Topic: The Field | Lynn McTaggert

[smellincoffee]

Has anyone heard of this book? I had lunch with an older friend of mine, a retired history professor, and he  brought it up during a conversation on popular science:  it purports to provide a rational basis for homeopathy through quantum mechanics. He tends toward the skeptical himself, and he knows he's not versed enough in modern physics to assume the author is on the level.  Has SGU ever discussed this book, or have any skeptics ever read it?

Quoting from Amazon:

McTaggart, an investigative journalist (What Doctors Don't Tell You), describes scientific discoveries that she believes point to a unifying concept of the universe, one that reconciles mind with matter, classic Newtonian science with quantum physics and, most importantly, science with religion. At issue is the zero point field, the so-called "dead space" of microscopic vibrations in outer space as well as within and between physical objects on earth. These fields, McTaggart asserts, are a "cobweb of energy exchange" that link everything in the universe; they control everything from cellular communication to the workings of the mind, and they could be harnessed for unlimited propulsion fuel, levitation, ESP, spiritual healing and more. Physicists have been aware of the likelihood of this field for years, McTaggart writes, but, constrained by orthodoxy, they have ignored its effects, which she likens to "subtracting out God" from their equations. But, McTaggart asserts, "tiny pockets of quiet rebellion" against scientific convention are emerging, led by Ed Mitchell, an Apollo 14 astronaut and founder of the Institute for Noetic Sciences, an alternative-science think tank. McTaggart writes well and tells a good story, but the supporting data here is somewhat sketchy. Until it materializes, McTaggart may have to settle for being a voice in the wilderness.

Sounds like a load of hooey. How much woo can you put in one book?

[Stovetop32]

I have it, and I've read it.

It is a lot of woo wrapped up in science-y jargon.  To the credit of the book and the author though, skeptical viewpoints are not outright dismissed, just challenged (albeit with very very bad evidence).  She positions most of the book as her "journalistic" investigation of various phenomena - perhaps to remove herself from any direct responsibility for claims being made/supported and avoid being seen as the authority on the supposed science.

It's a good book if you're new to skepticism, and want to hone your BS detector or are otherwise interested in how pseudoscience (and some legitimate science) can be spun to support just about any new age belief. 

By the way, who was it that refered to new age as "newage," to imitate sewage?