Skip to main content

Michael D. Gordin - Four Way Interview

Michael D. Gordin is a historian of modern science and a professor at Princeton University, with particular interests in the physical sciences and in science in Russia and the Soviet Union. He is the author of six books, ranging from the periodic table to early nuclear weapons to the history of scientific languages. His most recent book is On the Fringe: Where Science Meets Pseudoscience (Oxford University Press).

Why history of science?

The history of science grabbed me long before I knew that there were actual historians of science out there. I entered college committed to becoming a physicist, drawn in by the deep intellectual puzzles of entropy, quantum theory, and relativity. When I started taking courses, I came to understand that what really interested me about those puzzles were not so much their solutions — still replete with paradoxes — but rather the rich debates and even the dead-ends that scientists had taken to trying to resolve them. At first, I thought this fell under the rubric of philosophy, but the more I delved the more it seemed that the best approach to understanding them might be through historical investigation. 

The power of good historical research, especially pronounced in the history of science, comes from a willful act of blindness: to try, as much as possible, to immerse yourself in the past debates and to turn off your knowledge of how it actually turned out. We know things today about oxygen and atomism that eighteenth- and nineteenth-century chemists did not know, and in order to explain what they were thinking in historical terms, we cannot resort to later knowledge they had no access to. That radical move not only opens up new avenues of understanding, but it more properly resembles today’s scientific inquiry. After all, we don’t know the answers to our current questions either; today’s scientists are also groping along without the answer key. Taking that same approach to telling the history of science is simply engrossing.

Why this book? 

I’ve been fascinated by what one could call 'fringe science' movements since middle school, when I encountered books on UFOs and the Loch Ness Monster when I was reading my way through the science shelves at the local public library. I knew that these doctrines were different from the regular scientific fare, and I have always wanted to understand what made them different, and what motivated people to continue to advocate for them despite the omnipresent stigma. It is a topic I have returned to in many guises over the years.

This book grew out of one of those efforts: a class I have taught many times on the history of pseudoscience. We explore many of the usual suspects (creationism, eugenics, alchemy), but I also juxtaposed controversial mainstream science so the students could really grapple with the difficulties of demarcation. The class taught me a lot about the different ways of thinking about the fringe, and it seemed a fitting topic for a short book, which I first drafted in 2019. A lot has happened since then! As it turned out, the book is far more relevant to current events than I had anticipated.

What’s next?

I’m currently working on a rather different question: What happened to science when the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991? Although this seems like an esoteric question (depending on where in the world you live), the end of the U.S.S.R. became part of a series of shockwaves that transformed the basic structures of how science is done all over the world. At its peak in the early 1980s, the Soviet Union had more scientists and engineers than any other country in the world, and in the few years surrounding 1991 that number shrank by almost two-thirds. Some of those individuals emigrated to many destinations around the world, but most just left their science posts and got jobs in the regular economy. 

What followed were strikingly divergent reforms across the former Soviet states, Eastern Europe, and most of the rest of the socialist world (Cuba, Vietnam — and China’s path was particularly distinctive). The stories range from the discovery of superheavy elements, to genomic research, to space stations, to the radical restructuring of the nuclear sector. So far, the research has been fascinating — although pandemic travel restrictions have made it even more challenging than it already was.

What’s exciting you at the moment?

For a historian of science with interests both in fringe science movements and global scientific infrastructure, we are living in an amazing moment. Both the climate emergency and the Covid-19 pandemic present the planet with science-based crises that demand science-based solutions, but which are simultaneously questions of economic, social, and political organization. Simply following all the strands would be a full-time job if I didn’t already have one! Tackling these frightening challenges will require all our imagination, and the past is full of lessons that can help us think more clearly about the present and future.

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