Skip to main content

Ten Questions Science Can’t Answer (Yet) – Michael Hanlon *****

At first glance, a book of questions that science can’t answer is a pretty dull read. Questions alone aren’t enough – we need answers as well. Yet Michael Hanlon makes this topic a voyage of discovery into the unknown. Once you get started, it’s hard to put it down.
Each of the first eight topics (yes, I know there are ten – I’ll come back to this) is a surprising and engaging excursion into a subject that you may not have thought about before, but you certainly will be thinking about once you’ve read the book. It starts with the exploration of whether or not animals are conscious. Next up is the whole matter of time – a strange phenomenon, once you start to think about it. Then after a section on aging and whether we can live forever comes one of the big surprises – a fascinating discussion entitled “what are we going to do with the stupid.” Hanlon points out that where in past centuries we used to happily mock the disabled, or those of different race, now it’s only politically correct to mock those who are at the low end of normal intelligence. That, he argues, is the reason reality TV shows are so popular. And with the job market constantly changing, with less and less “brute force” and more “brain” jobs, there is a real issue of how to give everyone the best chances – a really thought provoking section.
From there he goes on to dark matter and dark energy, life in the universe, whether we remain the same person when every cell in our body changes, and the widespread nature of obesity and fatness, which proves under his scrutiny much less straightforward than you might think.
The only let down is the last two chapters. The ninth is entitled “can we really be sure the paranormal is bunkum”, which sounded very promising, but Hanlon changes from a rather laid back style to downright aggressive here, and it’s both a little unpleasant and confusing. The confusion arises out of a mixed message – in one breath he’s saying “everything paranormal (including organized religion) is rubbish” and in another “though it’s mostly rubbish, there are elements that could be worth investigating.” The unpleasantness comes from the vigour with which he puts down the supernatural. Despite statistics to the contrary, Hanlon suggests that most rational people consider all supernatural concerns (including religious beliefs) to be “gibberish”. Clearly this is historically untrue, and arguably is also untrue of the present day world. He even contradicts himself, saying later in the piece that a 1979 survey found that the majority of American professors surveyed were prepared to accept that ESP was a possibility worth studying.
He makes matters worse in his attack on “intercessory prayer.” Now I have to confess I don’t believe in that praying over someone results in a supernatural intervention to make them better, but I still have problems with his remark “It never seems to be the case, puzzlingly, that the volunteers are asked to pray for a worsening of the patients’ condition…” Setting aside whether or not intercession for harming might work, if you translate this question into a medical equivalent, it’s a bit like asking why conventional medical trials don’t attempt to give intentional overdoses to see how badly the patients are hurt. It just doesn’t quite make sense.
The tenth chapter, which is a brief exploration of how we can be sure anything is real hasn’t got the same problems, it’s just a touch flimsy. Despite my concerns about chapter nine, though, I still have no doubts in awarding this book five stars – it’s well worth it for those first eight, thought provoking and fascinating chapters.

Paperback 
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
Review by Brian Clegg

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Antigravity Enigma - Andrew May ****

Antigravity - the ability to overcome the pull of gravity - has been a fantasy for thousands of years and subject to more scientific (if impractical) fictional representation since H. G. Wells came up with cavorite in The First Men in the Moon . But is it plausible scientifically?  Andrew May does a good job of pulling together three ways of looking at our love affair with antigravity (and the related concept of cancelling inertia) - in science fiction, in physics and in pseudoscience and crankery. As May points out, science fiction is an important starting point as the concept was deployed there well before we had a good enough understanding of gravity to make any sensible scientific stabs at the idea (even though, for instance, Michael Faraday did unsuccessfully experiment with a possible interaction between gravity and electromagnetism). We then get onto the science itself, noting the potential impact on any ideas of antigravity that come from the move from a Newtonian view of a...

The World as We Know It - Peter Dear ***

History professor Peter Dear gives us a detailed and reasoned coverage of the development of science as a concept from its origins as natural philosophy, covering the years from the eighteenth to the twentieth century. inclusive If that sounds a little dry, frankly, it is. But if you don't mind a very academic approach, it is certainly interesting. Obviously a major theme running through is the move from largely gentleman natural philosophers (with both implications of that word 'gentleman') to professional academic scientists. What started with clubs for relatively well off men with an interest, when universities did not stray far beyond what was included in mathematics (astronomy, for instance), would become a very different beast. The main scientific subjects that Dear covers are physics and biology - we get, for instance, a lot on the gradual move away from a purely mechanical views of physics - the reason Newton's 'action at a distance' gravity caused such ...

It's On You - Nick Chater and George Loewenstein *****

Going on the cover you might think this was a political polemic - and admittedly there's an element of that - but the reason it's so good is quite different. It shows how behavioural economics and social psychology have led us astray by putting the focus way too much on individuals. A particular target is the concept of nudges which (as described in Brainjacking ) have been hugely over-rated. But overall the key problem ties to another psychological concept: framing. Huge kudos to both Nick Chater and George Loewenstein - a behavioural scientist and an economics and psychology professor - for having the guts to take on the flaws in their own earlier work and that of colleagues, because they make clear just how limited and potentially dangerous is the belief that individuals changing their behaviour can solve large-scale problems. The main thesis of the book is that there are two ways to approach the major problems we face - an 'i-frame' where we focus on the individual ...