What do you think?
Rate this book
Punk Science: Inside the Mind of God
Punk Science demonstrates that ideas from the cutting-edge of science actually explain phenomena that have previously been thought of as paranormal. Dr. Samanta-Laughton offers a new model of the universe, where consciousness generates life, where black holes exist inside our bodies as well as far out in space, and where the same science explains galaxies and planets as well as human evolution, auras and chakras. Drawing on the very latest in scientific understanding, the Black Hole principle outlined by in this book, represents the next leap forward in both human understanding and living, and gives a closer approximation to scientific reality than the macho-approach of the old-style physics.
- GenresScienceNonfiction
320 pages, Paperback
First published November 25, 2006
12 people are currently reading
179 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews
January 25, 2010
I gave it up. It was so full of pseudo-scientific nonsense, it just gave me a headache. The genesis of the book seems to have been a 'eureka moment' the author had sitting on a tree in the Hertfordshire woods, when she realised the greater inconnectedness of all things.
Essentially this book appears to be a collection of speculation about various ideas and theories that are on the edges of science, and not yet proven, for the most part. Maybe they will be, maybe they won't. The author then goes on to take these ideas and make a kind of idea soup from them, from which she goes on to produce ... something. I've forgotten. I gave the book away, because it was so annoying.
See, I'm not at all sceptical about the existence of things we do not yet understand. These things must exist. I just dislike speculation masquerading as science. That is all.
Essentially this book appears to be a collection of speculation about various ideas and theories that are on the edges of science, and not yet proven, for the most part. Maybe they will be, maybe they won't. The author then goes on to take these ideas and make a kind of idea soup from them, from which she goes on to produce ... something. I've forgotten. I gave the book away, because it was so annoying.
See, I'm not at all sceptical about the existence of things we do not yet understand. These things must exist. I just dislike speculation masquerading as science. That is all.
June 12, 2017
In a nutshell, Samanta-Laughton (a GP, not a physicist) has a moment of inspiration in which she realises everything is connected and postulates that, because in quantum mechanics particles exist as both waves and as matter, but only become matter when we observe them, this means that consciousness creates matter. She then uses [seemingly sound] logic to go on from this starting point and “prove” that this means consciousness is actually universal. Yes, even inanimate matter has consciousness. And flies have self-awareness and personalities. She seems to forget that there is nothing logical about quantum physics, so how she thinks she can go on to combine it with logic to make these outlandish claims is beyond me.
To prove how all-pervasive consciousness is she provides examples in the form of scientific research that [tenuously] supports her hypothesis. She accepts all this research at face value, doesn’t provide enough information for us to determine whether the research is valid or not, and dismisses any criticism of said research as close-minded scepticism.
Later Samanta-Laughton suggests that mentally ill people are actually accessing a higher level of reality, claiming that “too many people are reporting higher dimensional experiences for us to ignore that this is happening”. She recognises that it is physically impossible to prove higher dimensional experience - thus departing from the realm of science altogether – before going on to talk about angels and ghosts, suggesting angels might be detected with a galvanometer. So which is it? Not possible or possible? “According to the principles we have described in this book,” she decides, “angels are scientifically possible.”
At this point you feel she’s just getting carried away, but wait. Next up is the Black Hole Principle… which is more than 100 pages of incomprehensible, vaguely-related-to-science pondering that ask whether everything is a black hole. And everything is apparently – the sun, DNA, infinity, comets and much more are all black holes. Curiously though, the earth isn’t. Some of the ideas are nice, and some of the thoughts profound, but they are all immediately invalidated by bad science.
And I don’t know whose idea it was, but this decidedly airy-fairy, new age text has been bound up in Sex Pistols Never Mind the Bollocks colours and divided periodically with pop culture buzzwords masquerading as section headers. Things like, “Losing our minds”, “Mind trek”, “What’s the story?”, “We’ve got a fuzzbox and we’re going to use it”, “There goes the neighbourhood”, “Doggie style”, “Pretty vacant conclusions”, “No more heroes”, “If the kids are united”, and “Wiggle it, just a little bit.” I could go on but I don’t think there’s any need to.
