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:
Review by Brian Clegg - See all reviews and Brian's online articles or subscribe 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