Skip to main content

Innovators - Donald Kirsch ***

This was a difficult review to write. The idea is a good one - sixteen innovative scientists whose ideas were first doubted but came to be mainstream thinking. Donald Kirsch does a good job of making their work accessible. The focus is heavily biased towards medical science (reflecting the author's background) with the likes McClintock, Semmelweis, Rous, Prusiner, Cushman and Ondetti, Sehgal and Warren and Marshall. If most of these names are unfamiliar, I'd also suggest that most aren't as transformative as the likes of Galileo, Planck, and Wegener, but they still provide interesting stories.

I'm not sure I would have included Rachel Carson, who despite being a scientist isn't well known for visionary science (and whose advocacy resulted in the abandonment of DDT, even in controlled fashion that could have saved many lives). But my big concern about the book is the result of two others names already mentioned above. These are the ones I know a significant amount about - and both are flawed. Admittedly that's just two out of 16 - but I can't help but wonder if there are aspects of other subjects that are equally problematic. My bugbears are Galileo and Planck.

Although Kirsch is mostly historically okay on Galileo, the piece on him totally misses the point any historian of science would make that his major contribution to science was nothing to do with the Copernican system, but his physics book Two New Systems. While Galileo did make a couple of first astronomical observations, notably the Galilean moons of Jupiter, his support of the Copernican system was just one of many, with most of his observations already made by others (and his observations actually could just as easily have supported the Tychonian system). The only reason, to be honest, this part of his work is of such interest is the story of his trial, not his science. And, of course, it wasn't his original idea.

By contrast, the Planck piece demonstrates over and over that the author has no clue about quantum physics, or physics history. Just to give a couple of examples, we are told ‘Einstein published his theory [of relativity] in 1905 and received the Nobel Prize in 1921, reasonably quick acceptance for such a totally revolutionary idea.’ Admittedly he did publish his special theory of relativity in 1905, but his big one, the general theory was published in 1915 (and the text makes it clear the author is referring to both theories). Most damningly, Einstein got his Nobel Prize for a totally different piece of work on the photoelectric effect - it had nothing to do with relativity. Another example: we are told that Schrodinger’s cat experiment ‘is binary… it happens that all computing is binary, based on strings of ones and zeroes…’ and uses this as an explanation of quantum computing. But the whole point of Schrodinger’s cat is that is in a superposed state - and quantum computing is not based on zero/one bits, but on qubits, which aren't  binary.

I've never read (or written) a book without a few small errors, but I’m afraid these are too big to overlook.

Hardback:   
Kindle:  
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
These articles will always be free - but if you'd like to support our online work, consider buying a virtual coffee or taking out a membership:
Buy me a coffee
Review by Brian Clegg - See all reviews and Brian's online articles or subscribe free here

Labels

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Battle of the Big Bang - Niayesh Afshordi and Phil Harper *****

It's popular science Jim, but not as we know it. There have been plenty of popular science books about the big bang and the origins of the universe (including my own Before the Big Bang ) but this is unique. In part this is because it's bang up to date (so to speak), but more so because rather than present the theories in an approachable fashion, the book dives into the (sometimes extremely heated) disputed debates between theoreticians. It's still popular science as there's no maths, but it gives a real insight into the alternative viewpoints and depth of feeling. We begin with a rapid dash through the history of cosmological ideas, passing rapidly through the steady state/big bang debate (though not covering Hoyle's modified steady state that dealt with the 'early universe' issues), then slow down as we get into the various possibilities that would emerge once inflation arrived on the scene (including, of course, the theories that do away with inflation). ...
Post a Comment
Read more

We Are Eating the Earth - Michael Grunwald *****

If I'm honest, I assumed this would be another 'oh dear, we're horrible people who are terrible to the environment', worthily dull title - so I was surprised to be gripped from early on. The subject of the first chunk of the book is one man, Tim Searchinger's fight to take on the bizarrely unscientific assumption that held sway that making ethanol from corn, or burning wood chips instead of coal, was good for the environment. The problem with this fallacy, which seemed to have taken in the US governments, the EU, the UK and more was the assumption that (apart from carbon emitted in production) using these 'grown' fuels was carbon neutral, because the carbon came out of the air. The trouble is, this totally ignores that using land to grow fuel means either displacing land used to grow food, or displacing land that had trees, grass or other growing stuff on it. The outcome is that when we use 'E10' petrol (with 10% ethanol), or electricity produced by ...
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 â€˜Galileo discovered the counterintuitive law behind a swinging o...
Post a Comment
Read more