LABYRINTHS OF REASON - PARADOX, PUZZLES AND THE FRAILTY OF KNOWLEDGE

by William Poundstone

We conceive of and describe the world in ways that usually work just fine, but in the far corners of the labyrinth of reason, our best intentions fold back on themselves, and we end up trapped in an intractable loop or tumbling down a chute of infinite regress. Labyrinths of Reason is a collection of classic philosophical thought experiments and other imponderables that push reason and language to their logical limits. Beyond just idle brainteasers, William Poundstone shows that these mental exercises have profound implications for such fields as cryptography, decision theory, subatomic physics, and computer programming. But most of all, they're good, clean philosophical fun!

Genres: Philosophy, Science, Nonfiction, Mathematics, Logic, Psychology, Puzzles

Hardcover

First published January 1, 1988

About the author

William Poundstone is the author of more than ten non-fiction books, including 'Fortune's Formula', which was the Amazon Editors' Pick for #1 non-fiction book of 2005. Poundstone has written for The New York Times, Psychology Today, Esquire, Harpers, The Economist, and Harvard Business Review. He has appeared on the Today Show, The David Letterman Show and hundreds of radio talk-shows throughout the world. Poundstone studied physics at MIT and many of his ideas concern the social and financial impact of scientific ideas. His books have sold over half a million copies worldwide.

Reviews

[Ami Iida · Rating 5 out of 5]

the collections of "paradox ,philosophy ,thought experiment".
It is one of the best experimental book I've ever read for all my life.
I can acquire the frameworks of thought and understand human can do possibility and impossibility.

[Jim · Rating 4 out of 5]

Do yourself a favor and go to William Poundstone's Website.


Writings notes as I go along. ...in process. This book is one of my 10 in 2024; I am looking to read 10 books I have owned for years this year.

C1) How do we know that we are awake and not in a dream ? The problem of knowledge. confirmation theory/epistemology . Study of paradoxes teaches about logic. A fallacy is a contradiction often from a trivial well disguised mistake in logic. The 1=2 example cause you can't divide by 0. Thought experiments. The twin experiment relativity.

[Karl Geiger · Rating 4 out of 5]

A popular introduction to the problems of knowing (epistemology) and the limits of human explanation and reasoning. Poundstone's book is a must-read for anyone interested in mathematics, logic, argumentation and debate, science, and the fragility of human reason and understanding.

[Aaron · Rating 5 out of 5]

William Poundstone’s fourth book, Labyrinths of Reason: Paradox, Puzzles, and the Frailty of Knowledge (1988), explores epistemology—the study of knowledge—through logic puzzles, mathematics, computing, and the philosophy of science. Poundstone introduces topics such as confirmation theory and Nelson Goodman’s “grue” paradox, then links them to complexity theory and the famous P vs. NP question in computer science. The absence of any discussion of Bayesianism makes the book feel a bit dated, but most chapters still hold up well. Although some sections are demanding, Poundstone largely succeeds in making sophisticated philosophical and mathematical ideas accessible to a general audience. I thoroughly enjoyed it and read most of it while relaxing in Jamaica—an unlikely but recommended beach read.

[Peter Lewis · Rating 4 out of 5]

Full of great paradoxes, variations, discussions, and criticisms. Also a very accessible read!

[Michiel · Rating 3 out of 5]

Some interesting paradoxes bit unorganized. Not up to Poundstone's usual standard.

[Gabriel Pinkus]

A fascinating read, William put together a collection of puzzles, thought-experiments, paradoxes, and other fascinating stories meant to test your mind and question your basic assumptions.

My favorite story is the 100-foot man story. If you were asked to estimate the probability that there has lived a human who was more than 100-feet tall, you'd probably put it at a very, very low probability. This is a result of having lived in the world, learned about things like the square-cube law, etc. You've just seen over and over that nobody is even close to 100-feet tall; however, imagine that tomorrow you read in the Wall Street Journal that archaeologists had discovered the remains of a 98-foot tall person. The newly-found example still confirms the assertion that there has never been a 100-foot tall person, and yet, my estimated probability would increase, as if there was someone who got to be 98-feet tall, perhaps someone else was 100-feet tall!

It's worth a read.

[Thomas · Rating 4 out of 5]

For science nerds this is a good read. But it is dated. There are several logical paradoxes related to computational algorithm which modern computers have made irrelevant. Nevertheless most of what is in this book is quite relevant - and will remain so forever. This book covers almost exactly the same material as a college course in formal logic did that I took at Univ of Pennsylvania in 1971. It was interesting then - and remains interesting now. But it gets formal sometimes and can be slow going.

