Skip to main content

Homo Mysterious – David R. Barash ***

There is an interesting premise (and a dubious assumption) underlying this book. The premise is that some of the most interesting bits of science are the bits where we don’t actually know the answers – in this case, in the ‘evolutionary puzzles of human nature’ to quote the subtitle. The dubious bit is the author’s assumption that this is a new idea. David Barash comments ‘One of these days I will design a course titled something like “What we don’t know about biology,” hoping that my colleagues in chemistry, physics, geology, mathematics, psychology, and the like will join in the fun.’
It may be true that biologists often present their science as if it were all known facts, but I think physicists, for example, have always emphasized the gaps in out knowledge in their courses. If you think of cosmology, for example, with about 95% of the mass-energy of the universe unexplained, or the uncertainty over the standard model or quantum gravity, I think that it’s clear that in at least some sciences there is already a fairly widespread awareness, and maybe it’s just a matter of biology catching up.
Even so, it’s a good thing to acknowledge this – homing in on the detailed human biology aspects of what Stuart Firestein identified as the driving force of science: ignorance (in a good way). Barash takes on a detailed exploration of many of the mysteries of human biology – primarily sexual features (particular in the female), homosexuality, art and religion. He does this by examining different hypotheses for why, for example, menstruation takes such a dramatic form in humans (different from pretty well every other mammal), or why we create art.
In the process of examining these hypotheses, Barash can be quite vicious in attacking some ideas that he doesn’t like (particularly those proposed some while ago by poor old Desmond Morris, who gets a lot of stick). On the whole Barash’s writing style is good – amiable and approachable (though I think Richard Dawkins goes over the top calling it ‘A beautifully written book.’
In principle this should be good stuff, and bits of it are, particularly, I think, the first of the two chapters on art. However the reality is, to be honest, rather boring in far too many places. It’s partly because there’s no resolution. Of course it’s important to know that there are these areas where we don’t know the answers, but we all like to get to some conclusions, so the sheer open endedness of it can be trying. But it’s also because reading repeated hypothesis after hypothesis to explain particular traits, some of which can be rather samey, just gets dull after a while.
If this is an area that particularly interests you, then these different possibilities should be both informative and exciting. But if you are coming at this from a general interest in science, wanting to explore a new area, then the lack of conclusions will probably prove a touch frustrating, and the strings of hypotheses will test your boredom threshold.

Hardback:  

Kindle:  
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

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 ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Introducing Artificial Intelligence – Henry Brighton & Howard Selina ****

It is almost impossible to rate these relentlessly hip books – they are pure marmite*. The huge  Introducing  … series (a vast range of books covering everything from Quantum Theory to Islam), previously known as …  for Beginners , puts across the message in a style that owes as much to Terry Gilliam and pop art as it does to popular science. Pretty well every page features large graphics with speech bubbles that are supposed to emphasise the point. Funnily,  Introducing Artificial Intelligence  is both a good and bad example of the series. Let’s get the bad bits out of the way first. The illustrators of these books are very variable, and I didn’t particularly like the pictures here. They did add something – the illustrations in these books always have a lot of information content, rather than being window dressing – but they seemed more detached from the text and rather lacking in the oomph the best versions have. The other real problem is that...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Laws of Thought - Tom Griffiths *****

In giving us a history of attempts to explain our thinking abilities, Tom Griffiths demonstrates an excellent ability to pitch information just right for the informed general reader.  We begin with Aristotelian logic and the way Boole and others transformed it into a kind of arithmetic before a first introduction of computing and theories of language. Griffiths covers a surprising amount of ground - we don't just get, for instance, the obvious figures of Turing, von Neumann and Shannon, but the interaction between the computing pioneers and those concerned with trying to understand the way we think - for example in the work of Jerome Bruner, of whom I confess I'd never heard.  This would prove to be the case with a whole host of people who have made interesting contributions to the understanding of human thought processes. Sometimes their theories were contradictory - this isn't an easy field to successfully observe - but always they were interesting. But for me, at least, ...
Post a Comment
Read more