Skip to main content

The Science of Doctor Who – Paul Parsons ****

Science fiction is the flirty, flighty, naughty cousin of popular science. Although purists will tell you the only decent SF is in books, there have been some exceptions on TV, and two shows stand out like beacons. One is Star Trek, for the way it has become an integral part of modern culture. The other is Doctor Who. This British programme has driven its way ahead of the rest both because of its longevity – in 2006 it was about to start a new season 43 years after the first episode, which was broadcast the day after Kennedy’s assassination – and because of its refreshing originality. This hasn’t always been evident in its long run, but was clearly there when it captured audiences back in 1963 as something new and different, and has been evident again in its latest incarnation, started in 2005, where it took on not only modern production values, but has also inherited the slick wit of Buffy the Vampire Slayer – as is obvious from the delightful quotes in Paul Parson’s book.
I have to take the risky step of arguing with science fiction’s very own sage, Arthur C. Clarke, who wrote the introduction to the book. He suggests that Dr Who might really be considered fantasy rather science fiction, as some of the “science” is very far fetched. I think this misses the point – much science fiction, particularly TV science fiction, rather skimps over elements of the science: in the end, important though the science is, the plot must generally come first. (James Blish famously wrote some SF that was purely idea driven, such as his short story Beep, and wasn’t alone in this, but most popular SF needs a good plot.) The distinction between SF and fantasy can’t really be “is it likely?” or you rule out faster than light travel, matter transmitters, time travel, interstellar travel – practically everything that makes SF interesting. Instead the distinction has to be something like “are any special capabilities intended to be based on science and techology or something else?” – and on the whole Dr Who remains firmly in science fiction.
This is born out when you get into Parsons’ book proper. He may occasionally have to stretch the improbables a long way, but it’s only rarely that he has to announce something is out-and-out wrong rather than very, very unlikely. Whether it’s time travel itself, the Tardis being bigger on the inside than the outside, or the Doctor’s two hearts, Parsons can deliver an answer. Along the way as we meet wild aliens, strange robots and even a virtual reality world called the Matrix (years before the feature film of the same name), Parsons keeps the reader intrigued and entertained. You do have to have seen Doctor Who to get the most out of this book, but certainly don’t have to be a fan. If you haven’t come across the most recent incarnation of the show (at the time of writing, those featuring Christopher Eccleston and David Tennant), it’s worth trying to catch an episode or two, as the book makes frequent reference to the newer episodes (with good reason).
This isn’t the first “science of Doctor Who” book. Michael White got there first with his much more intriguingly titled A Teaspoon and An Open Mind. But White’s book had significant flaws. In particular, it failed to tie in closely enough to Dr Who itself. It took a basic concept from the show – time travel, say – then went off on a long riff on time travel. This misses the point of the “Science of” genre. We don’t want to know all there is to know about time travel, we want to know how the Tardis, the Doctor’s travel device, could work. Where Michael White failed, Paul Parsons delivers much more effectively. Although he may just occasionally go too far, going into the details of too many obscure aliens for all but the most ardent fan, mostly he gets the balance right. The science is good, the fit to Doctor Who is good and the writing is good – the result is one of the better ventures into the concept of “Science of”. If you like Doctor Who (whether a traditionalist or one of the army of new fans from the latest version) or just want to explore some weird and wonderful science, this is a must-have.
Paperback:  
Review by Brian Clegg

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Where are the chemistry popular science books?

by Brian Clegg
There has never been more emphasis on the importance of public engagement. We need both to encourage a deeper interest in science and to counter anti-scientific views that seem to go hand-in-hand with some types of politics. Getting the public interested in science both helps recruit new scientists of the future and spreads an understanding of why an area of scientific research deserves funding. Yet it is possible that chemistry lags behind the other sciences in outreach. As a science writer, and editor of this website, I believe that chemistry is under-represented in popular science. I'd like to establish if this is the case, if so why it is happening - and what can be done to change things. 


An easy straw poll is provided by the topic tags on the site. At the time of writing, there are 22 books under 'chemistry' as opposed to 97 maths, 126 biology and 182 physics. The distribution is inevitably influenced by editorial bias - but as the editor, I can confirm …

The Universe Speaks in Numbers - Graham Farmelo ****

Theoretical physics has taken something of a hammering lately with books such as Sabine Hossenfelder's Lost in Math. The suggestion from these earlier titles is that theoretical physics is so obsessed with mathematics that many theoretical physicists spend their careers working on theory that doesn't actually apply to the universe, because the maths is interesting. Even experimental physics can be tainted, as the driver for new expenditure in experiments, such as the proposed new collider at CERN, is not driven by discoveries but by these mathematically-directed theories. Graham Farmelo presents the opposite view here: that this speculative mathematical work is, in fact, a great success.
As I am very much in the Hossenfelder camp, I expected to find Farmelo's book rather irritating, as it's effectively a love letter to mathematically-obsessed theoretical physics - but in reality (an entertaining phrase, given the context) I found it both interesting and enjoyable. Far…

The Perils of Perception - Bobby Duffy ****

How we see the world is not the way it really is. There have been several books based on this premise in the last few years, from Hans Rosling's impressive Factfulness to the distinctly fanciful The Case Against Reality by Donald Hoffman. In The Perils of Perception, Bobby Duffy takes an approach that is similar to Rosling's in surveying large numbers of people in different countries (in fact, one chapter of the book specifically references Rosling), but rather than concentrate as Rosling does on the specific topic of development, Duffy takes a much wider sweep of coverage of our perceptions of our world - and just like Rosling finds that most of us are way off on our appreciation of how things really are.
Whether we're dealing with politics and immigration, finance, climate change, sex or crime, Duffy shows that the majority of people tend to get things wrong. (I think I've read too many of these books, as I tended, if anything, to err in the opposite direction to the …