Book Description

InBioethics in America, Tina Stevens challenges the view that the origins of the bioethics movement can be found in the 1960s, a decade mounting challenges to all variety of authority. Instead, Stevens sees bioethics as one more product of a "centuries-long cultural legacy of American ambivalence toward progress," and she finds its modern roots in the responsible science movement that emerged following detonation of the atomic bomb.

Rather than challenging authority, she says, the bioethics movement was an aid to authority, in that it allowed medical doctors and researchers to proceed on course while bioethicists managed public fears about medicine's new technologies. That is, the public was reassured by bioethical oversight of biomedicine; in reality, however, bioethicists belonged to the same mainstream that produced the doctors and researchers whom the bioethicists were guiding.

Book Description

What do a drought in New York and an earthquake in Seattle have to do with a "nanotube" a few billionths of a meter long at the University of Tokyo?

Our Molecular Future reveals a striking new possibility: We are on the verge of being able to protect ourselves from nature’s worst attacks. Tools such as carbon nanotubes may help us cope in ways that until now have been described as science fiction.

If we succeed, we might solve a troubling question about scientific research: Why risk it? Why risk powerful new technologies that may destroy us?

With compelling evidence, Douglas Mulhall shows that the answers to such questions may be found by focusing on what the environment does to us, rather than only what we do to the environment.

His book shows where our technologies might be heading, what may stop us from getting there, and how to use the benefits to minimize the downsides.

The good news is that we may enter a future that's so fantastic, it's unbelievable.

The bad news is that many of us don't believe it, and so we may not be ready to cope.

By revealing the threads that tie our fate to new technologies, this book helps us get ready.

First, we have to ask the right questions. Mulhall emphasizes that this book defines those questions, rather than pretending to have quick or detailed answers.

Here are examples:

Molecular technologies aren’t just confined to a few university think tanks. Nor are they confined to an elite among the superpowers, big business, or government. Their roots are embedded in the fabric of our industries, research institutes, and military. They are found in wealthy and poor nations alike. The foundations for these technologies are so pervasive that it’s hard to describe them without starting an encyclopedia.

Our Molecular Future condenses this knowledge and gives us broad overviews of who’s doing what, where. By so doing, the book shows us why these technologies pose such deep challenges to conventional thinking about business and environment.

Yet, how vulnerable is this technological juggernaut to being thrown backward or blasted down the wrong path by nature’s violent attacks?

In ninety seconds, the Great Kanto Earthquake annihilated Japan’s centralized economy in 1923. It was so severe that the country was in no shape to weather the Great Depression. Such instability helped open the door for a military government. After the military took over, war in Southeast Asia—and then the Pacific—broke out.

Might this recur today? What about similar such risks in America? What if the largest earthquake in America’s history was to hit again? Surprisingly, it didn’t occur in San Francisco, or on the quake-prone West Coast. Our Molecular Future reveals the location and the implications.

Property loss is increasing worldwide, due to unrestricted development in risky hurricane and earthquake zones. Perversely, this can actually improve economic conditions for some sectors in the short term, by fueling construction booms after disasters. Such short-term rebounds are often generated by insurance settlements.

Yet underneath, a cancer grows. This foundation for economic stability—insurance—is collapsing. Our Molecular Future reveals the depth of the situation.

To inoculate ourselves against nature’s occasional tantrums, and avoid collapse of the insurance industry, we may have to construct powerful molecular defenses. Yet, these defenses themselves may threaten our existence, due to their potential for abuse. Some say that the risks outweigh the potential gains.

So, if it’s such a risk, why go there?

Evidence suggests there may be no alternative. Our Molecular Future explains why.

By tracing disruptions of the past and advances of the present through to technologies of the future, it becomes more than a book: it's a whole new field of study; a multifaceted approach to our past, our present, and our potential futures.

Because of this, the book appeals to a wide range of readers.

Read it if you are...

...striving to understand the molecular world that we may soon live in

...wondering about your job prospects or health care in an age of disruptive technologies

...looking for ways to cope with climate extremes or natural disasters

The book also has special relevance if you’re one of these individuals:

A business or economics student: Here are ideas about what startups might flourish in a molecular economy. "Genetic computing" may make most manufacturing processes and patents obsolete.Moreover, new industries might emerge from our capacities to cope with natural hazards.

A lecturer or student in environment, natural science, and ethics. The book is a valuable supplement to course materials:

--For environment, it identifies challenges to the Precautionary Principle and the doctrine of sustainable development.

--For natural science, it summarizes new discoveries about naturally occurring climate changes and ecological disruptions that are changing our views about the stability of the natural world. --For scientific ethics, it gives an overview of the ethical questions associated with development of powerful new tools.

An executive positioning your company for the approaching molecular era. Here is information about startups that might flourish in a molecular economy.

An insurer or corporate manager who plans disaster recovery strategies. This summarizes natural risks and technologies that may alter the way that businesses prepare for them. A health care provider. Research into nanobacteria and robotic surgery may alter the way we treat disease. A scientist confronted by environmental opposition to your technologies: Here's one way out of the impasse between the life sciences and environmentalists. An environmentalist who forecasts how technology might alter the ecology: Molecular technologies and natural changes may upend the Precautionary Principle and the doctrine of sustainable development.

The book also has an extensive index and endnotes, with links to authoritative Web sites. ... Read more

Reviews (4)

Lets use these technologies to save our future
If I had to sum up the main theme of this work, I would say it's about preservation of the human species. A large portion of this work is devoted to how humans (or our progeny) can avoid extinction by natural and man-made disaster. All other discussions seem to lead to this point in one form or another. The author believes that the underlying technologies in the title can and perhaps will provide for our salvation if we play our cards right.

The author has done his research and has a large source of information to draw from. This book gives the reader a good overview of real scientific advancements as well as other insights from prominent leaders and theorists in these fields. There are ample notes and anecdotes to give the reader the option to pursue more detailed information on the topics.

A few parts of the book drag due to some repetitiveness and some of the discussions don't appear to have a firm scientific base and don't seem too plausible, especially if you have decent scientific knowledge in the particular subject. If you are a scientist or engineer with some expertise in the fields you may find that some theories lack a firm foundation. However one theme that comes with the author's optimism is that throughout history, even the most prominent experts have been proven wrong through natural progressions and even breakthroughs!

This work is not incredibly deep or profound though quite entertaining and at times it appears to feel more like a novel than a documentary of the future. It is suitable for readers of all walks of life.

The 21st century will not frighten the horses.
For optimists and those who find life in the 21st century a complete source of exhiliration, and for those who are indulging themselves in the dizzying pace of technological advancement, this book is sheer delight. Speculative in some points, and gaurded in others, the author has written a book that takes the reader through a future that is not far distant, and a future that is now. Genetic engineering, artificial intelligence, nanoscale computing, and robotics are here, right now, and advances in these areas show every sign of being explosive.

