One of those slightly annoying 5 star in parts books, but 3 stars in others. At its best original and compelling, but some less original bits.
Let’s stOne of those slightly annoying 5 star in parts books, but 3 stars in others. At its best original and compelling, but some less original bits.
Let’s start with the good.
Rovelli writes well and has picked on a relatively obscure pre-Socratic philosopher, Anaximander. I know him as I’ve studied the pre-Socratics, but Rovelli - a significant scientist in his own right - shows, convincingly, how philosophers have underestimated the importance of Anaximander. Rovelli sees Anaximander as the founder really of the scientific revolution. An innovator of critical thinking.
In doing this Rovelli writes a compelling philosophy of science. The introduction is an excellent summary of the philosophy, role of and culture of science - better than many philosophers� attempts. At least better as a very concise summary.
So that’s the 5 stars - and this is done in roughly the first half of the book, up to and including chapter 6.
After this he broadens out in a way that is partially and not completely related to the first half of the book. This is all good, smart and well written too, but it felt to me like a different book. This is especially true of chapters 9 and 10 on truth, cultural relativism and religion. He writes some interesting stuff, but he is not as much as expert here and whilst it’s all smart and well referenced I felt it was not as good as the rest and actually detracted from the book’s overall impact. 3 stars for this bit - so averages out at 4.
Still a very worthy read for the first half alone....more
This collection of Popper's talks and papers contains a typical set of strident claims about knowledge and related matters, particularly in the areas This collection of Popper's talks and papers contains a typical set of strident claims about knowledge and related matters, particularly in the areas of scientific discovery but not only. Popper weaves together philosophy, history of ideas and the history of science into a compelling mix. I enjoyed this far more than his Logic of Scientific Discovery. That latter book may contain a more definite argument for his views on science, but this book is much more approachable. And at times, Popper comes across as a warm and charming intellect, which does not always come across in other writings. I particularly enjoyed papers 5 and 11, and he has given me renewed interest in pre-Socratic philosophers, which previously I had tended to ignore as far to obscure to understand or take anything meaningful from. ...more
I found much in this book quite interesting, but it would be wrong to say it was always an easy read. At times it is a little frustrating, not becauseI found much in this book quite interesting, but it would be wrong to say it was always an easy read. At times it is a little frustrating, not because of the content, but the writing style. Still if you are interested in the topic it is worth persevering with. It is on what I suspect most people would regards as a relatively obscure part of sociology, but I think accessible to anyone willing to read carefully. I was interested as someone with an interest in the philosophy of science which this book overlaps with, and also because of my work with people who often claim to be experts - that is management consultants. In both of these areas I found some thought provoking ideas.
Given the authors focus on expertise - what it is, and what qualifies us to comment on some area of specialist knowledge - it would be interesting to know who they regard as sufficiently expert to read it, and whether I qualify. ...more
Before I write anything more, I have to admit that I only read some of this book and therefore my review may not be representative.
Much of it concernBefore I write anything more, I have to admit that I only read some of this book and therefore my review may not be representative.
Much of it concerns a specialist field in which I do not have the depth of expertise to understand. However, I read some of the more general chapters - 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 and 9 and found them to be useful summaries of the state of thinking on trust. The book is best thought of as a collection of papers - fully referenced and I assume peer reviewed, and I think is aimed predominantly at neurobiologists with an interest in trust. I am interested in trust and the latest thinking on trust, but I am not a neurobiologist. Nevertheless, I found the chapters I read to be interesting and mostly understandable for the non-specialist. ...more
A well written account of the work of William Smith - a much mistreated but finally vindicated early and important geologist, perhaps even the first rA well written account of the work of William Smith - a much mistreated but finally vindicated early and important geologist, perhaps even the first real geologist. Light science, biography, social history and a story with a happy ending. What’s not to like?
At times the author goes off on diversions, including the longest chapter in the book which has nothing to do with the core focus on William Smith, which makes one wonder if there were too few details to fill a whole book without some padding. But the padding is pleasant enough to be forgiven.
If you like historical narratives and easy to absorb science, worth a read. ...more
This is one of those frustrating books that is very good in parts, but let down by others. If you are interested in the evolution of learning and cultThis is one of those frustrating books that is very good in parts, but let down by others. If you are interested in the evolution of learning and culture I think this is a good place to find out more, but with the warning that there are flaws.