Then there are the questions. So many questions. Samanta-Laughton keeps asking us, the reader, these wide-eyed questions about things we could conclude – as if the answer is going to be a resounding “yes!” But it’s not, it’s nearly always “no, just no.” And when it’s not, it’s “not really” or “most probably not”. Like:
If atoms interact with our consciousness, then does that mean that the objects around us do? That’s a good one, because atoms don’t interact with our consciousness, beyond us perceiving them and their effects.
Is [consciousness]… an inherent quality in everything, not just the brain? No.
Could the experimenter effect be a macroscopic demonstration of quantum effects?
Does the outcome of the experiment depend on the type of observation? That one actually sounds sensible, but that’s not what the author means. She is suggesting that it’s possible that one person can do an experiment and get one set of results, but another person might get another set. The whole point of scientific experiments of course, are that the results are repeatable. That’s how we know that they are true. Samanta-Laughton’s hypothesis is an attempt to invalidate science’s failure to find proof of psychic phenomena by saying that you have to be open minded to such phenomena in order to be able to observe it – which is inherently unscientific and convenient for psychic phenomena’s proponents.
Is this an example of collapsing one reality from infinite possibilities depending on whose consciousness is interacting with it? No.
Because superstrings give rise to the force of electromagnetism, is this evidence that superstrings are linked to consciousness? No, because the assumption you made about the quantum world and consciousness is not valid. Not yet at least.
Are our vibrations beginning to resonate with those of higher dimensions? No.
Could some of us experience worlds beyond the confines of our particular brane, simply by shifting our consciousness?
I’m not shitting you! There are so many more that require qualifying statements, so they simply can’t be rendered succinctly here. And then… “why are we not all John Edwards or Mozarts?” and “If our thoughts are all in the field, how do we know which thoughts are ours?”
That last one recalls to me Karl Pilkington’s rumination on having a doppelganger; “how will I know which one is me?”
It is essential – ESSENTIAL – when reading this book that you look up some of this research on the internet. You will find countless examples of where the scientists involved in the research have been discredited or debunked (or aren’t accredited scientists at all), where the research was not peer reviewed, not published in reputable journals, or was found to be faulty, or unrepeatable or its conclusions erroneous. [Or the “scientist” just plain bat-shit crazy].
If you don’t do this fact checking you could easily be fooled into taking Samanta-Laughton’s theories seriously, because to the layman (and the paranormally inclined), they do make logical sense. If you want a short cut to some of the fact checking, search #PunkScience on my Twitter account, @Readothusiast. I posted the results of my searches there as I went along.
Samanta-Laughton does have a good basic layman’s understanding of scientific concepts, but she is also too eager to find scientific proof of the paranormal. As a result she makes leaps that sound logical, but are not borne out by evidence. She even calls quack psychic John Edward a genius. A fucking genius. I’d laugh, but this work has been published – not by a reputable publisher, it seems, but published nonetheless, and one that labels it “science”. I got news for you; a science book should not contain so many questions. Not unless it’s a textbook. And certainly not so many questions that start “could”.
It is actually an impressive, exhaustive and well-reasoned piece of work. It’s just that the foundations upon which it is built are made of air, and its building blocks of half-baked unreliable research and conjecture. And that’s a shame because a lot of research and a lot of skill have gone into writing this, but I can only give it one star. I’m perplexed how the author can have such a wide understanding of so much science yet have so little faith in the scientific method as to diverge from it so wildly, and be completely unaware that this is what she’s doing.
I have decided ultimately to destroy this book after I’ve read it, rather than donating it to a charity shop as I usually would, because the next person who reads it might take all this at face value and end up stupider than they were before. But then again, perhaps someone will read it and be inspired to look up some real science – because if you do, like I did, you’ll learn a hell of a lot about a wide variety of disciplines and ideas. You just won’t learn anything you can rely on from this book. It’s a toughie. Though judging by the reviews on GR so far, only one reviewer has managed to think for themselves. So, into the recycling bin you go.