The author asks us to imagine a conversation between a farmer in the year 1899 and a person who rolls up in an early automobile. The driver tells the farmer what is ahead in the next decades, such as playing golf on the moon, his children being able to drive themselves faster than a locomotive, his cows milked using machines, etc. The author then replays the same conversation but with a farmer of the year 2001, he automobile is replaced by a flying car: golf will be played on Mars, and egg hatcheries will be designed by computers that do a better job then humans, agriculture will be replaced by food synthesizers, etc. With these hypothetical conversations, the author asks us to take stock in our skepticism that the future he outlines in the book it too far-fetched.

He is certainly correct in his reasoning. There are too many instances of "famous last words" when it comes to the future of a particular technological development. If one takes cognizance of the many developments that are now occuring simultaneously, it would be hard to tell exactly which ones are going to prevail. For example, when it comes to the enhancement of human capabilities, I see a competition between genetic engineering and artificial intelligence arising in the future. Both are strategies to improve human mental and physical capabilities, but are essentially different ways of course to meet these ends. The marketplace, and not government, will hopefully determine the outcome of this competition, but it, may disappear entirely if new methodologies, up to this time unknown, dilute the efficacy of these approaches.

In addition, human factors engineering, which is not really emphasized in the book, may determine the outcome of particular technologies. Voice recognition and command in computers for example, may be too annoying to actually employ in the workplace, if open cubicle environments are still in place. The resulting noise level of everyone talking to their computers might be too irritating. Federal and state health requirements also have a repressive influence on the employing of new technology. With the growing hostility towards genetic engineering, governments will be stepping up their regulations and this might dampen the ever-growing amplitude of 21st century development.

The author is aware of these attitudes towards technology, and so he attempts to offer a different sort of justification for employing them, particularly nanotechnology. Much space in the book is devoted to the use of this to combat natural disasters, such as asteroids, earthquakes, tornadoes, tsunamies, and radical climate changes. Many of his proposals for using nanotechnology to do this are interesting, such as "utility fog", which allows material objects to change shape at arbitrary time scales, food fabrication using molecular biosynthesis and robotic replenishment, and the intelligent product system (IPS), which allows maximal compatibility with the environment. In addition, the author envisions the deployment of millions of nanosatellites that will probe the solar system in order to find rogue asteroids that threaten our planet. Once found, the asteroid will be dissassembled layer by layer to a size that nullifies its threat. The residue will then be used as raw materials for space-based colonies.

The author is also realistic in his appraisal of just what it is going to take from a financial perspective to develop the technology which he envisions. Such developments can be accomplished, and the financial and time scales involved, coupled with the physical dimensions of the technology, are the justification for his optimism. He does not use "inevitability" arguments to justify future technology developments, but instead realizes, correctly, that such developments are subject to human volition. We can halt or move forward, the choice being completely our own.

Robo sapiens, Robo servers, and Homo provectus, may be on the way the author states. He asks us if we are ready, and he asks us to consider the answers to the employment of new technologies ourselves, and not leave it up to our government or religious leaders, who themselves are explaining it to us inadequately, he argues. Religious institutions are centuries behind, companies are selling products and services but are not structured to serve our interests, and scientists are too involved in their projects to consider how their discoveries will impact human life on Earth.

The author encourages the reader to get involved, or invent, institutions or strategies that will mesh with the technological advances that are confronting each one of us. I cannot speak for the author here, but he seems to be incredibly optimisitic. This is refreshing, for this indeed is the most exciting time to be alive. We should all constantly attempt to improve ourselves and others with the knowledge we have available. With genetic engineering, artificial intelligence, highly sophisticated mathematics, robotics, and nanotechnology, we have precisely the right instruments, at precisely the right time, to participate in and build the greatest century yet for the human species...

Nanobacteria, NanoMedicine, Nanotechnology, Oh My!
Doug Mulhall is a bold, fluent & brillant writer that is able to communicate with both lay persons and scientists alike....a must read! His description of nanotechnological developments lead us by the hand into the future gently, then exposes the potential harsh realities and wonders that will be available to us. With his command of writing, he explains difficult concepts by making them real. I particularly appreciated him writing about an exciting startup, NanobacLabs Pharmaceuticals that has developed nanobiotics to fight nanobacterial infections. The read led me to a physician that wrote a prescription for NanobacTX that appears to be eradicating my heart disease! I not only enjoyed the book, but he may have ultimately saved my life.....sign me, GRATEFUL.

An Amazing view of the future. Great Book!
Fascinating glimpse into the future.
Rarely does one find a book with as many insights into the future as Our Molecular Future. Page after page there are concepts which are entirely foreign to you before reading them, and then seem so self-evident after you have understood them. Clearly, not everything that is depicted in the book is going to come to pass in our lifetimes. However, this was the best book I have read for years. Not since Godel, Escher, Bach have I thought so much while reading! ... Read more

Book Description

Unexpected discoveries in nonequilibrium physics and nonlinear dynamics are changing our understanding of complex phenomena. Recent research has revealed fundamental new properties of matter in far-from-equilibrium conditions, and the prevalence of instability-where small changes in initial conditions may lead to amplified effects. ... Read more

Reviews (2)

Intuitive view about the emergence of complexity
It explains, mainly through examples in chemistry and physics, what are the required components for "complex behaviors" to occur within dynamical systems. It does not insist on the technicalities proper to the examples but rather tries to gather what one can learn from specific situations concerning the necessary components for complexity to arise.

Focus is on intuition and global understanding, not on mathematical aspects. However, some knowledge in math would certainly help...a first course in probability theory and some background in dynamical systems is a good idea (at the level of undergraduate courses in pure and applied sciences).

All explanations are not rigorous but the objective is to provide a good intuition about the mechanisms driving complexity. Recommended for all people interested in stochastic modeling and chaos theory.

Want to learn about complexity? Start at the source!
Since non-equilibrium science and complexity theory where actually shaped and influenced by the Brussels school, anybody interested in a concise -yet readable- introduction would do well to start with this book. Written by Nicolis and Prigogine, it will enlighten and entertain you. Some knowledge of math helps when reading this book, but the level is intermediate, thereby making it suitable for a rather large group of interested readers. I found myself reading the book in stages, taking the time to ponder various topics and issues before continuing again. It really made me wonder, and I learned a lot from it (ironically, I actually learned more from this book than from the -much- more advanced books by the author(s) that cover the same material). ... Read more

Book Description

With the advent of the Human Genome Project there have been many claims for the genetic origins of complex human behavior including insanity, criminality, and intelligence. But what does it really mean to call something "genetic"? This is the fundamental question that Sahotra Sarkar's book addresses. This important book clarifies the meaning of the term "genetic," shows how molecular studies have affected genetics, and provides the philosophical background necessary to understand the debates over the Human Genome Project. It will be of particular interest to professionals and students in the philosophy of science, the history of science, and the social studies of science, medicine, and technology. ... Read more