The first few chapters are the best. I learnt a lot both which was useful and interesting about the evolution of learning and the importance, the primary importance of imitation, to learning. The author, a life long academic, explains both the science and the experiments that support his findings. There are lots of interesting snippets and facts. In these first few chapters it is not the lightest of reads - it is at the heavier end of what I think of as popular science, but I think the author steers a good balance between getting too heavy on the science and being too light to make it easy to read. I really enjoyed this.
There are though a few flaws which I found disappointing. Occasionally, there were scientific terms I did not understand - not many, but a few. The author felt it necessary to explain who Machiavelli was - but not to explain a couple of unusual scientific terms, reinforcing the view that the author was writing for scientists, but not social scientists (who would all know who Machiavelli was). This is, to be fair, a trivial point. Additionally, he uses the word "culture" all the time, in a valid way, but it is a very broad definition of culture not the more narrow meaning many of us use in everyday life.
There were a couple of more significant annoyances. The first is the author seems to be a person falling into the "give a man a hammer and he'll see everything as a nail". He is so interested in his topic of learning and cultural development that he sees it as the root of everything. Secondly the later chapters, especially the last two, drift from science he has personally overseen, to more speculative thoughts about culture and the arts.
I really dislike it when a scientist moves from hard science to speculation without at least signaling - you know this is not science, this is my speculation. I have no problem with speculation, but when a recognised authority does it that authority does have a responsibility to make clear they are not talking with the same evidence base as in their core area of expertise - else it can give an artificial level of credibility to what is written when I was not sure it deserved it.
I found this particularly annoying in the last chapter. This is titled "arts" but is really about one specific art - dance. Actually its quite an interesting read on the history and development of dance, but it is mostly so tenuously connected with the rest of the book that it is little more than an opinion piece. And an opinion piece from someone who did not really show any appreciation about what the arts are about. We may be able to create art because we have learnt to imitate, but the idea that art is simply imitation shows a really poor understanding of the topic. Additionally, an evolutionary scientist should know how carefully to apply the word "evolution" - when we talk of the "evolution of dance" this is at best a metaphor for evolution in the biological sense. Yet he uses the word freely in both cases as if they meant the same thing - the old fallacy of equivocation.
So, I am in the odd place of recommending a book which I have not rated that highly overall. If you are interested in learning I'd say read this. Personally, this was a gift from a friend, and I read it because of its focus on culture and I thought I might learn about the evolution of ethics - I did not. I did however find lots of interest to my professional field of organisational change, which I did not expect. However, the price for this is at times listening to a man going on a bit too much and going a bit too wide....more
A wide ranging book on the understanding of the brain. This book is now almost 15 years old, as I write this review, and in a dynamic field like the sA wide ranging book on the understanding of the brain. This book is now almost 15 years old, as I write this review, and in a dynamic field like the study of the brain I suspect that is a long time in which some ideas and understandings will have changed. However, at the very broad level some of this book is at, I suspect it is still valid.
Rose comes across as an excellent, broad-minded, interesting scientist. He talks in a way that appeals to me. He is dismissive of simplistic reductionist scientific statements of single answers to involved problems. (e.g. in the nature versus nurture debate or DNA versus environment). He is similarly critical of simplistic pharmaceutical answers to mental problems of the form "this pill will solve all your mental problems". He understands his field profoundly. So there is much virtue in what he says and this is a very worthy read.
A couple of issues though knocked down the scoring the 3 stars for me. Firstly, I'm not clear who the audience is. This is pretty much an intelligent lay readers book, I can't believe it would interest anyone deeply involved in the various brain sciences as it would be too simple. Yet it is written in the long sentences of a more academic book. Most of the time this is fine, but he throws in words, which for me and I suspect many other readers are unfamiliar (e.g. "Iatrogenic"), which interrupt the flow and disrupts clarity. Secondly, the chapters meander around. Each one is interesting, but it's not clear what the overall point of the book is.