To prove how all-pervasive consciousness is she provides examples in the form of scientific research that [tenuously] supports her hypothesis. She accepts all this research at face value, doesn’t provide enough information for us to determine whether the research is valid or not, and dismisses any criticism of said research as close-minded scepticism.
Later Samanta-Laughton suggests that mentally ill people are actually accessing a higher level of reality, claiming that “too many people are reporting higher dimensional experiences for us to ignore that this is happening”. She recognises that it is physically impossible to prove higher dimensional experience - thus departing from the realm of science altogether – before going on to talk about angels and ghosts, suggesting angels might be detected with a galvanometer. So which is it? Not possible or possible? “According to the principles we have described in this book,” she decides, “angels are scientifically possible.”
At this point you feel she’s just getting carried away, but wait. Next up is the Black Hole Principle… which is more than 100 pages of incomprehensible, vaguely-related-to-science pondering that ask whether everything is a black hole. And everything is apparently – the sun, DNA, infinity, comets and much more are all black holes. Curiously though, the earth isn’t. Some of the ideas are nice, and some of the thoughts profound, but they are all immediately invalidated by bad science.
And I don’t know whose idea it was, but this decidedly airy-fairy, new age text has been bound up in Sex Pistols Never Mind the Bollocks colours and divided periodically with pop culture buzzwords masquerading as section headers. Things like, “Losing our minds”, “Mind trek”, “What’s the story?”, “We’ve got a fuzzbox and we’re going to use it”, “There goes the neighbourhood”, “Doggie style”, “Pretty vacant conclusions”, “No more heroes”, “If the kids are united”, and “Wiggle it, just a little bit.” I could go on but I don’t think there’s any need to.
Then there are the questions. So many questions. Samanta-Laughton keeps asking us, the reader, these wide-eyed questions about things we could conclude – as if the answer is going to be a resounding “yes!” But it’s not, it’s nearly always “no, just no.” And when it’s not, it’s “not really” or “most probably not”. Like:
If atoms interact with our consciousness, then does that mean that the objects around us do? That’s a good one, because atoms don’t interact with our consciousness, beyond us perceiving them and their effects.
Is [consciousness]… an inherent quality in everything, not just the brain? No.
Could the experimenter effect be a macroscopic demonstration of quantum effects?
Does the outcome of the experiment depend on the type of observation? That one actually sounds sensible, but that’s not what the author means. She is suggesting that it’s possible that one person can do an experiment and get one set of results, but another person might get another set. The whole point of scientific experiments of course, are that the results are repeatable. That’s how we know that they are true. Samanta-Laughton’s hypothesis is an attempt to invalidate science’s failure to find proof of psychic phenomena by saying that you have to be open minded to such phenomena in order to be able to observe it – which is inherently unscientific and convenient for psychic phenomena’s proponents.
Is this an example of collapsing one reality from infinite possibilities depending on whose consciousness is interacting with it? No.
Because superstrings give rise to the force of electromagnetism, is this evidence that superstrings are linked to consciousness? No, because the assumption you made about the quantum world and consciousness is not valid. Not yet at least.
Are our vibrations beginning to resonate with those of higher dimensions? No.
Could some of us experience worlds beyond the confines of our particular brane, simply by shifting our consciousness?
I’m not shitting you! There are so many more that require qualifying statements, so they simply can’t be rendered succinctly here. And then… “why are we not all John Edwards or Mozarts?” and “If our thoughts are all in the field, how do we know which thoughts are ours?”
That last one recalls to me Karl Pilkington’s rumination on having a doppelganger; “how will I know which one is me?”
It is essential – ESSENTIAL – when reading this book that you look up some of this research on the internet. You will find countless examples of where the scientists involved in the research have been discredited or debunked (or aren’t accredited scientists at all), where the research was not peer reviewed, not published in reputable journals, or was found to be faulty, or unrepeatable or its conclusions erroneous. [Or the “scientist” just plain bat-shit crazy].
