Skip to main content

Radical Thinking - Peter Lamont *****

It's not often you start reading a book and within a few pages are thinking 'this is something special.' Peter Lamont writes with a distinctive style, in places verging on poetry or liturgy in the way he uses repeated sentences for emphasis. There's also something of the dance of the seven veils about the whole thing - he glides around a subject, letting the reader catch a glimpse of something interesting, but taking his time to coyly reveal things. That can be a touch irritating at times, but it certainly catches the attention.

What this book isn't despite the subtitle, is a 'how to' guide, except at the most basic level. And it probably isn't about radical thinking per se either - it's more about the nature of thinking in general, and critical thinking in particular. Lamont uses various walks around bits of Edinburgh (where he lives and works), using historical connections to expose us to the nature of what we think about things and what to make of our thinking. And it's brilliant - I was captivated. It helps, I think that as well as being a professor of the history and theory of psychology, the author has also been a professional magician, understanding not only how we communicate things but how we conceal them.

Lamont stresses that we can only truly think critically if we consider ideas rather than people - playing down the modern tendency to discount an idea because the thinker did something we don't like. He's also quite down on the psychologists' collection of biases - not in the sense that they don't exist, but rather that they are unavoidable - and sometimes necessary to function. We need to be aware of them, but we can't 'fix' them - just act in a more considered way thanks to our awareness.

The closest we get to 'how to' is that when presented with information we ought to consider what the claim is (this can take some digging - it's not always at all clear in how it's put across), what the basis is for that claim, and what the purpose is of making the claim. But this is a tiny part of the way in which Lamont encourages us to think about how we think about things - what we see, what we feel, what we hear, the pros and cons of the scientific method, and the importance of considering viewpoints beyond our own. As he notes, we see the world through a narrow window and need to look beyond that.

Don't expect magic answers on how to become a super-thinker, or a radical. And I think it's fair to say that some people will find the way that Lamont dances around the subject in a teasing fashion, rarely taking it straight on, frustrating. But I found the book hugely readable - I kept wanting to come back to it when I had to put it down - and at risk of coming up with a cliché it genuinely makes you think, which can't be a bad thing. Highly recommended.

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

Mathematics with Love – Mary Stopes-Roe *****

Admittedly it’s early days (this review is written in January), but this, for me, is the surprise hit of the year so far! I approached this book with trepidation, but found it absolutely delightful. It is described on the cover as the “courtship correspondence of Barnes Wallis, inventor of the bouncing bomb”, and contains a series of letters between Wallis and his cousin and eventual wife Molly Bloxham, along with some useful annotation by their daughter, Mary. The courtship itself is not without difficulties, as Wallis was 18 years older than the 17-year-old Molly at the start of the correspondence, and her father, not surprisingly, wasn’t too pleased about the interest of such an elderly suitor, but that isn’t the only reason the letters are interesting – it’s also because of maths, and Wallis’s position in the UK as the engineering hero of the Second World War. (Incidentally, it seemed very strange to see letters addressed to “Barnes” – I had always assumed Barnes Wallis was a ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Why Nobody Understands Quantum Physics - Frank Verstraete and Céline Broeckaert **

It's with a heavy heart that I have to say that I could not get on with this book. The structure is all over the place, while the content veers from childish remarks to unexplained jargon. Frank Versraete is a highly regarded physicist and knows what he’s talking about - but unfortunately, physics professors are not always the best people to explain physics to a general audience and, possibly contributed to by this being a translation, I thought this book simply doesn’t work. A small issue is that there are few historical inaccuracies, but that’s often the case when scientists write history of science, and that’s not the main part of the book so I would have overlooked it. As an example, we are told that Newton's apple story originated with Voltaire. Yet Newton himself mentioned the apple story to William Stukeley in 1726. He may have made it up - but he certainly originated it, not Voltaire. We are also told that ‘Galileo discovered the counterintuitive law behind a swinging o...
Post a Comment
Read more

On Time - Jim Al-Khalili *****

By a small margin Jim Al-Khalili's The World According to Physics is my favourite of his books, both because the 'three pillars' concept at its heart works so well - but also because it's short. On Time is somewhat heavier, but thankfully not a wrist-buster. It might seem at first sight odd that a book on a subset of physics is considerably longer than one covering the whole thing, but time is one of those subjects that inevitably involves considerable complexities and needs depth. As Al-Khalili establishes, it's hard to think of any other scientific concept where our perception of it - what he refers to as manifest time or psychological time - is so different from the view from physics. Some physicists go so far as to suggest that time doesn't exist at all. In the book, Al-Khalili sets out (to my mind quite successfully) both to explain why they think this is the case, but also why it's not the best interpretation of time. I'd certainly note that I...
Post a Comment
Read more