Book Description

". . . Steven Shapin and Simon Schaffer have ventured beyond ordinary history of science or history of ideas to produce a novel "exercise in the sociology of scientific knowledge.' . . . a historical study rich in new interpretations and notable for the use of sources of a kind not hitherto fully exploited by scholars."--Clive Holmes, American Historical Review "Shapin and Schaffer work out the implications of these debates [between Hobbes and Boyle] for the history of science with great skill of interpretation and exposition. They use their findings and their analysis to give an explanation of the experimental enterprise in general, which, although it is not philosophical in nature, always takes philosophy most seriously. This is simply one of the most original, enjoyable and important books published in the history of science in recent years."--Owen Hannaway, Technology and Culture "If any proof of the intellectual buoyancy or intrinsic worth of the history and philosophy for science was needed, nothing better could be provided than this study by Steven Shapin and Simon Schaffer. . . . Their findings suggest the futility of wrenching science from its ideological context, and not only with respect to the seventeenth century; they also detect parallels with the crisis of confidence affecting contemporary science."--Charles Webster, The Times Literary Supplement ... Read more

Reviews (1)

Interesting analysis,but has an acknowledged pro-Hobbes bias
The authors begin their review of the 17th-century Hobbes-Boyle controversy by declaring their intent to take a strongly pro-Hobbes stance, so it is not surprising that they end by concluding that "Hobbes was right". (About what, is not clear.)

Their stated reason for adapting this biased perspective is that the opposite view (that Hobbes was wrong) has been so thoroughly documented that not much new could be added. Only by adopting a "charitable" view of Hobbes, and a critical view of his opponents, could they make a significant new contribution. In other words, they wanted to make a splash, not a ripple.

Their bias is expressed by selective omission of information unfavorable to Hobbes. For example, in Hobbes's "Dialogus Physicus", his fallacious solution of the cube-duplication problem has been deleted, without mentioning that it was fallacious. Also, the reader is not informed that a "Torricelli apparatus" and a "mercury barometer" are functionally identical; the height of the mercury column varies with weather conditions. This variability was a problem for Hobbes, but not for Boyle. But it is not mentioned, except in connection with a suggestion that the experimentalists may have fudged their data.

Also, the authors should have noted that Hobbes's a-priori rationalist philosophy is not a viable alternative to experimentalism, because it is based on an elementary logical fallacy: you cannot make up definitions and postulates arbitrarily AND claim that deductions from them give certainty about the real world. ... Read more

Book Description

This book addresses a question at the heart of the current debate about the relationship between science and religion, in particular between that form of evolutionary biology known as Darwinism, and the basic tenets of the Christian faith.That question is: can someone who accepts Darwin's theory of natural selection subscribe at the same time to the essential claims of Christianity?Adopting a balanced perspective on the subject, Michael Ruse offers a serious examination of both Darwinism and Christianity.He covers a wide range of topics, from the Scopes Monkey Trial to claims about the religious significance of extraterrestrials.He deals with major figures in the current science/religion debate (for example Richard Dawkins, Stephen Jay Gould and E.O. Wilson on the science side, as well as Arthur Peacocke, Robert J. Russell and Keith Ward on the religion side).He considers in some detail the claims of the new creationism, and reveals some surprising parallels between Darwinian materialists and traditional thinkers such as St. Augustine.Michael Ruse argues that, although it is at times difficult for a Darwinian to embrace Christian belief, it is by no means inconceivable.At the same time he suggests ways in which a Christian believer should have no difficulty accepting evolution in general, and Darwinism in particular. Writing with verve and avoiding technical jargon, Michael Ruse has produced an important contribution to a sometimes overheated debate for anyone interested in, and perhaps even troubled by these issues, who seeks an informed and judicious guide.Michael Ruse is professor of philosophy and zoology at the University of Guelph in Ontario, Canada.He is the author of many books on evolutionary biology.In addition, he has published several hundred articles and many book reviews.He is the editor of the Cambridge Series in the Philosophy of Biology and founding editor of the journal Biology & Philosophy. ... Read more

Reviews (20)

Can a Darwinian be a Christian? Absolutely!
Michael Ruse seriously considers whether the major tenets of Christianity are compatible with Darwinism. He convincingly shows that a Christian view of human nature which includes free will, original sin and the soul are not excluded by science in general nor by Darwinism in particular. Questions such as why there is pain and suffering are also shown to have mutually supportive answers in Christianity and Darwinism. Michael Ruse clearly shows how opponents of methodological naturalism, such as Phillip Johnson, engage in bad theology as well as bad science. As a biologist, I found that although he deals with serious theological issues, Michael Ruse writes in a highly engaging and accessible style. I would highly recommend this book (along with the "Tower of Babel" by Robert Pennock and "Finding Darwin's God" by Kenneth Miller) for anyone who wonders whether methodological naturalism is anti-religious. The copy of "Can a Darwinian be a Christian?" which I read was checked out from our local library. Will I now be purchasing my own copy? Absolutely!

Liberal Christians can be Darwinians
Asked in reverse order, "Can a Christian be a Darwinian?", Ruse's answer is really two-fold. If you are taking a very conservative or fundamentalist view of Christianity, then you probably are not, nor do you wish to be a Darwinian. For the liberal, and mainstream-secularized Christian, however, there isn't much incompatibility between Christianity and Darwinism. Because, however, both Christianity and Darwinism compass a wide range of views (as Ruse points out), some point of agreement and intersection is inevitable, as is some range of polar conflict. Ruse has written an engaging and entertaining book, and while many may disagree or challenge his conclusions, for those who value both the Christian tradition and Darwinian science this is an important book.

Alone in the demilitarized zone
Someone should buy Michael Ruse a new dictionary. The term "polemic" doesn't appear in his. He doesn't engage in polemics, and pours balm on those that occur. The "war between science and religion" is something he deplores. His subtitle sets the tone of this book in describing "The Relationship Between Science and Religion", deftly eschewing conflict at the outset. In reconciling the discipline of science with the dedication of faith, Ruse follows the labyrinthine path of Christian teachings. His Quaker upbringing and background in the history of science has prepared him well for this torturous task. His sense of wit allows him to achieve this without becoming ensnared in arcane theological questions or sectarian strife. Few, if any scholars have accomplished this level of detachment with such charming style.

Ruse establishes his credentials promptly, offering a succinct account of "Darwinism" [a term i loathe]. He explains the history and mechanisms of evolution by natural selection with aplomb. The book is valuable for this summation, if nothing else. He explains various forms of evidence such as the similarity of animal body structures [homology]. He continues with various dialogues between Christians who view evolution as a threat to morals, society, ethics and the other tired arguments and why they have no basis.

Finally, Ruse states the obvious: many scientists are and have been, successfully practicing Christians. Whether or not they've made the effort to rationalise this disparity, he saves them the effort in examining how the reconciliation can be achieved. For centuries, he reminds us, the study of Nature was in order to glorify a deity. He uses Augustine frequently in support of the view that Nature deserves serious study. Ruse calls this "the Augustinian option", that Christianity has no room for the ignorant. Nature's wonders and laws follow a divine plan, which must be recognized and respected. Science then, is not an enemy, but rather an ally.