If you don’t do this fact checking you could easily be fooled into taking Samanta-Laughton’s theories seriously, because to the layman (and the paranormally inclined), they do make logical sense. If you want a short cut to some of the fact checking, search #PunkScience on my Twitter account, @Readothusiast. I posted the results of my searches there as I went along.
Samanta-Laughton does have a good basic layman’s understanding of scientific concepts, but she is also too eager to find scientific proof of the paranormal. As a result she makes leaps that sound logical, but are not borne out by evidence. She even calls quack psychic John Edward a genius. A fucking genius. I’d laugh, but this work has been published – not by a reputable publisher, it seems, but published nonetheless, and one that labels it “science”. I got news for you; a science book should not contain so many questions. Not unless it’s a textbook. And certainly not so many questions that start “could”.
It is actually an impressive, exhaustive and well-reasoned piece of work. It’s just that the foundations upon which it is built are made of air, and its building blocks of half-baked unreliable research and conjecture. And that’s a shame because a lot of research and a lot of skill have gone into writing this, but I can only give it one star. I’m perplexed how the author can have such a wide understanding of so much science yet have so little faith in the scientific method as to diverge from it so wildly, and be completely unaware that this is what she’s doing.
I have decided ultimately to destroy this book after I’ve read it, rather than donating it to a charity shop as I usually would, because the next person who reads it might take all this at face value and end up stupider than they were before. But then again, perhaps someone will read it and be inspired to look up some real science – because if you do, like I did, you’ll learn a hell of a lot about a wide variety of disciplines and ideas. You just won’t learn anything you can rely on from this book. It’s a toughie. Though judging by the reviews on GR so far, only one reviewer has managed to think for themselves. So, into the recycling bin you go.
June 3, 2012
This is a must read if you want to claim you know anything. The theories Dr. Samanta-Laughton comes up with are just fantastic, and she presents indisputable evidence. A fun, fast, and excellent read. I enjoyed the book up until about halfway through when she started presenting her BHP theory, up until that I agreed with just about everything...but nonetheless it's a very interesting read.
November 7, 2008
This is a great book about quantum physics that is written in a language that is understandable for the "lay" science interested person. She is funny and very readable. It is fascinating the concepts of quantum mechanics. I hope everyone would read it.
June 20, 2011
Great book. I'm not science minded but this was fascinating! Probably I would need to read again to take in all the complex info... just need to find the time!
March 16, 2012
Fantastic synopsis of the new science of creativity, evolution and how spirituality is gaining scientific authority. If you want to know what it's all about, then this book is for you.
March 17, 2020
I have a problem with this book. It left my mind so incredibly open, that I can't shut it. I just walk around, and people say "hey, pal, can you shut your mind?" And I say "sorry, can't-just read Punk Science."
I love big books and I can not lie. I love big words as well. I love challenging books, and book that make you think. This book makes you think from its first page and all of a sudden you are on a rollercoaster of consciousness. You want to have some fun with this book? Read it with Alexa. She will fact check everything that is said in this book. And you will be like "Damn, this home recorder is pretty fucking smart." And if you want to go further, every chapter is cited and resources cited are at the end of every chapter. Also there are a lot of cool punk references through out. Hence, Punk Science.
I am under the impression that if you get anything out of a book then you have succeeded. I mean going from the basic subatomic particles to the Black Hole Principle to String Theory to the Quantum Vacuum all in a little bit over 300 pages is pretty crazy. As I said, I love to learn, and maybe I don’t quite understand the electromagnetic forces that hold us down, or the science behind the causes of mental illness. But I loved reading about it.
If you read close enough, and don't have a squirrel brain like me, everything is explained in this book. From the Big Bang Theory to the Big Crunch all Nestle-d into one little book. (Chocolate bar reference, I know you got it.) I loved Dr. Manjir scientifically explaining metacognition and the supernatural, linking spirituality, cosmology and quantum mechanics.
