Skip to main content

Tree Stories - Stefano Mancuso (Trans. Gregory Conti) ***

It's always interesting to see something new in popular science, and without doubt plants (and, in this case, trees) tend not to get enough of a slice of the biology market (I don't really count 'nature' as popular science as there's very little science in it). So I had considerable hopes for Tree Stories. But in practice, although there are some genuinely interesting little snippets of information around the way that trees interact with each other through their root networks, the book was problematic. One issue I had was that each 'story' - each chapter in effect - is continuous, without any section breaks. There is no substructure it just goes on and on, which was quite wearing. Worse, though, was that despite this book being labelled popular science, the science content was extremely thin on the ground.

Take the opening story. It comes across as a typical literary tale in which nothing much happens. Two academics become acquaintances after battling over secondhand book purchases. They share an interest in a book on 'liberty trees' - planted across both revolutionary France and post independence America. The book portrays the trees as a network and Stefano Mancuso points out in an actual forest the tree roots form a connective network and tells us that the trees are a superorganism like ants or bees. This is just throwing a thin sprinkle of facts into a self-indulgent story. It's not popular science. How does this network form? No idea. In a superorganism the individual insects are highly specialised - how do the trees specialise? No mention of this. In a superorganism, the individual insects can't survive alone - surely this isn't really true of trees? Is a forest not more like Facebook than a superorganism? Don't know. This is not science.

The second essay on plants, and particularly trees, in cities was much more effective - there was less of a memoir feel and a bit more science content, though it’s odd that with Mancuso's obsession with tree networks, he pretty much ignores the way IT networks are reducing the importance of cities as places to live. The story gives a strong argument for the wider greening of our urban spaces, particularly in the face of climate change. This is mostly about urban planning rather than any underlying scientific principles, but at least it’s interesting.

Most of the rest of the chapters are more like the second with at least a spot of scientific content, though it's often just a few words. So, for example, in a piece on the wood used in famous ancient violins like a Stradivarius there are maybe two lines on why a particular wood might be unusually good in the role. But the rest is atmospheric woffle. And there's a purely anti-scientific statement that blind testing showing these violins aren't better wasn't right in Mancuso's opinion - the only scientific test mentioned gets dismissed out of hand where it's clearly a case where only double blinding could give useful information.

I've no objection to this sort of book (though it's not one I would usually read), but it just doesn't do what it says on the tin.

Hardback:   
Kindle:  
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
Review by Brian Clegg - See all Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly email free here
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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

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...
Post a Comment
Read more

Einstein's Fridge - Paul Sen ****

In Einstein's Fridge (interesting factoid: this is at least the third popular science book to be named after Einstein's not particularly exciting refrigerator), Paul Sen has taken on a scary challenge. As Jim Al-Khalili made clear in his excellent The World According to Physics , our physical understanding of reality rests on three pillars: relativity, quantum theory and thermodynamics. But there is no doubt that the third of these, the topic of Sen's book, is a hard sell. While it's true that these are the three pillars of physics, from the point of view of making interesting popular science, the first two might be considered pillars of gold and platinum, while the third is a pillar of salt. Relativity and quantum theory are very much of the twentieth century. They are exciting and sometimes downright weird and wonderful. Thermodynamics, by contrast, has a very Victorian feel and, well, is uninspiring. Luckily, though, thermodynamics is important enough, lying behind ...
Post a Comment
Read more