these far-flung theories as if they are accepted fact- it reinforces the popular notions that scientific discoveries- the structure of the solar system, fossils, embryonic growth, the physical structure of the brain- can be dismissed if one doesn't happen to believe in them.
That intelligent design is a "meetingplace" between rational study and religious thought.
That anyone who uses the fruits of technology is a scientist.
That ANY particular Scientist has the authorityto speak for all of the scientific community.

So well put.
In the specific case of the movie, it applies Quantum science in a ridiculous way to the macroscopic world. To avoid getting technical, Quantum laws really can't be applied to anything with significant (bigger than an atom) mass. Newton's laws do just fine for describing the physical position and movement of objects.

I remember reading something about how at least a couple of the scientists interviewed were angry at the implications of the film, i.e. it implied they supported conclusions that they did not.

Of course, if what you got out of the movie was "I am capable of causing change in my life by concious choice", well, cool. The right conclusion arrived at by the wrong path is still the right conclusion.

 

[NoJo]

That's the way I look at things too. If the hard truths of science aren't enough to stagger you with the incredible miracle of existence and consciousness and you have to go poking around in the trash heaps of psi and junk science to "prove" things, then you're just missing the entire point. This is the miracle, right here, right now, all around us, every day.

I still love what Sir Arthur Eddystone said: "The universe may not only be stranger than we imagine, but stranger than we can imagine."

I completely agree with that. Richard Dawkins makes a similar point in his own characteristically agressive style: He says that he finds the creationist viewpoint actually blasphemous in its dull reduction of the incredible diversity and complexity produced by nature.

 

[rgraham666]

As a scientist, can I both agree AND disagree?

We understand FAR more about how the human brain works on a physical and physiolocial level now than we did 20, 10, or even 5 years ago. It's hard to imagine that we won't keep increasing our knowledge and understanding. Yet, in many ways it's the output (i.e. communication) rather than the chemical properties of a person that are really the interesting stuff, and that's far better to explore with art and literature.


In the middle ages there were certain scientists and philosophers who were confident that they were nearing the end of science, that they were rapidly approaching complete knowledge of all there is to know. It seems quaint to us, but it's also quite possible that future generations will view ours in the same manner. I can imagine a conversation something like this:

Little boy: Why did they fight wars in the Middle East in the early 21st century?
Teacher: Because the Middle East had something called Oil
Little Boy: What's Oil?
Teacher: That's what people used to power their cars before people learned how to convert human waste into fuel
Little Boy: WEIRD!

I see another big, impactful scientific discovery/event happening in the next 10-20 years. Not sure what exactly it will be.

Respectfully, yes we do know a great deal about the brain and how it works. But we have yet to integrate it into a useful theory.

And I'm not sure I want us to. I shudder to think about what would happen if we gain the same degree of control over people's minds that we have over the physical world.

Also my understanding of science in the Middle Ages was they started out believing they already knew everything. In their minds Aristotle had discovered everything and all scientists and philosophers had to do was confirm it.

I think our next big technological breakthrough is going to be nanotech. The possibilities offered by it are tremendous. So are the problems. There was an interesting article by Bruce Sterling in Wired not too long ago about the possible effects of buckytubes on the environment.

Scientific breakthroughs, I have no idea.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

That's the way I look at things too. If the hard truths of science aren't enough to stagger you with the incredible miracle of existence and consciousness and you have to go poking around in the trash heaps of psi and junk science to "prove" things, then you're just missing the entire point. This is the miracle, right here, right now, all around us, every day.

I still love what Sir Arthur Eddystone said: "The universe may not only be stranger than we imagine, but stranger than we can imagine."

*purring*

 

[Marquis]

I'm going to preface my comments with a warning that I didn't read all, or most of the responses.

I've seen this movie.

I thought it was cute, inspiring. The interviewees were all very likeable and colorful characters, the side story and some of the explanations could've been presented better.

All in all they're touting some simple advice that people have known to work throughout history. Unfortunately it's not something you can scientifically prove, but that doesn't stop them from trying. The effort is actually kind of admirable if you remember not to take them too seriously just because they know some cool terms.