Eagleman is a good writer and a deep thinker, who makes a whole series of interesting observations and conclusions. I like his arguments - he is deeplEagleman is a good writer and a deep thinker, who makes a whole series of interesting observations and conclusions. I like his arguments - he is deeply scientific and yet is humble in understanding the limits of our knowledge. He criticise reductionism, which I tend to as well, but from a strong scientific basis which is interesting to hear. So all good stuff.
Unfortunately for me though, this book for all Eagleman's talents is a little flawed. The first 100 pages of the book are interesting, but normal fair of how complex the brain is and the bizarre things that can happen when it can go wrong - as well as the impressive talents some individuals have. Nice stuff, but the stuff of most other books on the brain and mind. The next chapter from pages 101-150 is the interesting part which points us how little of what we do is really about the "i" that we think of as the conscious brain. There is so much more, and its not one thing but lots of competing parts of the brain wanting to do different things. He really only lightly touches on what the point of consciousness might be, but delivers a compelling view of how little of us it is. Then the next chapter, whilst interesting, is a bit of a ramble into a subject matter of personal interest to the author - given what goes on in the brain how much can we hold people guilty for crimes and how should we punish them. Interesting stuff, but better in another book that this oddly disjointed chapter. Then his final chapter, which again is full of interesting and thought provoking stuff, especially his comments on materialism and reductionism, but it all feels a bit jumbled.
So, not bad, but not as good as it could be. However, it is well written and surprisingly easy to read for some deep topics - so if that's what you are after give it a go. For me, not quite focused enough. ...more
A reasonably enjoyable and informative journey through the use of psychedelic drugs. Well written - Michael Pollan certainly writes very well, and theA reasonably enjoyable and informative journey through the use of psychedelic drugs. Well written - Michael Pollan certainly writes very well, and the 4 stars reflect mostly his abilities as a writer. The content, I had more mixed feelings about.
The good side - I feel much more informed about drugs like LSD and Psilocybin, relaxed about, and more open to taking them myself. I have no personal experience, and have read nothing on them before, so I was coming from a low baseline of knowledge. This is all accessible stuff for the lay reader. Pollan makes a strong case for integrating these drugs into health care, and frankly presented a credibly relaxed case for their use more generally, if at least under guidance.
This is a difficult book to position. Partially, it is about the authors own journey into trying psychedelics, partially it is a social history of their study use and regulation, there is a bit of science and exploration of the effect of these drugs on the brain, and their is a lot of musing about their benefits and risks.
It is very biased to the US - there are odd bits and pieces about other countries, but it really talks to an American reader. This is not a major problem except for the social history, which full of interesting characters as it is, goes on and on. If you are not really interested in the specific social history of drug use in the US then this is pretty dull. On top of this, you may come away with the perception that the only place these drugs were ever really tried and analysed was in the US - which I doubt is true. Hence I wavered towards 3 stars - but then the quality of his writing and generally upbeat mood towards the drugs pushed me up to 4. ...more
A good, well-written, intelligent read, at the tougher end of popular science. Although Duncan explains everything well, I found the book needs close A good, well-written, intelligent read, at the tougher end of popular science. Although Duncan explains everything well, I found the book needs close attention. Rather like a mathematics puzzle, you need to follow the thinking all the way through to understand the later stages of the book. There is nothing too difficult, but it is quite dense at times and the reading needs active engagement.
There is a lot that is tentative in this book, as should be expected from what really is still an emerging science, (and how much has changed since this was published in 2010 is interesting in itself). Duncan is both confident and humble. He confidently states his and other scientists observations and findings, but he has the humility to be clear about the limits and work still to be done in this field.
If you are interested in brain, mind or intelligence then a worthy read. ...more
I was disappointed probably because I expect so much of books in this series. I have quite a few of the OUP'sI was a bit disappointed with this book.
I was disappointed probably because I expect so much of books in this series. I have quite a few of the OUP's "A Very Short Introduction" series, on a wide variety of topics. They are variable, but mostly I have found them excellent introductions to topics, which have often let me start and work on deeper and longer studies to get a better understanding. You have to have a realistic view of how much such a short book can provide - but they are usually very clear and a great starting point.
This book was an exception. I accept complexity is going to be at least complicated. But I would have expected an introduction to be introductory - I found this to be hard going. At first I was going to give this 2 stars. But then I realised it's not really that poor - just not typical for the series. I have learnt something about Complexity.
