Take a photo of a barcode or cover
mirareads_ 's review for:
The Cosmic Serpent: DNA and the Origins of Knowledge
by Jeremy Narby
There is only one way for me to describe how I feel after reading this book- what the actual fuck.
I picked this book up on my birthday, on a little trip to York, in a very stuffy bookstore. The front cover looked interesting. As a biology-obsessed student. 'The Cosmic Serpent- DNA and the origins of knowledge' is a title that just can't be missed. I turned it over, skimmed over the blurb at the back and I was immediately sold. "The evidence he collected- on subjects as diverse as molecular biology, shamanism, neurology and ancient mythology"- say less! I was a promised an untold story of DNA- I was ready for unconventional, but I expected it to be realistic.
Instead I was met with the biased ramblings of a man, who experienced ayahuasca and has an obsession with it. He was willing to make the most absurd, coincidental connections, based on his own beliefs, and present them as the "truth", while calling scientists "biased" and "subjective". Speaking of bias, did I mention that he wrote this book after his own ayahuasca experience that he obsesses over? Yeah...he's very objective.
He saw snakes when he was hallucinating, and proceeded to find every mention of the "cosmic" serpent in indigenous writings, and then proceeded to make the bold claim that these serpents are actually DNA. He claims that the soul "transcends" to the molecular level, which is why people see snakes, which again, is allegedly DNA. He says his hypothesis is testable, and he wanted to make a bunch of biologists drink ayahuasca, and see what he saw to confirm that people see DNA.
Aside from the fact that he wants biologists to take literal hallucinogenic to see if they see snakes (which is actually DNA), his test is muddied with bias and confounding variables. It doesn't prove anything because the fact that the biologists consumed a psychoactive compound means they've already lost their credibility. How would they differentiate between hallucination and reality? There is just so much wrong with what he's saying.
Anyways, this was bizarre, and not in a good way. I had fun annotating this though, even though my thoughts were jumbled in irritation. Probably enjoyed shitting on this review more than reading the actual book.
I picked this book up on my birthday, on a little trip to York, in a very stuffy bookstore. The front cover looked interesting. As a biology-obsessed student. 'The Cosmic Serpent- DNA and the origins of knowledge' is a title that just can't be missed. I turned it over, skimmed over the blurb at the back and I was immediately sold. "The evidence he collected- on subjects as diverse as molecular biology, shamanism, neurology and ancient mythology"- say less! I was a promised an untold story of DNA- I was ready for unconventional, but I expected it to be realistic.
Instead I was met with the biased ramblings of a man, who experienced ayahuasca and has an obsession with it. He was willing to make the most absurd, coincidental connections, based on his own beliefs, and present them as the "truth", while calling scientists "biased" and "subjective". Speaking of bias, did I mention that he wrote this book after his own ayahuasca experience that he obsesses over? Yeah...he's very objective.
He saw snakes when he was hallucinating, and proceeded to find every mention of the "cosmic" serpent in indigenous writings, and then proceeded to make the bold claim that these serpents are actually DNA. He claims that the soul "transcends" to the molecular level, which is why people see snakes, which again, is allegedly DNA. He says his hypothesis is testable, and he wanted to make a bunch of biologists drink ayahuasca, and see what he saw to confirm that people see DNA.
Aside from the fact that he wants biologists to take literal hallucinogenic to see if they see snakes (which is actually DNA), his test is muddied with bias and confounding variables. It doesn't prove anything because the fact that the biologists consumed a psychoactive compound means they've already lost their credibility. How would they differentiate between hallucination and reality? There is just so much wrong with what he's saying.
Anyways, this was bizarre, and not in a good way. I had fun annotating this though, even though my thoughts were jumbled in irritation. Probably enjoyed shitting on this review more than reading the actual book.