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 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...
Post a Comment
Read more

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 ...
Post a Comment
Read more

God: the Science, the Evidence - Michel-Yves Bolloré and Olivier Bonnassies ***

This is, to say the least, an oddity, but a fascinating one. A translation of a French bestseller, it aims to put forward an examination of the scientific evidence for the existence of a deity… and various other things, as this is a very oddly structured book (more on that in a moment). In The God Delusion , Richard Dawkins suggested that we should treat the existence of God as a scientific claim, which is exactly what the authors do reasonably well in the main part of the book. They argue that three pieces of scientific evidence in particular are supportive of the existence of a (generic) creator of the universe. These are that the universe had a beginning, the fine tuning of natural constants and the unlikeliness of life.  To support their evidence, Bolloré and Bonnassies give a reasonable introduction to thermodynamics and cosmology. They suggest that the expected heat death of the universe implies a beginning (for good thermodynamic reasons), and rightly give the impression tha...
Post a Comment
Read more