Skip to main content

From Cosmos to Chaos – Peter Coles ***

There are times when I think there’s a ‘Shoot Ourselves in the Foot’ department at Oxford University Press. It might seem the only explanation for the frequency with which they produce popular science books that are brilliant concepts but terribly executed. In fact, I think the reason is down to their choice of authors. They seem to choose authors on their academic background, rather than their ability to communicate. So what the reader often ends up with is a book that is replete with promise, but that fails to deliver in catastrophic fashion.
This book is perhaps the most dramatic example of this I have ever seen. The subject is fascinating, both in its intellectually engaging nature and its applicability. Yet the contents are a disaster for the popular science reader. Anyone attempting to read it who isn’t at least a student on a maths or physics degree course is doomed to frustration. It simply doesn’t explain enough, and what it does put across makes much too heavy use of maths.
This is hair-tearingly frustrating because the topic is wonderful. In a slim volume of 211 smallish pages, Peter Coles introduces probability theory, the importance of statistics to science and everyday life, the difference between a Bayesian and frequentist approach to statistics and observes how Bayesian statistics could be of great value in getting a better understanding of many areas. And he throws in quite a lot of cosmology, explaining the importance of statistics in the field. Any one of these would make engaging reading in its own right – together it’s a tour-de-force. In content terms this is easily a five star book.
Yet time after time the reader struggles to understand just what is going on. This isn’t helped by an unusually high number of misprints (often missing words rendering a sentence meaningless), but primarily it’s because the language is impenetrable and Coles does not shy away from scattering the page with integral calculus, instantly turning off 90% of the audience. I’ve always felt the famous advice given to Stephen Hawking that each use of an equation halves the audience was exaggerated – and it very much depends how you use those equations – but here they are much too frequent and too complex. Coles also sticks to the representations used in the ‘real’ equations where often these could be simplified by using terms that are more meaningful.
Altogether the resultant effect is huge frustration. For those who can get the point of this book – pretty well any working scientist with a reasonable grasp of maths, for example – it’s highly recommended. And I know scientists are a significant part of the audience for popular science. But a wider audience deserves to access what’s in this book.
I’d like to make a proposition to OUP. How about doing two versions of books like this, the original and one re-written for the general reader by someone who knows how to communicate science outside the scientific community. (I’d even volunteer to write the general reader versions!) Now that really would be something to celebrate. But for the moment there’s more chaos than cosmos in this book.
Hardback:  
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you  
Review by Brian Clegg
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Roger Highfield - Stephen Hawking: genius at work interview

Roger Highfield OBE is the Science Director of the Science Museum Group. Roger has visiting professorships at the Department of Chemistry, UCL, and at the Dunn School, University of Oxford, is a Fellow of the Academy of Medical Sciences, and a member of the Medical Research Council and Longitude Committee. He has written or co-authored ten popular science books, including two bestsellers. His latest title is Stephen Hawking: genius at work . Why science? There are three answers to this question, depending on context: Apollo; Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, along with the world’s worst nuclear accident at Chernobyl; and, finally, Nullius in verba . Growing up I enjoyed the sciencey side of TV programmes like Thunderbirds and The Avengers but became completely besotted when, in short trousers, I gazed up at the moon knowing that two astronauts had paid it a visit. As the Apollo programme unfolded, I became utterly obsessed. Today, more than half a century later, the moon landings are
Post a Comment
Read more

Space Oddities - Harry Cliff *****

In this delightfully readable book, Harry Cliff takes us into the anomalies that are starting to make areas of physics seems to be nearing a paradigm shift, just as occurred in the past with relativity and quantum theory. We start with, we are introduced to some past anomalies linked to changes in viewpoint, such as the precession of Mercury (explained by general relativity, though originally blamed on an undiscovered planet near the Sun), and then move on to a few examples of apparent discoveries being wrong: the BICEP2 evidence for inflation (where the result was caused by dust, not the polarisation being studied),  the disappearance of an interesting blip in LHC results, and an apparent mistake in the manipulation of numbers that resulted in alleged discovery of dark matter particles. These are used to explain how statistics plays a part, and the significance of sigmas . We go on to explore a range of anomalies in particle physics and cosmology that may indicate either a breakdown i
Post a Comment
Read more

Splinters of Infinity - Mark Wolverton ****

Many of us who read popular science regularly will be aware of the 'great debate' between American astronomers Harlow Shapley and Heber Curtis in 1920 over whether the universe was a single galaxy or many. Less familiar is the clash in the 1930s between American Nobel Prize winners Robert Millikan and Arthur Compton over the nature of cosmic rays. This not a book about the nature of cosmic rays as we now understand them, but rather explores this confrontation between heavyweight scientists. Millikan was the first in the fray, and often wrongly named in the press as discoverer of cosmic rays. He believed that this high energy radiation from above was made up of photons that ionised atoms in the atmosphere. One of the reasons he was determined that they should be photons was that this fitted with his thesis that the universe was in a constant state of creation: these photons, he thought, were produced in the birth of new atoms. This view seems to have been primarily driven by re
Post a Comment
Read more