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

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

How to Keep a Plane in the Sky - Alex Davies ****

If there's one big gap in the science writing sphere, it's popular engineering (you can quibble over whether engineering is science, but where else would you put popular engineering?). Alex Davies does the field a real service with this insightful introduction to the world of test engineering. The concept is simple. If we build something and sell it, we need to test it to make sure that it won't fail in a way that's dangerous to the consumer. The most obvious example is airliners, which feature at some length, but this applies to everything from cuddly toys to hair straighteners: someone needs to predict what could go wrong and to put the product through its paces to see if it will survive under any reasonable circumstances. When Davies is telling a story of test engineering in action, the book is a delight. He opens with the way that real bears are used to test if bears can get into coolers and trash cans - and the impressive ways these animals can  circumvent human in...
Post a Comment
Read more

On the Equality of All Things - Carlo Rovelli ****

There is a wide gulf between the worldviews of physicists and philosophers. Many physicists present a rather sweetly naive, child-like view of the world, where philosophers bring a distinctly more adult, cynical tone. This being the case, it can be a little worrying when a physicist dips a toe into the philosophical mire. Infamously, in The Grand Design , Stephen Hawking and co-author Leonard Mlodinow told us that philosophy was now dead because science could deal with anything it had previously been needed for. Thankfully, Carlo Rovelli is not trying to do away with philosophy, though it has to be said that when he veers into the topic that physicist's naivety can make it feel like the philosophising of an earnest eighteen-year-old. Take the opening paragraph, which tells us 'electrons and minds, stones and laws, judgements and galaxies do not essentially differ in nature from one another. They are notions that illuminate each other'. I almost expected a Pink Floyd soundtr...
Post a Comment
Read more