Skip to main content

Thinkonomics - Robert Johnson **

Although Thinkonomics is borderline as popular science, it claims to cover logic and critical thinking, aspects of mathematics and the scientific method respectively, so I thought I’d give it a go.

 This is, without doubt, an unusual little book. In fact I’d go so far as to say I’ve never read anything like it. It’s like sitting in a pub, listening to a highly opinionated person hold out on his favourite topics of the day, from politics and sport to animal rights.

 Despite the promise of insights into critical thinking and logic, what we get instead is opinions stated as if they were facts. Some of them may indeed be true, but the weakness in terms of presenting arguments in an allegedly scientific fashion is that there is very rarely data provided or any other evidence given to back up the statements.

 This means that sometimes we get what feel like political stereotypes (the Conservative party is intent on selling off the National Health Service, for example) and sometimes there are evidence-free remarks that feel totally off the cuff. So, for example, when talking about physics, we are told that ‘however small you get, something else logically must make up that "thing". Atoms contain electrons, which orbit a nucleus, which is made of protons and neutrons, which are made of quarks... etc... this must go on forever, as far as we understand;’. It’s certainly news to me that electrons and quarks aren’t fundamental particles - we certainly don't understand that this goes on forever, nor is there any argument given as to why this 'must go on for ever.'

 All this is supported by a writing style that feels distinctly old fogey, though as the author refers to a living grandparent, I assume he is a relatively young fogey. That isn’t helped by quite a few writing errors, the most egregious of which is probably the use of the mangled phrase ‘the proof is in the pudding.’ No it isn’t. ‘Proof’ here means ‘test’; the proof is in the eating - we test the pudding by eating it - not in the pudding.

 Thinkonomics is not all bad by any means, though it certainly doesn't bear any resemblance to titles such as Freakonomics that it appears to be attempting to emulate. A book like this provides useful challenges to personal viewpoints. in some cases, the reader will probably agree with the presented opinions - for example, I thought Robert Johnson’s comments on the ludicrous nature of many Olympic sports were spot on - which gives the reader a mental pat on the back. In other cases, the opinions will run counter to the reader’s own - giving some opportunity for reflection, though due to the lack of factual backup to the arguments, there will probably be very few who are converted in their viewpoint.

 Interesting, then, but I really don’t think it does what it says on the tin.

Paperback:  

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