[Alok · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is the best high level overview of epistemology that I have read. In terms of value to rational thinker, it compares favourably to GEB. I recommend it to anyone who is concerned with why we know what we know, and in particular what the valuid methods of

[John Jaksich · Rating 5 out of 5]

I read the book many years ago and I still own the hard back edition. Found it to be a very good read. Gives much insight on epistemology for the lay reader. I could not put it down.

[John · Rating 1 out of 5]

Stopped reading after Poundstone committed (I believe) a gross error while discussing Hempel's Paradox on p. 26: "An observation cannot confirm two mutually exclusive hypotheses." If he means "fully confirm," then his preceding example of the genie is a misrepresentation of the case, since the genie's observation "All non-black things are non-ravens" does not *completely* confirm the hypothesis "All ravens are white," since to do that you'd have to examine black things too, not just non-black things.

If (as I think from the context) he means "partially confirm," Poundstone's statement is just false:

Hypothesis 1: There is a dinosaur in the western half of the room, and only that half.
Hypothesis 2: There is no dinosaur in the room.
Observation: There is no dinosaur in the eastern half of the room.

The observation clearly provides evidence for both, mutually exclusive hypotheses. This simplified example is directly analogous to the raven example but takes the sting out of it while preserving all the relevant features. (According to Wikipedia this resonates with Patrick Maher's proposed resolution of Hempel's Paradox.)

Skimming ahead, I easily found another misrepresentation of the philosophy. Page 34: "Logicians *do* allow that statements such as 'All centaurs are green'...are true." I don't have deep knowledge about this issue (although I have been familiar with this paradox of universal quantification for a while), except that it's apparently controversial among logicians whether "All centaurs are green" is true. Maybe Poundstone's statement reflects the state of play when the book was published, but even then the reader should beware of potentially significant inaccuracies in the author's presentation.

I didn't bother with the rest because I'm already familiar with most of the paradoxes and I don't really trust Poundstone to accurately expound the ones I don't know. Nevertheless, this may be a good introduction to the subject for philosophical novices, especially intelligent teenagers. Maybe when my someday-nieces and -nephews come into being and grow up...

EDIT: Never mind, he misrepresents Ockham's Razor too. Not giving this to any nieces or nephews; great and lively writing, but this stuff is too important and I'm not feeling generous. One star.

[Boggischewsbooks · Rating 3 out of 5]

An interesting book which is notionally about the limits of knowledge, but gets lost in a labyrinth of its author's own creation. This may be intentional. By framing the limits of knowledge in terms of paradoxes, it inevitably takes the reader down a lot of dead ends and never really emerges from the maze. On the other hand, one of the book's conclusions is that -barring an unlikely revolutionary discovery - there are limits on what we can know. Knowledge is a labyrinth without end and we will only ever be able to explore a vanishingly tiny fraction of it. This is kind of depressing for a book that is animated by moving from one mildly diverting paradox to the next, like Boffo the Clown performing magic tricks at a wake.

Like Boffo, the book is showing its age. The first part is about "confirmation", which had me looking for the word "Bayesian" in the index. It's not there. And so, the book is missing out on a modern framework for thinking about "confirmation" as well as a whole rich seam of interesting paradoxes. Likewise, the section on chaos, which was already cursory when the book was published, is now woefully out of date.

Even if those gaps were filled it would still be somewhat unsatisfying. Firstly, the theme of how frail our knowledge is gets lost completely at times. Secondly, it raises an obvious question which is "how, despite all the difficulties, we know so damn much?"

For all that though, the book left a strong impression. The idea that what we know is only a tiny fraction of everything there is to know is one thing. The idea that we can only ever know an infinitesimal fraction of everything, is another. That there might be obvious truths hiding in plain sight, truths with the power to make us whole, healthy or happy, truths that nonetheless elude our grasp and maybe always will... well, it haunts me.