Ruse concludes with a firm "Absolutely!" to the book's title. He warns of the difficulties: one must choose from among the various Christian ethics and values, recognize that not all questions have been answered nor all issues resolved, be prepared for some in-depth study. The path is difficult, but having been traversed by some, others may follow. Given the nature of the topic, Ruse has performed an outstanding service in addressing this complex question with such finesse and clarity. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]

not persuasive
Generally when one is asked whether one has read such-and-such a book, the implication is that the interlocutor has read the book and was persuaded by its arguments, so the challenge really is:
"are you persuaded by the arguments that persuaded me?"
And it may be very irritating to discover that others are not as persuaded as we are.
For example, I'm not persuaded that a consensus among experts necessarily reflects the truth - as far as I'm concerned it merely indicates agreement. Neither am I persuaded that, because there are many different speculations attempting to show spontaneous generation of life, this proves that life did generate spontaneously. It just shows me that people are imaginative.
Nor do I consider faith a proposition which must not court any risk of rebuttal, a kind of pull-your-head-in and count prudence as the better part of testimony: when we have prudently waited for all the proofs, and seen for ourselves the fulfilment of some proposition, there is no room left for faith - only acquiescence if we are not to appear stupid.
I certainly do not accept Ruse's statement on page 66 that "nothing terribly important rests on this scientific matter, either way." If that were so, Michael Ruse would not have gone to the trouble of writing this book.
To those who genuinely seek reconciliation between science and religion, this book will be a disappointment. The oft tried ruse of redefining the terms to be reconciled may satisfy a shallow desire to hold onto a philosophical investment in the face of conflict, but it only fools those who already have made their committment and who have no intention of changing their mind.

Yes
There. I just saved you twenty bucks. Seriously, I don't think Ruse ever really comes close to solving the problem and ultimately this book will leave you more confused than when you started. Something that he never completely explores (and a fellow reviewer didn't consider when he deemed this problem "insoluble") is the idea that Genesis 1 and 2 are in fact a mixture of symbolic truth combined with actual theological truth. If you consider that the point of Genesis is to show "who and why," not "when and how" (which is the actual case with these chapters and in other extra-biblical writings of the same time period) then it is well within the realm of possibility that God did insert his image into man at some point, thus making him different from the rest of the animal kingdom. This allows for a fall of man and doesn't contain the need for God to create Adam and Eve from dust in order to do it.

This is just one possibility that I don't think was properly explored, and ultimately no viable option is presented. I'd recommend Kenneth Miller's "Finding Darwin's God" as a much more informative source, a book that actually provides answers and has the courage to challenge longstanding theories and theorists. ... Read more

Reviews (3)

Non-Teilhardian and pantheistic
This is a very informative book, since the author spreads his net far and wide as is obvious from the biliography. His views are novel and interesting, but definitely part company with Teilhard de Chardin and traditional theism. Pere Teilhard's vision is convergent; O'Murchu's is divergent. He presents us with a universe having no beginning and no end. Also, God exists within this universe, but not outside it. These two concepts are consistent with pantheism. A more traditional and more awe-inspiring view is that the universe exists within God.

Pere Teilhard's system focuses on the Omega point as the point of convergence for all evolution and all space-time. This is really missing from O'Murchu, since his universe never really gets to Omega.

The best blend of science and theology I've ever read
I had long ago left the Christian faith because of its incongruity with science, the environment and the cosmos. O'Murchu has clarified in writing what I have instinctively, intuitively felt for decades but could not express as eloquently as he. Quantum Theology has resurrected what I thought was my spiritually dead self.

It is difficult reading, but well worth the effort. I find myself looking at the universe and life from a new and refreshing perspective.

Randy Herring's review must have been written by an intellectual show-off. One of the major premises of the book is not how one deals with the world, but rather, how the world deals with us. Our control is imaginary and our understanding ridiculously lacking, and that was one of O'Murchu's major points.

More daring perhaps than is prudent
This book reads more like Thus Spoke O'Murchu with a flavor of a romantic Hegelian collective Spirit of optimism. O'Murchu is his own sage with a message addressed to the mystics of a "new cosmology" who are sufferers in this crisis of nihilism that "globalization" has created. O'Murchu's greatest trouble is his "relational matrix" and his greatest weight his "powerful archetypes." The ideas of "relational matrix" and "powerful archetypes" complicate the "great story" turning it upside down by not being able to reconcile this contradiction he advances as "evolutionary faith."

O'Murchu fails to define what he means by 'matrix.' Thus, arises O'Murchu's three gravest flaws: 1) failing to define 'matrix,' 2) failing by assuming one knows what the conventional definition of 'matrix' entails, and 3) failing to clarify his meaning of intentionality, except within his symbolism of "Divine relationality." O'Murchu stupidly leaves the definition of 'matrix' open-ended, which allows the reader to pursue for further investigation. A 'matrix,' to this reviewer, is a system and a closure that "out of the womb within" encircles the relationality of the development of a "stereotype!" Words develop with a purpose: for use and relationality. It is out of the womb that one sees things from within one's own perimeters, i.e., a system, a closure of how one "deals" with the world.

O'Murchu's "relational matrix" adds to the "great deal of baggage" that he admonishes we ought "to shed!" If evolutionary faith is faith directed by the drive of evolutionary process of 'becoming' then a matrix makes evolutionary faith incapable of possessing that drive of intoxicating energy for becoming. Without a matrix, one's consciousness is strong because it is free from any kind of relational comparison, and thus, extols one's capacity and need for communication relating with others! The weakness of consciousness vis-à-vis a matrix only increases the greatest weight of nihilistic "globalization" that O'Murchu opposes. Thus, the "archetype" (below) of a "new cosmology" to thwart the furtherance of "globalization" is of no consequence.

O'Murchu carries more baggage (his greatest trouble) than he can handle (his greatest weight). Contrary to his own intentions O'Murchu posits his antithesis: another form of "globalization" masked by "evolutionary faith." The "relational matrix" is "globalization" because both are systems of oppression of adding to the baggage O'Murchu admits he does not want. O'Murchu's relational matrix does not come full circle of embracing the mysticism of a "new cosmology" and thus, does not toss "globalization" to the wayside.

O'Murchu crushes under his own weight trying to convince us he seeks to eradicate the dualistic religion and science futuristic tendencies of "gloom and doom." It is in fact the same tendencies he embraces by introducing his "new cosmology" of light as an "archetype" that opposes the "globalization" of darkness, that is, the recurrence of the same dualistic notion of good versus evil! O'Murchu is more religious and Christian he gives himself credit for. Thus Spoke O'Murchu!

O'Murchu digs his own crevasse, falls into it and becomes wedged in his story of evolutionary faith. O'Murchu brings man down with his own god and goes under himself! This 'O'Murchu event' triggers a cataclysmic recurrence of the same yet to be reconciled under its own crushing weight (the "great story"). O'Murchu leaves us confronted with a yet undiscovered country whose boundaries nobody has surveyed. It is an undiscovered country beyond all the lands and nooks of Thus Spoke O'Murchu. It is a world so overrich in what is beautiful, strange, questionable, terrible, and divine.

