Skip to main content

The Universal History of Us - Tim Coulson ****

When I first saw the title of this book I assumed it was yet another attempt to take us from the earliest life to humans, but, as the subtitle suggests, the target is much broader - getting to us all the way from the Big Bang. This makes it sound like it's going to be a chronological approach, but it's rather more fragmented - while it does sort of follow a timeline, we get, for example, a chapter that introduces the relevant key parts of physics and another primarily on molecules, with the timeline more of a background than the main content.

Taking this long span and wide sciences approach means there is a huge amount to cram in, even though it's a somewhat over-long book. Covering so much is a daunting endeavour for which I have to admire Tim Coulson's bravery. One potential problem is that it means having to be very summary in parts. Almost inevitably it's more summary about areas outside Coulson's own field of biology and this can be detrimental - in can be an exercise in giving things labels rather than giving the reader any understanding. Here's a brief extract to demonstrate:

'Hydrogen atoms always have one proton and one electron. However, in nature, hydrogen nuclei can have zero, one or two neutrons. These different types of hydrogen are called protium, which has no neutrons, deuterium, which has one, and tritium, which has two. These three types of hydrogen are known as isotopes of hydrogen.' Gripping it is not.

Once we get onto life (which is not until page 170), things go a lot more smoothly and the remaining 250 or so pages would have been a strong book, either alone or with a better first section. Coulson paints an effective picture and doesn't shy away from giving his own opinion when an area is disputed (and makes it clear he is doing so). As well as the biology there's an effective chapter on consciousness, a part of what makes us human that is not always given good coverage in a book like this.

I do have two big concerns, though. One is a lack of notes. I know many people ignore them, but especially because Coulson often tells us that 'scientists' believe something without telling us who they are and why, it's very difficult to find out more. On the second page, for example, he tells us that 'some physicists' have argued that the universe is totally deterministic and 'with hard work and a huge amount of computing power we could perfectly predict the future of any universe from its birth until its end'. I'd like to know who those physicists are, as such a view totally ignores the random nature of quantum outcomes - so important in the early universe - and the chaotic nature of many systems, which admittedly are deterministic, but result in huge changes in outcome after random influences vary earlier conditions.

The other problem, particularly around the physics parts, is that the compression of information can mean a lack of explanation - or even incorrect statements. To give a few quick examples, we are told 'The force carrier particles for the strong and weak nuclear forces are respectively referred to as gluons and bosons' as if a boson were a specific particle. Soon after we are told 'Force carrier particles are sometimes referred to as virtual particles' as if the two terms were equivalent. (They are very different.) We are told about beta particles ':very high-energy particles and this makes them radioactive', without being told they are electrons (which, of course, aren't radioactive). And some of the attempt at explaining quantum physics is painful.

One final moan is that Coulson had clearly been told it's good to include personal experiences in the story. In some parts of the book this works, but on other occasions, such as his description of how he decided to write a popular science book and got it published, are rather painful. Most bizarrely, we are given a couple of pages on how difficult it was to get his work computer replaced because of the Oxford University bureaucracy under the guise of identifying such administrative delay as one of the unique aspects of the human species.

It's not a bad book - but my four stars reflect a very low rating for the first parts and a much better one for the rest: it could have been significantly better.

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

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Antigravity Enigma - Andrew May ****

Antigravity - the ability to overcome the pull of gravity - has been a fantasy for thousands of years and subject to more scientific (if impractical) fictional representation since H. G. Wells came up with cavorite in The First Men in the Moon . But is it plausible scientifically?  Andrew May does a good job of pulling together three ways of looking at our love affair with antigravity (and the related concept of cancelling inertia) - in science fiction, in physics and in pseudoscience and crankery. As May points out, science fiction is an important starting point as the concept was deployed there well before we had a good enough understanding of gravity to make any sensible scientific stabs at the idea (even though, for instance, Michael Faraday did unsuccessfully experiment with a possible interaction between gravity and electromagnetism). We then get onto the science itself, noting the potential impact on any ideas of antigravity that come from the move from a Newtonian view of a...

The World as We Know It - Peter Dear ***

History professor Peter Dear gives us a detailed and reasoned coverage of the development of science as a concept from its origins as natural philosophy, covering the years from the eighteenth to the twentieth century. inclusive If that sounds a little dry, frankly, it is. But if you don't mind a very academic approach, it is certainly interesting. Obviously a major theme running through is the move from largely gentleman natural philosophers (with both implications of that word 'gentleman') to professional academic scientists. What started with clubs for relatively well off men with an interest, when universities did not stray far beyond what was included in mathematics (astronomy, for instance), would become a very different beast. The main scientific subjects that Dear covers are physics and biology - we get, for instance, a lot on the gradual move away from a purely mechanical views of physics - the reason Newton's 'action at a distance' gravity caused such ...

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 ...