Skip to main content

Twenty Worlds - Niall Deacon *****

This is a truly entertaining and informative book, but the reason I’m giving it the full five stars has as much to do with the refreshing novelty of the author’s style as anything else. There’s novelty in the subject-matter too – the wide variety of recently discovered exoplanets orbiting other stars – but even so this is the third book on the topic that I’ve read. The first two were a lot less fun to read, and (without naming and shaming the authors) it’s worth a brief diversion to explain why.

The first author was a university professor with a vast knowledge of the subject, who seemed determined to convey the entirety of that knowledge without stopping to think whether it was interesting or necessary for a general audience. The second author – another academic – took a different but equally tedious approach, with a plodding chronological account that focused as much on the dull routine of the scientists involved as on their work.

Niall Deacon doesn’t make either of those mistakes. He’s a professional astronomer too, though you wouldn’t guess that from his writing style, which is as straightforward and lucid as science writing gets. Each of his 20 chapters is focused, not just on a single planet, but on one or two interesting new things about it. This gives him more space to get the key points across, without cluttering up the picture with peripheral detail. It’s this lack of extraneous detail that gives the book a different feel from the usual run of popular science books. We’re rarely told, for example, the date that a particular planet was discovered or the names of the researchers involved (although these can be surmised from the list of references at the end).

Deacon’s narrative style is unconventional, too. New scientific ideas are approached by an oddly lateral route, starting with a seemingly random, everyday metaphor and then gently easing the reader towards the point he’s trying to make. So you get chapters starting with anything from Ramadan or the Beatles or David Attenborough to frisbees, vaccinations and mountain lakes. I  found this rather bemusing at first, but once I got used to his style it was fun trying to guess where he was going with an idea.

The fact that there’s at least one new idea per chapter means the book’s emphasis is on breadth and variety – not just of the exoplanets themselves, but of how they were discovered. A few of the more obscure ones were new to me, despite my previous reading on the subject. I didn’t know exoplanets had been found using gravitational microlensing, for example – or that, with hindsight, evidence for a planet orbiting van Maanen’s star may have been found more than a century ago. I was also delighted to learn about WASP – Britain’s low-budget answer to the Kepler space telescope, consisting of an array of Canon telephoto lenses purchased on eBay and installed on a mountain in the Canary Islands.

When I saw the word ‘worlds’ rather than ‘planets’ in the book’s title, I assumed the focus would be on potentially habitable, Earth-like planets. But if anything, the opposite is true. To use Deacon’s analogy, beginning a planet hunt by saying ‘let’s look for another Earth’ is a bit like British tourists in an exotic far-flung destination saying ‘let’s find a fish and chip shop’. I’m aware of three or four well-known exoplanets that are often mooted as possible ‘other Earths’ that he doesn’t even mention. But to do so would risk turning the book into a boringly repetitive catalogue – and happily it’s the exact opposite of that.

Hardback:    
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
Review by Andrew May

Comments

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 ...

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, ...

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...