The "new cosmology" is more daring perhaps than is prudent. Thus, O'Murchu's greatest weight of recurrence is turned upside down repeatedly in the same succession and sequence. O'Murchu desires nothing new but every pain and every joy and every thought to add to the greatest trouble in reconciling the greatest weight with the "great story" he calls evolutionary faith. Thus Spoke O'Murchu! ... Read more

Reviews (17)

Brilliant analyses.
This work is mainly a review of books by Francis Crick, Gerald Edelman, Roger Penrose, Daniel Dennett, David Chalmers and Israel Rosenfeld. The reviews are sometimes followed by not so polite exchanges between the authors and the reviewer.
This book is an essential read because it sums up in a nutshell the different ways by which the consciousness problem is tackled today.
More, I believe that prof. Searle's viewpoints that 'consciousness is a natural, biological phenomenon' and that 'the brain causes conscious experiences' are the only scientific approaches with a future.
His critic of the materialistic viewpoints of Chalmers and Dennett are devastating. The mind is not just a computer program.
This book also contains some very interesting comments on the distinction between natural and social sciences, the author's famous Chinese Room Argument, a critic of Gilbert Ryle, a profound comment on Penrose's book (brain processes do not guarantee truth) or Richard Dawkins' memes.

All in all, a small, but very clear and important critical book.

Searle: The Dogmatist at it Again
Searle's new book is a compilation of articles previously published in The New York Review of Books, from 1995-1997. While the articles are self-contained, there is a definite theme that runs through them: that recent attempts to explain consciousness are either based on conceptual confusion or offer solutions that are at best promissory notes. Among those singled out for conceptual confusion are Roger Penrose, Daniel Dennett, and David Chalmers. Those who are in the right ballpark but do not deliver on their claims are Francis Crick, Gerald Edelman, and Israel Rosenfeld. Or, to put it more succinctly, the former group is conceptually confused since they do not share Searle's view that consciousness is an irreducible biological property of the brain. The latter group fails to deliver because, while they correctly treat consciousness as a biological phenomenon, they do not explain consciousness in the sense of giving an account of how the brain actually causes conscious states.

Searle's merciless criticisms of recent approaches to consciousness are based on his own original viewpoint proposed in his books Minds, Brains, and Science (1984) and The Rediscovery of the Mind (1992). According to Searle, consciousness is both an irreducibly subjective mental phenomenon and a biological feature of the brain. Searle compares consciousness to digestion in the stomach or the sharpness of a pain, higher-level features of physical structures which are at the same time caused by lower-level micro-features of these structures. The mind/body problem is solved when we repudiate the dogmatic assumption that all properties are exclusively mental or physical. This forced dichotomy has led many philosophers to advocate either dualism, where the mental and the physical are separate phenomena, or materialism, where the mental gets completely eliminated in favor of the physical. Dualism leads to the insoluble problem of mind/body interaction, while materialism ignores the simple fact that we are conscious (most of the time, at any rate), and that consciousness "is the condition that makes it possible for anything to matter to anybody." (xiv) By countenancing consciousness as both mental and physical, Searle delivers us out of this problematic. As a mental phenomenon, consciousness is an irreducible property which is given to us in moments of sentient awareness; and as a biological property, we can (in principle) explain consciousness in terms of the methods of the natural sciences.

From this vantage point, any view that posits a form of materialism or dualism will be accused of conceptual confusion, a failure to see that the "mental" need not stand in opposition to the "physical." Thus Searle is led to dismiss the views of Chalmers (the property dualist) and Dennett (the materalist) without much difficulty. However, Searle's dismissive approach fails to appreciate that these views advance powerful arguments against Searle's own precarious double-aspect view. Take Chalmers' argument first. Chalmers argues that there is a logically possible zombie world physically identical to our own but without any conscious properties. If so, then the conscious facts that obtain in the actual world cannot be logically deduced from the physical facts. As Chalmers concludes, "facts about consciousness are further facts about our world, over and above the physical facts." Searle objects that the argument is question-begging, since it presupposes that an absence of consciousness would not logically entail a change in the physical features of the world. There is a logically possible world where pigs fly, but that would entail a change in the physical facts. Similarly, Searle argues, there is a logically possible world where there is no consciousness, but if consciousness is a physical feature of the world, such a world would require a change in the physical facts. Thus Chalmers' argument only works if he assumes that consciousness is non-physical, which is the very point he is supposed to prove.

Both Chalmers and Searle agree that biological facts are logically supervenient on the physical facts, so that a world which contained the same physical facts would logically entail the same biological facts. Since consciousness is a biological fact, for Searle, he concludes that the physical facts logically entail the conscious facts. Chalmers, however, initially takes it to be an open question whether consciousness is a biological fact; the point of the thought-experiment is to show that there is an important difference between consciousness and biological facts. For we cannot imagine a world physically identical to ours but where no digestion occurs; given identical physical processes in the stomach, digestion must occur in this world as a logical consequence. As Chalmers puts it, "even God could not have created a world that was physically identical to ours but biologically distinct." However, we can imagine a world which is physically identical to ours but where there is no consciousness. Insofar as such a world is coherent, Chalmers is not begging the question by assuming that consciousness is non-physical. For the whole point of the thought-experiment is to demonstrate a disanalogy between consciousness and physical properties. It is clear that it is Searle who is begging the question by just assuming that consciousness is a physical/biological fact and then plugging his ears to Chalmers' thought-experiment based on this assumption. ...[edited for length]

It seems that, no matter what neurophysiological processes are offerred as explanations for co

What is Mind?
A good exposition, via a compilation of past book reviews by John Searle, published over the years in the New York Review of Books, of his views on consciousness and mind, he reiterates here, and in some ways strengthens, his famous Chinese Room argument in examining and denying the claims of the authors of the books under review in this volume.

I think that argument, by the way, while superficially right and useful (as a corrective to those with an overly mechanistic view of mind), ultimately misses the point because Searle presents it as a denial of what he calls "Strong Artificial Intelligence," the position that holds one can build minds, with the sort of consciousness we have, on computers using programs to accomplish this. Relying on the Chinese Room argument, Searle denies "Strong AI" by noting that programs are purely formal, or syntactical as he puts it, and that syntax cannot give meaning which requires a knowing, thinking, aware subject.

The problem with his argument is that the Chinese Room thought experiment -- while demonstrating that we do expect to see a knower at work in acts of "intelligence" (and that computers as presented in his thought experiment do not and cannot know anything) -- still does not demonstrate that computers that have been configured and programmed in certain ways cannot produce, at a "higher" level, just what he wants to deny them, consciousness. That is, syntax may indeed yield semantics in the same way that Searle tells us, elsewhere, that atomic structure can yield hardness or liquidness. But Searle seems never to notice this fundamental flaw in his case.

Searle remains fixated on his idea that consciousness is somehow not explainable via syntactical operations, as seen in computers, and this position keeps cropping up in criticisms of the various writers under review in this book. He's particularly hard on Daniel Dennett (Consciousness Explained), whom he takes to task for suggesting we are all zombie-like and so, says Searle, seems to be denying the qualitative nature of consciousness which the Chinese Room argument demonstrates. Of course, one can read Dennett's claim as being somewhat polemical since it is hard to take Dennett as saying there is no consciousness in the sense that neither he nor the rest of us have it. Dennett's point seems, rather, to be that consciousness is explainable in terms of non-conscious building blocks and that the sense of being a conscious entity that we get is only that, a sense of this.

