Your Wit is My Command - Tony Veale ***

This book had so much potential as a popular science title, but the way it is written limits its audience. Instead of being the fascinating narrative it could have been, it comes across as a textbook lite with a few popular science moments - so it is unlikely to really appeal to either audience. It was certainly hard going for a topic that should have been such fun.

What Tony Veale tries to do is understand and analyse the nature of jokes (the subtitle says sense of humour (well, humor), but the focus is primarily on jokes, which isn't quite the same thing) by looking at how computer software can be made to produce humorous text. There are some insights here, but the trouble is that it is necessary to wade through far too much description of what was necessary technically, which will only be of interest to computer scientists, and even when Veale is discussing what makes something funny, he relies on very stuffy-sounding theory which doesn't really chime with the general reader.

As an example of a limitation, although the subject is supposed to be a sense of humour, there is very little discussion of how this varies between people. For example, I hate The Office-style embarrassment humour, or humour that is dependent on someone getting physically hurt - but I know that some people love this. It would be interesting to know why. Equally, many of the examples in the book that are supposed to be funny really didn't chime with my sense of humour.

The whole exercise is not devoid of interest. I found the way that twitterbots could use material from Twitter to generate potentially funny tweets interesting, for example. But I think it would have been far better either to write a good popular science assessment of the possibilities (for which, I suspect, Veale would have needed a co-author) or to go full textbook on us. The hybrid approach simply didn't work.

Hardback:

Bookshop.org

Kindle:

Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you

Review by Brian Clegg

Comments

Rakhat-Bi Abdyssagin Five Way Interview

Rakhat-Bi Abdyssagin (born in 1999) is a distinguished composer, concert pianist, music theorist and researcher. Three of his piano CDs have been released in Germany. He started his undergraduate degree at the age of 13 in Kazakhstan, and having completed three musical doctorates in prominent Italian music institutions at the age of 20, he has mastered advanced composition techniques. In 2024 he completed a PhD in music at the University of St Andrews / Royal Conservatoire of Scotland (researching timbre-texture co-ordinate in avant- garde music), and was awarded The Silver Medal of The Worshipful Company of Musicians, London. He has held visiting affiliations at the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge and UCL, and has been lecturing and giving talks internationally since the age of 13. His latest book is Quantum Mechanics and Avant Garde Music . What links quantum physics and avant-garde music? The entire book is devoted to this question. To put it briefly, there are many different link...

Everything is Predictable - Tom Chivers *****

There's a stereotype of computer users: Mac users are creative and cool, while PC users are businesslike and unimaginative. Less well-known is that the world of statistics has an equivalent division. Bayesians are the Mac users of the stats world, where frequentists are the PC people. This book sets out to show why Bayesians are not just cool, but also mostly right. Tom Chivers does an excellent job of giving us some historical background, then dives into two key aspects of the use of statistics. These are in science, where the standard approach is frequentist and Bayes only creeps into a few specific applications, such as the accuracy of medical tests, and in decision theory where Bayes is dominant. If this all sounds very dry and unexciting, it's quite the reverse. I admit, I love probability and statistics, and I am something of a closet Bayesian*), but Chivers' light and entertaining style means that what could have been the mathematical equivalent of debating angels on...

Should we question science?

I was surprised recently by something Simon Singh put on X about Sabine Hossenfelder. I have huge admiration for Simon, but I also have a lot of respect for Sabine. She has written two excellent books and has been helpful to me with a number of physics queries - she also had a really interesting blog, and has now become particularly successful with her science videos. This is where I'm afraid she lost me as audience, as I find video a very unsatisfactory medium to take in information - but I know it has mass appeal. This meant I was concerned by Simon's tweet (or whatever we are supposed to call posts on X) saying 'The Problem With Sabine Hossenfelder: if you are a fan of SH... then this is worth watching.' He was referencing a video from 'Professor Dave Explains' - I'm not familiar with Professor Dave (aka Dave Farina, who apparently isn't a professor, which is perhaps a bit unfortunate for someone calling out fakes), but his videos are popular and he...

Search This Blog