Cosmosapiens: Human Evolution From the Origin Of the Universe

Cosmosapiens: Human Evolution From the Origin Of the Universe - John Hands The author really needs to chill out, watch a Neil deGrasse Tyson video on the universe and put the wonder back in science instead of trying to tear it apart. Dark Matter, Dark Energy are not currently observable and we just have educated guesses to what they are. As Tyson says, we can just as easily call them Fred & Barney until we know more about them. They are just place holders for now. That's the way science works. The author just tries to tear apart the science. The teams that discovered the universe was expanding and hypothesized Dark Energy deserved the Nobel Prize, but this book just doesn't like Dark Energy, Dark Matter and a host of other standard science.

Science never proves anything. Our knowledge is what we consider to be 'justified true belief". Sometimes we have to use mathematics and theory to account for manifestations. That doesn't mean we are necessarily wrong, but we use every tool at our disposal to explain nature by using nature. The author seems to want to go beyond nature. He quoted Einstein twice in the book to the effect that Einstein believed in a "transcendental intelligence". The author sees that as a good thing, and he doesn't think the mathematics alone can explain the phenomena.

The author really doesn't like standard (he uses the obnoxious term 'orthodox') science. It's a pity. For within our current best understanding of science there are many awe inspiring stories to be told. Look at LIGO and its discovery of gravitational waves (ripples) through out the fabric of space-time. They measured the contraction and the expansion of space itself. They used Einstein's General Theory, known physics and mathematics about black holes, quantum theory and a whole host of other theories and used mathematical computer simulations to determine what happens when two black holes walk into a bar.... A story like that is so much more interesting then the constant picking apart of the standard science which the author constantly does in the book, and the author loses the forest for the trees because he doesn't realize that even without science being perfect we can still use what we think we know and tell incredibly interesting stories and use that to see space-time itself contract and expand.

Science will always be underdetermined, for any set of facts about nature there will always be multiple theories to explain that data. But the author doesn't seem to understand this and sees that as an opportunity to show that science is faulty.

The author would summarize our current understanding of our science about a big topic, then criticize it, and then present alternate ways of looking at it, and then present some of his usually far out conclusions.

I would say that there was almost nothing new in this book that I hadn't read elsewhere. All of the statements on matters about science or philosophy I had read elsewhere.

The author has a pernicious teleological bent to his presentation. He really seems to like Fred Hoyle. He'll quote the absurd statement that life forming randomly is on the order of a tornado sweeping through a junk yard and making a 747. The author's favored model for the universe seemed to be Hoyle's QSSC (probably stands for quasi steady state crap, I'm too lazy to look it up and I know the 'C" does stand for crap). He really thinks fine tuning of the universe is the best explanation for the explanation of some of nature's constants. He could be right, but there is a reason why we don't measure the heights of basketball players in light years. They would be the same to the 17th decimal place just as some of the 'fine tuned' constants are. He at least owes the reader the other side. The author is not a creationist but he does quote from the absurd creationist Michael Behe favorably, and I would think a host of creationist believers would love this book since he offers a plethora of criticisms on the standard explanations of science.

He believes 'psychic energy' can explain certain natural phenomena, that entropy (the second law of thermodynamics) needs a fifth force to explain how it is constantly increasing, that insight should be put back into philosophy instead of only being reason based, the start of life is a near impossible event and so on.

I have nothing good to say about this book and can't recommend it. I don't know why I finished it. It reminded me of the movie "Plan 9 from Outer Space", I just wanted to see what other disasters awaited. I regret starting this book, and definitely would not recommend it to anyone.