In fact, Dennett wants to tell us there is no entity per se, only various brain functionalities which combine in certain ways to build the subjectness that we experience as consciousness. But Searle, taking Dennett literally, accuses him of actually arguing that we are all zombies, i.e., unconcious except that we happen to think we're conscious! Such a reading is, of course, a contradiction in terms as Searle suggests. But this does not seem to be a fair interpretation of Dennett's claims.

Searle's Chinese Room argument is right insofar as it shows that the idea of "intelligence" (what we mean by intelligence in creatures like ourselves) requires a subjective knower. But it is wrong insofar as Searle wants to say that it thereby demonstrates why a claim like the one Dennett makes, that consciousness can be built up on a non-organic machine platform (e.g., computers and their programs), is, itself, wrong. In fact, Dennett's claim looks better and better against the weaknesses of the Chinese Room argument when this argument is applied as an attack against "Strong AI" as Searle uses it.

Searle also takes on David Chalmers (The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory) and attacks him for suggesting that consciousness is something that is, in principle, logically divorced from the physicality of the world. As it happens, Chalmers has offered a very useful analysis of the uses we make of mental terms in many cases, showing how we often have two things in mind: a reference to the operational aspects and a reference to the phenomenality that often accompanies the operational aspects, i.e., our experience of having experiences, our subjectness. That we often mean both or one or the other in different contexts seems, in fact, to be quite true. And Chalmers also seems to be right in noting that we often have trouble distinguishing what exactly we are referring to in many actual cases and that the referral function tends to slip and slide over this somewhat icy sheet.

However, Searle rightly suggests that while this may be true of our usages, it doesn't mean that mind and body are two parallel realms as Chalmers seems to be proposing. For Searle this is a matter of how we talk about the phenomena of our experience, i.e., that minds are the functions of brains just as digestion is the function of stomachs, pumping blood is the function of hearts, etc. But Searle thinks Chalmers falls into property dualism while suggesting, simultaneously, that consciousness is irreducible. Searle's position is that it is, indeed, irreducible in terms of levels of speech, but scientifically, he wants to say that we can certainly reduce it to a biological function of brains which, as yet, is beyond our understanding but not, perhaps, forever.

Searle thinks that Chalmers holds a position which could, in principle, suppose that consciousness exists throughout the universe at every level, inanimate as well as animate. Though Chalmers' rebuttal to this reading is included in the book, Searle does not accept the rebuttal as written and insists the conclusion remains implied in Chalmers' arguments.

Searle addresses other writers here as well, including Edelman's work on massively redundant brain processing which he finds quite promising, etc. Because of the limitation of this amazon review format, I can't go much further. But suffice it to say, this is a good book and a useful introduction to the ideas of these thinkers. Searle is a good expositor and has some useful points to make, though I think, in the end, that he has got some things quite wrong, particularly his claim that his Chinese Room argument puts paid to the notion of "Strong AI" which, he tells us, holds that minds can be built out of computers and their programs. His failure to see the weakness in this core claim of his in the end undermines the strength of his criticisms of the other writers presented here.
SWM

Excellent discussion of the issues
I'm almost in complete agreement with Searle on his position that the mind depends completely on the brain and that the dichotomy between mind and brain in philosophy is false. Although one must be careful not to subscribe to a simple mind/brain psychophysical isomorphism, nevertheless, it is quite obvious at this point as a result of the research of the last 75 years in the brain sciences that the mind depends on, and results from, brain mechanisms and processes.

In this book, Searle discusses and critiques the work of a number of theorists and makes numerous observations related to these points, and I thought I'd add a few more. So I'll just make a few observations about the neuroscience for the road, since that's my specialty, including some interesting work related to the clinical side, since some of it is quite fascinating (especially the "orgasmotronic people" I discuss at the end). :-)

The first area I'd like to discuss relates to the area of emotions and specifically mood disorders, which has focused on the neurochemical and serotonin and dopaminergic issues, especially since these chemicals have a profound influence on the limbic system areas and the areas they connect with, such as the temporal, frontal, and prefrontal cortex. The limbic system is an older area of the mammalian brain that has profound effects on emotional behavior and many aspects of personality. It is well established that chemical imbalances and/or damage, such as through trauma and stroke and so on, can cause various syndromes, ranging from mood and emotional disorders to cognitive deficiencies. We still have a lot to learn about this, but the basic chemical pathways have been worked out. For example, deficits in long-term motivation (which many people have) have been found to be associated with the nerve pathways connecting the prefrontal cortex and the limbic system.

Another avenue of research that looks promising relates to schizophrenia, which is that what we call "consciousness" actually results from the integration of separate and diverse brain areas acting in concert, and that when this integration becomes impaired, there are problems. Of course, it remains to be seen if can be treated some way, but again, our understanding of the possible mechanism is continuing to progress.

Another example of how our emotional life depends on the brain is the finding that 70% of death-row inmates have been found to have abnormal EEGs and brain waves emanating from the amygdala, another important structure in the limbic system. The amygdala is involved in aggressive and even homicidal behavior. In one famous case, a formerly quiet, unassuming man developed an amygdalar tumor and shot 17 people and wounded 30 others before he was stopped. There are now drugs that treat abnormal electrical activity in the brain, and the hope is that someday they may even be able to detect and prevent situations like this.

For another fascinating example, take homosexuality, which many people still think is a form of psychopathology. Freud said it was because the boy didn't have a strong father figure, and so doesn't know better. For years homosexuals were treated with psychoanalysis with no effect. Then about 20 years ago, a scientist at Caltech made the amazing discovery that heterosexuals and homosexuals had different neurochemical and anatomical characteristics in one of the limbic areas known as the neurosecretory zone of the preoptic hypothalamic nucleus. In fact, he was able to get animals to display either heterosexual or homosexual behavior by diffusing neurosynaptic chemicals into the preoptic area. So much for the Freudian theory. This research proves that this aspect of our behavior is due entirely to how are brains are wired from birth, and has nothing to do with old notions of psychopathology.

One of the most fascinating cases I came across was a number of people who had been perfectly normal, but had recently become almost complete "vegetables" and had to be hospitalized. At least so they seemed on the surface. There was nothing wrong with them cognitively, they still had normal reasoning ability and could talk and socialize if they wanted to. They just had no interest in it. They progressively lost interest in their famlies, jobs, friends, everything, and eventually had to be hospitalized.

It was discovered that these people had developed an epileptic seizure focus in the orgasm center in the brain. If I remember right, it had the tongue-twisting name of the nucleus reticularis gigantocellularis. In any case, it was in one of the somatosensory processing areas in the thalamus, which is a structure just below the cortex but above the limbic system. Although this is technically a form of epilepsy, there are no convulsions associated with this syndrome (just as there aren't in the case of temporal-lobe epilepsy, which, since it occurs in the memory and associational area of the brain, can produce intense visions and memories, as well as emotional states).

