Skip to main content

Making Time – Steve Taylor ***

If you think of Albert Einstein you might come up with many things, but not necessarily jokes. Yet Einstein did once do a funny. He claimed that this was the abstract of a paper he once wrote: When a man sits with a pretty girl for an hour, it seems like a minute. But let him sit on a hot stove for a minute – and it’s longer than any hour. That’s relativity. The journal he claimed it was published in was called Journal of Exothermic Science and Technology, and the full paper is supposed to describe him attempting to undertake the experiment in question. (The film star Paulette Goddard, introduced to Einstein by mutual friend Charlie Chaplin, was the pretty girl in question.) I have only ever seen this paper referred to as a genuine, if humorous, academic contribution, though the way that the initials of the spurious sounding journal spell out JEST might suggest that Einstein made the whole thing up. Funny though this may be, it reflects an underlying truth – time runs away with us when we aren’t concentrating on a regular beat, and that is at the heart of this book.
The trouble is, there is very little other significant content. Steve Taylor tells us how we subjectively speed up and slow down time, and for me this book definitely slowed down time because there was so little in it – it was the classic example of a magazine article stretched out to fill a whole book. It didn’t matter how much Taylor padded out the simple observations that some things we do make time go faster for us, and some things slower – whether by giving these concepts grand sounding names as the “Laws of Psychological Time” – the fact is it there’s very little substance here.
It gets even worse when Taylor attempts to bring in science, because the result is all too reminiscent of the way pseudo-scientists use a few scientific terms to try to dress up hokum, but get the science just a bit wrong. I’m not qualified to say how up-to-date his psychological ideas are – though the dependence on such a Freudian term as “the ego” may suggest they are dated, but when he strays into physics and cosmology, things certainly go to pieces. Taylor doesn’t make the classic mistake of thinking Einstein was serious, and Einsteinian relativity is concerned with subjective time, but he does make plenty of comments about relativity, whether it’s the fact that cause and effect can be reversed (true if you travel faster than light, but not hugely common otherwise) or saying that relativity means that time flow varies, an observation that is only true when observing someone in relative motion to yourself and not in the cases he is talking about. This suggests he has only a faint grasp of what Einstein was on about.
In just one paragraph, he makes it clear his ideas on cosmology are way out of date, getting the dating of the big bang over 2 billion years out by modern reckoning (what’s a couple of billion years?) and suggesting that the current belief is that we are headed for a “big crunch” where the universe will collapse back together – he seems to have missed the whole dark energy thing. He then tells us that our “western scientific viewpoint” is historically anomalous. Really this is a big “so what?” point. Almost everything we know to be true now is historically anomalous, because until a few hundred years ago, no one had a clue what was going on either in the universe or on a microscopic scale. All of medicine is historically anomalous. The Earth moving around the Sun is historically anomalous. So?
Finally he offers us some solutions based on meditation and deep scientific considerations like “we will get more out of life if we explore new places and get in new situations.” This is the sort of book that will get plenty of coverage in the media, but frankly does very little for the advancement of scientific knowledge. You know the sort of book it’s going to be when you read that there’s massive anecdotal evidence for precognition. Scientists are often suspicious of anecdotes, preferring to stick to hard facts they can verify (or not) through experiments. But surely there are some cases where anecdotal evidence is so widespread an persuasive that is has to be taken seriously? The simple answer is “no”, Mr Taylor.
I really get fed up of repeating the wonderful quote from the book Voodoo Science by Robert Park: “Data is not the plural of anecdote.” There used to be loads of anecdotal evidence for the existence of unicorns, just as there still is for alien abduction. Anecdotes prove nothing. They can show there is a need for investigation, but that is all. In cases of the paranormal, like precognition, all the anecdotes have yet to produce any significant results (Taylor has to dig back to Rhine’s discredited work). If Mr Taylor has any doubts, James Randi has a million dollars on offer for anyone who can reproduce an ability like precognition under proper conditions. (See his website for details.) No one has yet to come close.
All in all, then, a fascinating topic, but this book provides very little useful content on the matter.

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

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A (Very) Short History of Life on Earth - Henry Gee *****

In writing this book, Henry Gee had a lot to live up to. His earlier title  The Accidental Species was a superbly readable and fascinating description of the evolutionary process leading to Homo sapiens . It seemed hard to beat - but he has succeeded with what is inevitably going to be described as a tour-de-force. As is promised on the cover, we are taken through nearly 4.6 billion years of life on Earth (actually rather more, as I'll cover below). It's a mark of Gee's skill that what could have ended up feeling like an interminable list of different organisms comes across instead as something of a pager turner. This is helped by the structuring - within those promised twelve chapters everything is divided up into handy bite-sized chunks. And although there certainly are very many species mentioned as we pass through the years, rather than feeling overwhelming, Gee's friendly prose and careful timing made the approach come across as natural and organic.  There was a w

On the Fringe - Michael Gordin *****

This little book is a pleasant surprise. That word 'little', by the way, is not intended as an insult, but a compliment. Kudos to OUP for realising that a book doesn't have to be three inches thick to be interesting. It's just 101 pages before you get to the notes - and that's plenty. The topic is fringe science or pseudoscience: it could be heavy going in a condensed form, but in fact Michael Gordin keeps the tone light and readable. In some ways, the most interesting bit is when Gordin plunges into just what pseudoscience actually is. As he points out, there are elements of subjectivity to this. For example, some would say that string theory is pseudoscience, even though many real scientists have dedicated their careers to it. Gordin also points out that, outside of denial (more on this a moment), many supporters of what most of us label pseudoscience do use the scientific method and see themselves as doing actual science. Gordin breaks pseudoscience down into a n

Michael D. Gordin - Four Way Interview

Michael D. Gordin is a historian of modern science and a professor at Princeton University, with particular interests in the physical sciences and in science in Russia and the Soviet Union. He is the author of six books, ranging from the periodic table to early nuclear weapons to the history of scientific languages. His most recent book is On the Fringe: Where Science Meets Pseudoscience (Oxford University Press). Why history of science? The history of science grabbed me long before I knew that there were actual historians of science out there. I entered college committed to becoming a physicist, drawn in by the deep intellectual puzzles of entropy, quantum theory, and relativity. When I started taking courses, I came to understand that what really interested me about those puzzles were not so much their solutions — still replete with paradoxes — but rather the rich debates and even the dead-ends that scientists had taken to trying to resolve them. At first, I thought this fell under