This book was very, very...cool. Not for normals, but for people who love to think and gain insight and knowledge. I might read it again, but then again there are 8 billion books in the world, and with the limited amount of time in a day, (and in life), I won’t. But you should. You should absolutely read it.
This book opened my mind up so incredibly to the idea of consciousness, that it makes me want to explore Quantum Theory further. I want to have deeper discussions about it. I mean metacognition, mental illness, apparitions, string theory, c2 theory to reductionist theory, to Schrödinger, to a possible theory of everything, the Black Hole Principle. all in a little over 300 pages? This is an invitation for anyone who wants it. Just read it. It’s out there. This information is wild.
Believe me this is a one-shot quick review. But even though I didn’t understand it and won’t pretend to understand that I do. I learned something, maybe not able to express what I learned without making this a book report, but I learned something. Reading Punk Science is an experience. If that is what you are looking for then definitely read this book.
Jason’s Takeaway- Definitely must read. Mind=Blown.
February 11, 2023
I'm giving this 3 (2.5, really) stars because while I like the idea presented and the framework it creates for discussing and explaining esoteric phenomena, I feel the rigor behind the theory to be lacking. This is a great entry point to holographic thinking, and if you're curious about how a fractaly unified creative conscious universe could behave, this presents an interesting theory. However, there are no direct studies cited - only New Scientist articles and other pop-sci books, others interpretations of studies, not the original studies themselves. There's not enough rigor here to stand up to a sceptic's scrutiny, I don't see this book changing anyone's mind. But, as I said, if you're already open to these sorts of ideas, this does provide an interesting framework to ponder over.
January 28, 2017
Very good book. I love the premise that consciousness is fundamental to understanding the Universe. The author takes this into account as she looks again at a theory of everything. Very interesting. Some of the material was a little over my head, but she made the overall point understandable and clear. I really recommend this book.
July 29, 2018
As many other reviewers have stated, this book is crammed with pseudo-scientific ideas.
I actually enjoyed the book when I first read it 8 years ago - before I understood basic science - and told everyone how great it was. Oops...
I actually enjoyed the book when I first read it 8 years ago - before I understood basic science - and told everyone how great it was. Oops...
Read
November 16, 2021It was a fascinating book, and extremely well-researched. However, given that I don't have any science background, a few things were a bit hard for me to visualize or grasp. But overall, it's written for everyone.
June 11, 2022
Since I was young and I learnt about the atoms , my gut instinct told me we must be connected to the stars somehow. This book brought me close to how I perceive God and I truly believe we are much closer to true consciousness. Enlightening book
January 20, 2019
a nEW lOOK AT pHYSICS!!
May 31, 2014
If you want to know whether or not to read this book, you can get a taste of the delightful Dr. Samanta-Laughton by going on YouTube and listening to her half-hour interview with Lilou Mace, "Black Holes and the Principle Behind Creation". I am just starting this book, but listened to a couple of her lectures through a friend who got to hear her live. She is a brilliant, progressive, outside the envelope spiritual/scientific thinker. Enjoy!
Finished this book while on vacation. I'm calling it Physics for Dummies (including chaos and string theory, black hole principle, and cosmic dust…). While I could not even hope to talk this language with any kind of facility, at least now I have some kind of grasp of what they concepts mean as they show up in the news and in references.
HIGHLY recommended, if you like metaphysics.
Finished this book while on vacation. I'm calling it Physics for Dummies (including chaos and string theory, black hole principle, and cosmic dust…). While I could not even hope to talk this language with any kind of facility, at least now I have some kind of grasp of what they concepts mean as they show up in the news and in references.
HIGHLY recommended, if you like metaphysics.
Want to read
October 31, 2013recommended by Michelle Holmes
May 18, 2015
Perspectiva interessantíssima e nova pra mim. Os conceitos são complexos, mas o texto não é complicado. Foi uma viagem legal. =)
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews