AIPT Science contributor Julian recently reviewed practicing physicist and sometimes children’s author Chris Ferrie’s uncharacteristically blue new book Quantum Bullsh*t: How to Ruin Your Life with Advice from Quantum Physics, which takes to task misinterpretations about quantum mechanics from both public and professional circles. Dr. Ferrie was kind enough to answer some of Julian’s questions through email, presented with some light editing below.
Lots of letters, fewer four-letter words.
AIPT: Were there any key moments in your past that led you to pursue educating against bullsh*t or, if not, is there anything in particular, a particular incident or experience, that motivated you to write the book Quantum Bullsh*t?
Chris Ferrie: I’ve never felt so strongly about popular bullsh*t that it compelled me to write about it. The point, as I confessed in the last chapter, was to teach quantum physics. I took the approach of trying to elucidate on all the things quantum is not rather than the usual, direct approach, which, to be honest, hasn’t worked so well in popular science writing. That being said, if you performed some sentiment analysis on the book, you’d find the chapter discussing the interpretations of quantum physics the most emotionally charged.
The topics there have mostly to do with academic bullsh*t, which I guess most people were not aware of. It’s not as high-stakes as bogus health claims, but it is much nearer to me as a researcher in the field, and it has annoyed me since I was a student. Watching my colleagues repeat lazy claptrap about quantum physics in the media, as quantum computing has grown in popularity, is probably what eventually pushed me over the edge.
AIPT: In Quantum Bullsh*t you refer to “skeptics” in a dismissive manner, albeit very briefly. However, in my experience as a casual member of the skeptic community in the U.S., I feel your book is precisely the kind of thing we like. Can you expand on what you mean when you refer to skeptics in your book?
CF: I think the main thread in my book is the idea that you should simply ignore the bullsht*ters. Don’t engage. But who engages in the worst way with bullsh*tters? Celebrity skeptics. They either engage in public humiliation stunts or play along with the idea that the scientific method could be applied to test bullsh*t claims. The former only emboldens the bullsh*tter, while the latter inadvertently associates the credibility of science with the bullsh*t.
I’m not suggesting I’m above delighting in the misfortune of people I morally object to. I’m suggesting that engineering such scenarios are, at best, entertainment. So let’s be honest about it. The pleasure of every little hit of dopamine that comes when a bullsh*tter gets humiliated should come at the cost of guilt for contributing to the problem. This book was a delicate balancing act in this respect.
You also can’t use the empirical method to debunk bullsh*t claims. This is an incredibly narrow application of the scientific framework, which, somewhat ironically, not enough people are skeptical of. The mere suggestion that an experiment could be done is a step off a slippery slope. While experiments are the bedrock of science, we have to remember that any individual result is highly inconclusive.
The Higgs particle was the cumulative effort of 40 years of experimentation. There are over 4 million articles about the health effects of smoking. Evidence is extremely expensive and time-consuming to collect. If you can’t afford it, don’t even suggest it, because half-assing it with one inconclusive experiment will only result in the opposite conclusions being drawn. The approach I take in the book is that an understanding of the basic theories and principles of science allows one to create a robust filter applying to the premises rather than the claims of bullsh*t.
Journalists have copped it enough for giving a platform to bullsh*tters because, more often than not, they are aided by scientists and skeptics. It’s time for us to own that. If you ever see me knowingly entering a public debate with a bullsh*tter, please call me out for hypocrisy.
AIPT: Neil deGrasse Tyson is a high profile astrophysicist. Recently he debated an anti-vaxxer and some prominent skeptics thought this was a bad tactic. Would you say that Tyson debating an anti-vaxxer is an example of the kind of skepticism you think could be unhelpful?
CF: I am not familiar with this example, but if it is as you describe, then yes! Though you can find no better example than the Randi-Geller decades-long spat. James Randi (who kids these days would call the OG skeptic) was so obsessed with debunking Uri Geller’s claims that he wrote a book with the man’s name in the title! Randi, probably not resting in peace, certainly did a lot for the skeptic community, but he also turned a second-rate magician with a fetish for bending spoons into a celebrity psychic who owns his island. I doubt Randi paid the $1 it costs to be a citizen of “Mystical Island.”
AIPT: How has Quantum Bullsh*t been received? Are there differences in reaction between countries and/or groups of people such as professors, students, general public?
CF: I don’t think I have enough data to say anything about specific groups, but the book has generally been well-received. Many have said they enjoyed the humor as well as the lucid descriptions of quantum principles. A few that apparently didn’t read the title said I have a “potty mouth.”
AIPT: If you could rewrite Quantum Bullsh*t, is there anything you’d change or do differently?
CF: Maybe I’d take out more f-bombs.
AIPT: Are you working on writing anything new in a similar vein to Quantum Bullsh*t?
CF: My next book is called 42 Reasons to Hate the Universe: (and One Reason Not To). It’s also a science/comedy book and will definitely be a banger!
AIPT: Have you received any fan mail, hate mail, etc. because of your writing, or even your scientific research?
CF: Oh, lots. Though most of the fan mail is from parents who have read my children’s books. Occasionally, I’ll get messages telling me I don’t know what I’m talking about, or I need to seek out God, or whatever. Like my advice for all bullsh*tters, I just ignore them.
AIPT: Let’s put aside writing for a moment. What are you studying scientifically right now in your work?
CF: I run a research group at the University of Technology Sydney with postdoctoral researchers, graduate students, and occasionally keen undergraduates. Broadly, we study the application of control theory and machine learning to problems in quantum technology. In the little free time I have, I still think about foundational problems in quantum physics, which I spent some time on years ago while doing my graduate work. Unfortunately, philosophy doesn’t pay the bills, though.
AIPT: How do you like being in academia? Do you see yourself as a scientist first or a professor first?
CF: I don’t see the distinction between them. If there is anything that defines my academic career, it’s the avoidance of conforming to a label. My biggest fear is a sense of stagnation due to over-specialization. Academia is the only place where you can, not without considerable effort, exercise your intellectual freedom.
Join the AIPT Patreon
Want to take our relationship to the next level? Become a patron today to gain access to exclusive perks, such as:
- ❌ Remove all ads on the website
- 💬 Join our Discord community, where we chat about the latest news and releases from everything we cover on AIPT
- 📗 Access to our monthly book club
- 📦 Get a physical trade paperback shipped to you every month
- 💥 And more!
You must be logged in to post a comment.