Now it was obvious why these people weren't interested in anything else in their lives. They had orgasms that went on for several minutes, and due to the intensity of the electrical discharge, were probably 10 to 100 times as intense as a normal person's orgasms. And they kept having them. Especially the women patients said it was better than anything they could experience before. So they just sat there, waiting, yearning, hoping, for that next "seizure."

Anyway, just a few more interesting things to consider relating to our knowledge of the mind and brain. The above facts amply illustrate and further support Searle's theory that the mind is a function of the brain and that the classical mind/brain dichotomy is false.

Sama og 45
This is the first book I read by John R. Searle, and for sure not the last. But I had before read very much about his theories, the Chinese Room Argument etc. His view on the mind-body problem is very interesting, and everything in this book is easy and good to read. Searle appeals to common-sense and does a great job. The Mystery of Consciousness is quite extensive and covers a lot of material - probably the best entrance to the consciousness-debate.

I encourage you to read David Chalmers' response to Searle's response to Chalmers response to Searle's review of his book.. it's on the web: Above all... a great book by a great philosopher. ... Read more

Amazon.com

In this series of lectures originally given in 1963, which remained unpublished during Richard Feynman's lifetime, the Nobel-winning physicist thinks aloud on several "meta"--questions of science. What is the nature of the tension between science and religious faith? Why does uncertainty play such a crucial role in the scientific imagination? Is this really a scientific age?

Marked by Feynman's characteristic combination of rationality and humor, these lectures provide an intimate glimpse at the man behind the legend."In case you are beginning to believe," he says at the start of his final lecture, "that some of the things I said before are true because I am a scientist and according to the brochure that you get I won some awards and so forth, instead of your looking at the ideas themselves and judging them directly...I will get rid of that tonight. I dedicate this lecture to showing what ridiculous conclusions and rare statements such a man as myself can make." Rare, perhaps. Irreverent, sure. But ridiculous? Not even close. ... Read more

Reviews (36)

Food for thought
There's a lot of material here to think about. I found Feynman's thesis that doubt (or, more precisely, uncertainty) is the motivation that drives progress in science to be very interesting. In a sense, this relates to the axiom "the more you know, the more you don't know." Every answer that we learn from science raises additional questions that need to be explored.

I also found Feynman's analysis of religion to be interesting as well. His three aspects of religion (metaphysical, ethical, and inspirational) show promise in helping me to better understand some of my own (often contradictory) attitudes about religion. This section is probably the section that will provide me with the most food for reflection.

Finally, his discussion of issues in society actually reminds me of the arguments in "Innumeracy: Mathematical Illiteracy and Its Consequences" by John Allen Paulos. In both cases, the failure of people to grasp basic fundamental principles of science or mathematics leads them to behave in ways that aren't necessarily in their best interests.

Brilliant - Opinionated - Important For The Ages.
Richard Feynman is widely regarded as one of a handful of distinct geniuses of physics of the last century and perhaps the most famous and charismatic in his field, second only to Einstein.

I have to be honest to admit that I can barely read most of his scientific work. I'm just not that smart.But he was also humorous and wise and this book is more about his general belief system and other matters.

Even his prose is not easy reading. His sentences are so long and complex and so well-constructed that the reader feels like he's swimming on the surface of the deepest part of the ocean.Whole lectures feel perfectly designed and complete, all in a curious, Woody Allen, Jewish persona.

I actually believe and follow his worldview, which was roughly analagous to Einstein's.

They were Secular Humanists.They believed that God if he exists, only manifests in a very distant, abstract sense. Both were loathe to accept specific religious views.

It is Feynman's view that science rejects the type of absolute certainty at the core of most mainstream religious views of the world.Interestingly, he includes Soviet Communism as a type of religion, which is understandable when you think about it.

Much of this book is really about the intersection of science and philosophy. He asks: how do we justify right and wrong and other human standards in a world without such a self-invented reward-and-punishment system.

This is surely one of the questions for the ages, one that Feynman clearly believes is beyond the inherent limits of the scientific worldview.He believed that the flaw was inherent in human makeup, and that the solution was also there - not in the science but in the application.

His example was: why is there no water system in the slums of Rio?The money to improve people's lives is there.The will to action is not.

Both Feynman and Einstein considered capitalism a necessary but untrustworthy system, and had political leanings toward the Left.

Feynman discusses the serious responsibilities involved with science, which has in the 20th century been the Pandora's box, bringing enormous forces and power into the world for either good or abuse or evil.

He puts forward perhaps 6 absolute truths that allow for improved human interaction and the greater good of mankind.Most are obliquely political in nature, democracy, freedom of speech, separation of science from exterior interests or intervention, the value of uncertainty,

But in the end, his combined belief system is unclear. It lacks something that the human spirit requires for complete fulfillment.He fully recognized this and I don't fault him for it.

The paradox he attempts to address are inherent in the basic fabric of the world, and if he did think that he knew the answers he would be a different animal altogether.

Considering the direction the nation has taken these last few years, his voice is sorely missed.

Not as good as Surely You're Joking
Although this book is probably the more socially significant of the two, I prefer the light heartedness of Surely You're Joking. This book is a series of collected lectures, so the Feynman that is presented here is the public Feynman, not private, enthusiast, who comes through so brilliantly in the almost stream of consciousness style of writing in Surely You're Joking.

Bland essays which at times border on blabbering.
Feynman should stick to physics, a subject about which he actually knew a thing or two.It's clear from reading the book that Feynman did not give much thought to subjects outside of physics.Given the amount of flattering reviews of this book, I am once again reminded of the fact that people (Americans in particular) are inveterate hero worshippers.For some, everything Feynman touched is gold.I am dismayed to find that Feynman's understanding of non-physics was no deeper than that of an average college kid, yet in the book he rambles on and on without making much of a point on anything.A complete waste of time and money.

Genius is hard to understand
Feynman has given us a fine mess to deal with here. Reading the book requires ones whole being in order to be able to concentrate on and actually understand what he is trying to convey to us in these three lectures. On one side, the things he talks about in, I guess, his own particular way are down right raw in their articulation. On the other side, some things he talks about are, to me at least, brilliant deductions deriving from his observations of the world we're living in. Not all of which I can fully agree with though. I only wish I had paid more attention in my physics classes and read more on the parts of physics Feynman played a major role in during his life, because then I feel I would have been able to deduct for myself where some of his ideas in the present book are coming from. The editors of the book have obviously left Feynman's use of language in tact, which might well be a pro, but I also think one should have been there inside the lecture room with Feynman doing his thing in order to appreciate his genius fully. The present book's three lectures give a glimps, and nothing more, of what the author was all about when venturing outside his beloved field of physics. A tough nut to crack when starting to read, but a delight once one gets the hang of his down-to-earth use of language. Reading some of his other books, as well as some of the books written about him, might be of help in figuring out what he must have been like in person and what his vision on life was. This book by itself cannot do the trick and might even dissuade some generally interested people to read more on Feynman, which would be a true shame. ... Read more

