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
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