Skip to main content

Forgotten Science - S. D. Tucker ***

The reader needs a strong stomach to cope with the introduction to this collection of weird, wonderful and often obscure scientific endeavours. S. D. Tucker spends a fair amount of the 37 pages (that's a long introduction) on animal (and human) experiments involving vivesection. But once we're past this, although we hit on the occasional stomach churner, there are more palatable if misguided attempts at science to enjoy that were mangled, muddled or simply mad. 

Tucker has a conversational style, which is sometimes dry, but at others could do with a little reining in. So, for instance, when describing the unfortunate treatment Tim Hunt when he made an unwise joke about women in the lab, we are told that Hunt was 'chased out by a gaggle of self-righteous harridans, puritanical Twitter mobs and other such ranks of the professionally offended', which probably is not an ideal description. 

Things don't get a lot better when Tucker gets on to climate change. Although he doesn't present an out-an-out attack on the science, he presents us what he regards as ridiculous examples of overreaction, including a report that cows' output of methane contributes to global warming - given methane is a far more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon monoxide, and cows belch a lot of methane (not, as, Tucker puts it so delicately 'cows bum-holes did far more damage…') it's a perfectly reasonable observation.

Forgotten Science is a strange mixture. Sometimes, Tucker makes valid and interesting criticisms of science and the way it is carried out, but at others he produces a rant, or spends a good number of pages on the activities of the Rosicrucians or Milton's views inspired by the Book of Daniel, which didn't seem awfully relevant to the title. Admittedly, all this is vaguely linked to Francis Bacon and some of the early Royal Society members - but it felt at best tangential. It was the same with a long chapter on the playwright Strindberg and Tesla (a great engineer, but never much of a scientist) - the topics seemed to be covered at length because they interested the author, rather than because they had much to do with the book - and though there are certainly plenty of 'strange ideas from the scrapheap of history' in Tesla's weirder claims, the account here is too rambling to highlight these.

Occasionally, Tucker attributes beliefs and assertions to science and scientists which don't reflect reality. At one point there appears to be a total misunderstanding of evolution, suggesting that it is about progress to some sort of greater goal (elsewhere correctly contradicted by saying it's not about progress) - plus the bizarre suggestion that scientists tell us than mankind has a 'special nature in the scheme of things', where in my experience most scientists go too far the other way and regard exceptionalism as an insult.

There are sensible criticisms of science and the way it is carried out here, but they are mixed with constant undermining of the message. For example, Tucker says 'This is meant to be the "century of biology", if you believe the hype, and there is often good reason to do so.' This somehow manages to be totally critical of the concept and agree with it at the same time - it's confusing for the reader. 

Overall, reading the book was quite frustrating. Some of Tucker's arguments are legitimate - for example in criticising the tendency of some scientists to try to extend science's reach beyond where it's effective (including ludicrous condemnation of entertaining fiction from fairy tales to X-Files and Star Trek), or the tendency to confuse a scientific model with reality and look for black and white answers (though that is usually more from the press than the scientists themselves) - yet there is so much contrary material thrown in that it's hard to pick out the message.      

Hardback:  

Kindle:  
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you


Review by Brian Clegg

Comments

  1. Roald Hoffmann remarks that we should be grateful to book critics for doing what we are too lazy to do ourselves. I would add that in a case like this we should be grateful to the critic for spending his own time, so that we do not need to spend our own.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The AI Paradox - Virginia Dignum ****

This is a really important book in the way that Virginia Dignum highlights various ways we can misunderstand AI and its abilities using a series of paradoxes. However, I need to say up front that I'm giving it four stars for the ideas: unfortunately the writing is not great. It reads more like a government report than anything vaguely readable - it really should have co-authored with a professional writer to make it accessible. Even so, I'm recommending it: like some government reports it's significant enough to make it necessary to wade through the bureaucrat speak. Why paradoxes? Dignum identifies two ways we can think about paradoxes (oddly I wrote about paradoxes recently , but with three definitions): a logical paradox such as 'this statement is false', or a paradoxical truth such as 'less is more' - the second of which seems a better to fit to the use here.  We are then presented with eight paradoxes, each of which gives some insights into aspects of t...

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, ...

Einstein's Fridge - Paul Sen ****

In Einstein's Fridge (interesting factoid: this is at least the third popular science book to be named after Einstein's not particularly exciting refrigerator), Paul Sen has taken on a scary challenge. As Jim Al-Khalili made clear in his excellent The World According to Physics , our physical understanding of reality rests on three pillars: relativity, quantum theory and thermodynamics. But there is no doubt that the third of these, the topic of Sen's book, is a hard sell. While it's true that these are the three pillars of physics, from the point of view of making interesting popular science, the first two might be considered pillars of gold and platinum, while the third is a pillar of salt. Relativity and quantum theory are very much of the twentieth century. They are exciting and sometimes downright weird and wonderful. Thermodynamics, by contrast, has a very Victorian feel and, well, is uninspiring. Luckily, though, thermodynamics is important enough, lying behind ...