Skip to main content

Dan Levitt - Five Way Interview

Dan Levitt spent over 25 years writing, producing and directing award-winning documentaries for National Geographic, Discovery, Science, History, HHMI (Howard Hughes Medical Institute).  He has filmed with Stephen Hawking, Michio Kaku, Bernard Carr, and Sean B. Carroll among many others. His latest book is What's Gotten Into You?

Why science?

I’ve always been drawn to the beauty of science. It offers me a way to appreciate the natural world and the fantastic physical, chemical, and biological web we’re part of. I think my sense of that deepened when I lived for a few years near a game park in Kenya. There was a small rainforest close by and everywhere I walked I had a view of Mount Kilimanjaro. It gave me a visceral sense of how enmeshed we are in a much larger ecosystem. Of course, science also helps us understand things that would otherwise be inexplicable, like the question at the heart of this book—how did we end up here?

Why this book?

The inspiration came when I realized that I really didn’t know what my body was made of, much less where that stuff ultimately came from. Once I realized that every particle within me sprang out of the Big Bang, I was hooked. I began wondering what happened— how did particles that were zipping around 13.8 billion years ago end up creating us?

At the same time, I began wondering how we are able to peer back billions of years in time. How did we do that? Those were the questions that started me off and I just kept thinking about them until I decided I would write the book.

In researching this book, what did you find most surprising?

I had never realized that life itself profoundly influenced our planet’s geology. Once photosynthesizing cyanobacteria came along, they began releasing oxygen that transformed Earth and made it possible for more complex cells and creatures to evolve.

I didn’t know some scientists suspect that the first life on Earth might have been microbes that hitched a ride on meteorites from Mars.

Something else that surprised me was how often scientists were initially dismissive of theories that we now recognize were groundbreaking. After finishing the first draft of my book, I circled back to try to understand why and I saw that cognitive biases had cropped up again and again. I ended up giving them nicknames, like the 'Too Weird to be True' bias and the 'As an Expert, I’ve Lost Sight of How Much Is Still Unknown' bias. I hadn’t expected to be thinking about cognitive biases at all.

What’s next?

First a really good vacation. Then I’ll be writing another book about scientific discovery. I haven’t settled on the topic yet, but I had a great time writing What’s Gotten Into You. It led me to think about so many things that I hadn’t expected to, so I’m looking forward to the next one.

What’s exciting you at the moment?

I’ve been listening to War and Peace on audiobook and loving it. Tolstoy is a master at making you feel like you’re present in the scene. I’ve also been playing with ChatGPT a bit and trying to understand what it will be capable of. At this point I can tell you that it’s a long way off from writing like Tolstoy.


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