Little of the book is actually about complexity or the interesting property of emergence - mainly about how we model it, and through modelling I assume hope to understand it better, but this modelling is all in the early stages. I would have appreciated a few more examples of complexity and emergence, and a little less of the modelling. ...more
An interesting insight into the evolution of other forms of intelligent life which have developed completely independently of our own.
One of those inAn interesting insight into the evolution of other forms of intelligent life which have developed completely independently of our own.
One of those intelligent books which deftly flows between science and philosophy. Godfrey-Smith is a good writer who handles complex ideas with ease. He has researched well and quotes liberally from many scientific and philosophical sources - adding his own compelling interpretations.
But 3 stars rather than 4. I know I am idiosyncratic and inconsistent in my grading. In this case I really wanted to enjoy the book more than I did. It's a great topic, well written and nicely presented. The problem for me is that I'm not sure whether Godfrey Smith wanted to write a book about other minds, using the Octopus as an example - or about the Octopus and it's fascinating nature, including its highly developed nervous system. This may sound like I am being picky, but I found because it flipped between the two it was not quite as good as it could have been.
Nevertheless a worthy read whether you are interested in finding out more about sea life or improving your understanding of the problem of other minds....more
Generally a good and accessible read covering a wide range of science related to memory. Good if you like your scientists to quote plenty of research Generally a good and accessible read covering a wide range of science related to memory. Good if you like your scientists to quote plenty of research and remain accessible. Debunks all sorts of myths about memories - including things like repressed memories. The topic is an important one, and one that more of us could do with understanding.
Pleasantly well written, although the best parts are the beginning and the end. I found some of the chapters in the middle a little dull.
The basic message is that your memory is much more fallible than you probably realise. It does leave one feeling quite a lot less confident about what you think you know, but if that's reality its best that we all know it....more
There is a major irony in reading a book like this in physical form - when it is full of statements espousing the future, probably without too many phThere is a major irony in reading a book like this in physical form - when it is full of statements espousing the future, probably without too many physical books. Like most books that are making a projection about what will happen in the future, this will probably have a short shelf life. But for now I think it is one of the better attempts to make sense of the trends in technology and their implications. This should not be taken to mean I agree with everything Kelly writes, far from it. But he writes well, thoughtfully and in an engaging way. So, it is at least enjoyable to read.
Futurists have a tendency to 2 extremes - those seeing only Utopia and those seeing only doom. Kelly is more inclined to the Utopian viewpoint, although with occasional sections on the challenges of getting there. I have no doubt, to steal Kelly's title that the future is inevitable. That's the easy part, the hard bit is working out which future it will be. Kelly paints a believable picture from a technological perspective, but I think underplays the challenges in getting there and the social implications. A lot of people are going to push back, possibly in fairly assertive ways, on the future he suggests.
I suspect if you are the sort of person who is constantly reading about or engaged in technology this book will tell you nothing new - other than being a nice, condensed summary. On the other hand, if you are like me, someone who feels I ought to be interested in understanding the future but generally find much which is written dull and naive, you may enjoy this book somewhat more. ...more
Rather than really being a 3 star book, this is one of those annoying hybrids: at times a good 4 star read, at others a rather poorly edited 2 star boRather than really being a 3 star book, this is one of those annoying hybrids: at times a good 4 star read, at others a rather poorly edited 2 star book. If you are interested in the state of brain research and brain theory a worthwhile read for the information, but one I found at times quite irritating.
Swaab's claim that we are our brains does not sound like anything particularly controversial when you start - it would be the same claim of many modern thinkers and scientists. Where Swaab differs is in his arguments for quite how much of us is not only our brain, but how that has an unalterable state determined by genetics and what happens in the womb. He is very much firmly on the nature side of the nature versus nuture argument.
The science in this book is aimed at the intelligent lay reader rather than the real specialist. It is accessible, if at times a little dry. Like most books on the brain it describes the wonders of the brain through the problems that occur when it goes wrong. Occasionally, it would be nice to see more positive examples. Swaab lays some of the old tales to rest - we do not use just 10% of our brains, we use 100%. We do not lose millions of brain cells every time we drink, brains are more robust than that. And so on. It paints a very clear picture of the state of modern brain science and understanding of the brain. This is the good part.
