Skip to main content

The Joy of Science - Jim Al-Khalili ****

While some pocket-sized science hardbacks have been very thin on content (think Rovelli's Seven Brief Lessons), Jim Al-Khalili has demonstrated how it's possible to pack a feast for the mind into this compact form in The World According to Physics. He is, however, trying to do something very different with The Joy of Science, even though the format is similar.

The title gives nothing away (apart, possibly from a knowing reference to the work of Alex Comfort) - what Al-Khalili tries to do here is to explain how scientists look at the world and from this to draw lessons for all of us on topics such as how 'Mysteries are to be embraced, but also to be solved', 'If you don't understand something, it doesn't mean you can't if you try' and 'Don't value opinion over evidence' - that last a particularly difficult one at a time even academic institutions seem determined to rate feelings over reality in their effort to appeal to the cult of the individual.

Because of this topic, Al-Khalili doesn't have the same ability to pack in the approachable science. It can be easy when the author is a scientist, and is telling people how to avoid biases and how to be more like a scientist in their viewpoint, to come across as smug and arrogant. Thankfully, Al-Khalili avoids this - he makes it clear that he is aware of his own biases. This isn't just something the common people suffer from. Even so, there is a real difficulty in telling us anything that is practically useful here. For example, as we are told several times, you can argue with a conspiracy theorist as long as you like and you won't shift their opinion whatever approach you take.

It's interesting to compare the book with Lee McIntyre's How to Talk to a Science Denier. Unlike McIntyre, Al-Khalili doesn't tell much in the way of stories of dealing with those who struggle with scientific thinking (though, to be fair, McIntyre mostly fails to engage with real science deniers in his narrative sections) - but Al-Khalili does have a clearer picture of what the issues are and at least how the reader can take a viewpoint that is more likely to result in an appropriate analysis, even if this won't help persuade someone who simply isn't prepared to listen to the evidence.

The book's least successful part for me is where Al-Khalili explains what science does. He makes the odd statement that 'A physicist like me tries to uncover ultimate truths about how the world is.' Leaving aside the Kantian idea that we can never engage with true reality (Kant's 'Ding an sich') only phenomena, this is an oversimplified view of science. While it's true, as Al-Khalili says, that part of the job of science is collecting facts that are indisputable, such as the value of the acceleration due to gravity, that's not the interesting part. The best bits of science, particularly physics, are not about what happens, but why or how it happens. When that's the case, science isn't about reaching ultimate truths, but about establishing the best theory given the current evidence. It is only by recognising this that we can truly explain what science involves - and what drives and fascinates many scientists.

Similarly, despite claiming to be aware of his own biases, I don't think Al-Khalili is prepared to be detached enough from those biases when, for example, he remarks 'Is superstring theory... not proper science because we don't (yet) know how to test it and therefore cannot claim it to be falsifiable?' The answer to that, without the bias of a working physicist, is 'Yes'. It isn't proper science. It may become so, but it certainly isn't yet and may well never be.

There are some limitations, then, to this book - and it certainly isn't as engaging a read as Al-Khalili's The World According to Physics - but it is a worthwhile attempt at something important and well worth taking a look at.

Hardback: 
Bookshop.org

  

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