Book Description

Reviews (1)

Very Interesting, Very Different
This book is composed of approximately 20 chapters, and after the first chapter that being the introduction by the author, most of the subsequent chapters involve an interview with one famous person, and not a movie star but an internationally known scientist, or writer-philospher, etc. The format here is that the author interviews and asks a famous personor expert questions, and then follow up questions, and tries to draw the person - him or her - into a discussion of very basic questions such as life, afterlife, and consciousness, future of mankind on the planet, etc. - as examples but he covers many topics with many different people. Depending on the person and their area of knowledge and their philosophy, he gets different kinds of answers. Also, he talks to specialists on drugs, and drug research, and ESP, etc. It is a book that bridges conventional science and perhaps potential unexplored "science" or para-normal, or perhaps even what one might call fake science since it might deal with perceptions and dreams, not something that is analytical or can be measured with a conventional detector. Some of it is on the edge stuff, some just regular science, and some just off the wall speculation on ESP and aliens. Science or fake science, call it what you will, the point of the book is to make one think - open one's mind - and that it does.

The power of the book is that he has interviewed world famous people such as Chomsky and others, so he gets a lot of creative thinking.

I was generally impressed with the book but thought that the interview format was not as strong as say getting each to contribute a well thought out 15 page piece. But maybe that is impossible.

In any case, the book is very interesting, and it is a very novel approach. I thought that the interviews were too short - so 4 stars. It is, for example, hard to get a lot from Noam Chomsky, Deepak Chopra, and George Carlin in 10 pages or so each - one just scratches the surface. Still, the author has some good ideas, and he has a nice introduction - chapter 1. ... Read more

Book Description

Re-Thinking Science presents an account of the dynamic relationship between society and science. Despite the mounting evidence of a much closer, interactive relationship between society and science, current debate still seems to turn on the need to maintain a 'line' to demarcate them. The view persists that there is a one-way communication flow from science to society -- with scant attention given to the ways in which society communicates with science.

The authors argue that changes in society now make such communications both more likely and more numerous, and that this is transforming science not only in its research practices and the institutions that support it but also deep in its epistemological core. To explain these changes, Nowotny, Scott and Gibbons have developed an open, dynamic framework for re-thinking science.

The authors conclude that the line which formerly demarcated society from science is regularly transgressed and that the resulting closer interaction of science and society signals the emergence of a new kind of science: contextualized or context-sensitive science. The co-evolution between society and science requires a more or less complete re-thinking of the basis on which a new social contract between science and society might be constructed. In their discussion the authors present some of the elements that would comprise this new social contract. ... Read more

Reviews (1)

Best overview of recent change in science and tech
This is a terrific book. The argument goes roughly like this: there has been a change from mode 1 to mode 2 science (explained in their previous book) involving greater interdisciplinarity, more goal directed research, and a diversification of sources of research funding. This book now argues that there has also been a concomitant change in the public sphere. Perhaps the easiest way to describe it is that in the 19th century we had mass primary education; in the first half of the 20th mass secondary education; and in the last 50 years mass university education. As a result, expert decisions cannot be taken by only a few: there are too many civil servants, think tank employees, consultants, and other members of the general public who are able to understand and criticize. Scientific and technical decisions, especially relating to science policy, simply cannot be taken behind closed doors. What we get instead is a more complex and more democratic process, where the aim is socially robust knowledge - a compromise that the enlarged body of decision makers can agree upon. It may be called socially distributed expertise. The authors pursue this using the term agora, the Greek equivalent of the Latin forum. They are attuned to the many interesting changes that has come with this new setting, such as the challenge to the peer review system.

The book is written in the genre of the grand, unspecific sweep. There are few references and few concrete examples. The crude before-and-after discourse is heuristically useful but of course in many ways misleading. These stylistic choices are not everyone's cup of tea, but they do help making the above argument. ... Read more

Amazon.com

The Loom of God takes an entertaining, indeed playful, look at numbers and mathematical patterns and the mystical properties that have often been ascribed to them. Clifford Pickover takes you on a romp through numerological history, introducing both its characters (such as the great mathematician Pythagoras) and its concepts: triangle numbers, "perfect" numbers, Fibonnaci numbers, and more. Pickover describes how ancient--and sometimes no-so-ancient--cultures and religions interpreted the significance of various numbers; he examines the geometry of Stonehenge and considers the probability of earth's annihilation by collision with an asteroid. While many authors could chronicle the history of mathematics and its relationship with mysticism and religion, few could do it with the verve and flair that Pickover manages. ... Read more

Reviews (3)

The Loom of God is a rich source for bored programmers
If you've gotten bored of hunting the wumpus, check out The Loom of God. It covers vast mathematical areas, many of which make excellent computer programs. One intriguing concept presented was that of "sociable numbers." That is, numbers A, B, C, D, E (or more) for which the factors of A add up to B, the factors of B add up to C, and so one, until the factors of E add up to A. As you might imagine, the search for sociable numbers requires either VERY powerful computers, or VERY innovative algorithms... none of which are discussed in the book. It does however, provide an excellent introduction this and many other mathematical topics.

Entertaining bored programmers is not, of course, the primary focus of the book, but it alone makes the book worth buying.

Math made fun, non-fiction and fiction in one
The author has done a wonderful job in taking math and making it interesting. By weaving non-fiction and fiction into one coherent story, Pickover has been able to take math and give it a life of its own. Certainly a good addition to any mathematicians library, but an even better addition to everybody's library because everybody can understand it!

"Dazzling tour of number and the numinous." - Publ. Weekly
"Clifford A. Pickover leads readers on a dazzling, lushlyillustrated tour of the intersection of number and thenuminous." - Publisher's Weekly, April 1997 ... Read more

Book Description

Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, who expertly defended creation in Refuting Evolution (which has sold over 350,000 copies), goes to bat once again in Refuting Evolution 2. Aimed specifically at the evolutionarily biased PBS television series "Evolution," Sarfati adroitly makes light of the inaccuracies and fallacies of evolutionary theory, and offers sound creationist interpretation of the facts. This book also updates creationist "arguments" such as the "plesiosaur" reeled in by the Japanese fishing boat, the peppered moths, the "men have one less rib than women" adage, and much more. Here is a priceless resource for those involved in the ongoing creation/evolution debate. ... Read more

Reviews (4)

Religious Fanaticism 1, Objectivity 0
After reading both Refuting Evolution and this follow up, the one thing that Sarfati could never be accused of is being objective. There are some interesting points raised regarding the nature of scientific observation and the risk of making over-generalizations but then the discourse falls flat when every single discussion ends with something akin to evolution must
therefore be impossible and creationism is the only possible explanation.

I used this text and Refuting Evolution once in a course I teach that examines the creationism/evolution public education controversy. With so much of Sarfati's over-simplification of issues and claims regarding evidence, most college students roll their eyes after 5 minutes with the text and none have viewed any of the explanations the author puts forth as even remotely plausible or worth their consideration.

The only observation that students consistently point out is the fanatic nature