Where the book is less successful is juggling between short whimsical autobiographical sections, the hard science bits, and then opinion pieces. It is the latter I found particularly irritating. In the section on the effects of various drugs on the brain, there is a section talking about how many politicians are alcoholics or drug addicts. Interesting in its own right - I'm not clear what its relevance to this book is. The chapter on the brain's impact on religious belief is the worst - there is relatively little on the brain, but plenty of a Dawkins like critique of religion. Now I have no fundamental problem with this, and am comfortable with much of what Swaab writes, but it does not fit within a book that is about the brain - not on the challenges of religion. A more detailed discussion of the impact of religious belief on the brain or vice-versa would have been much more interesting.
It seems to me Swaab lacked a sufficiently strong editor, who could point out the irrelevance of this sort of material. It also seems poor writing for a scientist to veer between evidence based science of which he is an expert in, and opinion pieces on subjects his opinion is just one amongst millions, without making clear which is which. To be fair, it is pretty obvious which is which, but I should not have to think about this in what purports to be a science book. And again, I stress this is not because I disagree with his opinion, but I'd wanted opinion pieces I would have read another book.
One other observation. Swaab spends the whole book saying we are our brains. Then in the chapter on free-will he says we have none, because most decisions are made by our unconscious brain. The point he seems to miss on this, is that this seems to be saying we are not our brains - or at least we are not all of our brains. He seems to be saying "we" are our conscious self only. The unconscious parts of our brains are not really us. It would seem to me, as a non-specialist, that my unconscious brain is just as much part of me as my conscious one, albeit one I am not aware of. If what he is saying is that our unconscious brain is predetermined in its decisions then that is quite a different point - but it is not one he ever makes. ...more
A long slow read for me. McGilchrist seems to be one of those people who really does have a brain the size of a planet - few people could be a consultA long slow read for me. McGilchrist seems to be one of those people who really does have a brain the size of a planet - few people could be a consultant psychiatrist, have done scientific research at John Hopkins and taught English at Oxford. His wide spanning knowledge shows in this book where he flows effortlessly between discussions about the structure of the brain, philosophy, literature, poetry, art and history. This is intellectually impressive stuff.
This is a disturbing book, well argued and researched, that explores McGilchrist's view that we are becoming increasingly left brain dominated. The disturbing side comes from the implications for society. Unless you have some knowledge of modern theories of the brain - you probably won't know the difference between left and right brain dominance (and it is not that trite pseudo science that is often said about the brain). Read the book to find out! It is an intriguing and interesting hypothesis.
Criticisms? Yes there are some. I want to pick on 3. This is not to put you off the book, but to make sure you know what you are getting into if you read it:
1) There are ten endorsements on the version of the book I have. Seven of them are from people with the title "professor". This should be a bit of a give-away that this is a fairly academic book. I have no issue with that - more a problem with the style that comes with this. It is written in a fairly academic style and it does read at times as if you are listening to an old professor ramble away. McGilchrist may have lectured in English at Oxford and know tons about literature, but his style is at times rambling and ponderous. Long sentences, with lots of sub-clauses. This does not always make for an easy read. I have been told he is a brilliant speaker, perhaps - but again great speakers don't always make great writers.
2) McGilchrist produces a lot of evidence for his theory. If you do not have a brain, an education and have done the research to match his, (i.e. you are like me) then all you get are the data in favour of his arguments. For all I know there are equal amounts of good data pointing the other way. This does not detract from the book, but I think it does mean you have to be clear you are only seeing one side of the argument. You probably will never see the other side unless someone else decides to write it and you choose to read it.
3) Most of his arguments in favour of increasing left brain dominance relate to things like art, poetry, literature, philosophy, music and so on. It is, in other words, a fairly elitist view of the world. Are the habits we see in people watching or participating in sport, TV or mainstream cinema and what sorts of politics are currently fashionable equally a sign of left brain dominance? I have absolutely no idea, but it would have been good if Gilchrist could have found some everyday examples to back up his theory.
Conclusions: read this if you like scholarly works, like inter-disciplinary thinking, cultural and artistic history, or have an interest in brain science and philosophy. If you are looking for some popular science, this may not be quite what you were expecting. ...more
Loading...