[#DÏ4B7Ø Chinnamasta-Bhairav]

~}-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-{~
~}-------:}|{:-:}|{:- * LINKS * -:}|{:-:}|{:-----------{~
~}-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-{~

* -:}|{:- * A * -:}|{:- *

-:}|{: ? :}|{:-

-:}|{}|{:- ? :}|{}|{:=:}|{}|{: ? -:}|{}|{:-

* -:}|{}|{: INCOMPLETE :}|{}|{:- *

* -:}|{}|{ + POSITIVE +/ - NEGATIVE - }|{}|{:- *

* -:}|{}|{:- * SUMMARY * -:}|{}|{:- *


~}-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-{~

* -:}|{:- * A * -:}|{:- *

~}-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-{~

* -:}|{}|{:- * KEY * ~ TIMESTAMPS & NOTES -:}|{}|{:- *

-:}|{}|{:- ? :}|{}|{:=:}|{}|{: ? -:}|{}|{:-

-:}|{}|{:- ? :}|{}|{:=:}|{}|{: ? -:}|{}|{:-

-:}|{}|{:- ? :}|{}|{:=:}|{}|{: ? -:}|{}|{:-

-:}|{}|{:- ? :}|{}|{:=:}|{}|{: ? -:}|{}|{:-

-:}|{}|{:- ? :}|{}|{:=:}|{}|{: ? -:}|{}|{:-

-:}|{}|{:- ? :}|{}|{:=:}|{}|{: ? -:}|{}|{:-

* -:}|{:- *

~}-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-{~

[Miguel · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5 Stars

A Good introduction into the problems of knowledge and its arising paradoxes, although a bit slow at times, drawing too much into what may seem as unnecessary problems before reaching the more obvious train of thought.

Two thirds into the book it starts to be an intro into Computer Science (P-NP, Exponential growth, cryptography) which gets a bit tedious if you already have a CS background.

[Peter · Rating 2 out of 5]

The quality of writing does not live up to the quality of the title.

This book was in need of a more forceful editor. Perhaps if I had a mind that was more interested in thought puzzles, I would have liked it better. Though in that case, probably a collection of thought puzzles would be a more efficient read than the hot air surrounding these mildly interesting thought problems. Please note, though, I stopped reading about 1/3 in.

[Julio Pino · Rating 5 out of 5]

"If everything in the world were to grow by three times overnight, would you be able to tell the difference?" (Poincare)And, "How do we know the world is not the dream of a mad scientist who keeps a brain inside a glass bubble?" (Descartes). W. Poundstone tackles paradoxes in science, philosophy, and just plain sense to demonstrate that reason ultimately bounces back on itself. A treat for thinkers and jokers.

[Danilo · Rating 5 out of 5]

Really loved it, he shows exactly what's in the title, paradoxes, puzzles and the frailty of knowledge. It's a must read, wish I had read it sooner in my life, as it does change many of your points of view.

[Ken Grant · Rating 4 out of 5]

Challenging read. Delves into the mysteries of how we know and the puzzles that challenge our thinking. Introduces the reader to the limitations of human knowledge and gave me an increased appreciation for God's revelation. Without such revelation we are unable to truly know anything at all.

[Alexandra Bicknell · Rating 4 out of 5]

The anecdotes were kinda eccentric but the logic behind them was compelling. This book really makes me wanna retreat into the wilderness and embrace my inevitable ignorance. Made my brain hurt in a good way. Ah, aporia!

[Sean Hall · Rating 2 out of 5]

Not really a clever fun puzzle book, but more of an elongated intellectual slough through exercises of thought that are basically a waste of time.

[Dave · Rating 4 out of 5]

Poundstone is really good at writing these "complex subject in layman's terms" books. This one is no exception.

[Jenny Trick · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5/5 stars. I enjoyed most of this book and it had some really good puzzles I liked. There were still a few chapters that were boring or I didn’t really understand though.

[Jerome · Rating 3 out of 5]

Entertaining book that delves into some fundamental problems of logic. It is unfortunate that the reader comes away with bewilderment towards "reality," with no hint that the formalization of logic generates its own paradoxes which are only "real" in as far as we perceive them (and logic itself) as real.

[Ushan · Rating 4 out of 5]

A popular introduction to epistemology using paradoxes and thought experiments: Putnam's brain in a vat, Descartes's evil genius, and Russell's suggestion that the world has been created 5 minutes ago complete with memories and artifacts. It also forays into such topics as the paradoxes of infinity, NP-completeness, the Voynich manuscript, and the algorithm for exiting a labyrinth.

[thirtytwobirds · Rating 4 out of 5]

Another great book by this author. It starts out mostly as just a jumble of interesting paradoxes, but after the first third of the book it starts to get a lot more coherent. It's got one of the most lucid explanations of P/NP I've read yet, and talks about a lot of really mind-bending topics in a way that makes them seem obvious.

[Adrian Herbez · Rating 5 out of 5]

I really enjoyed this book. I expected that it would cover some topics I'm already familiar with, and it did, but it also covered a great deal that was new to me. I also found the coverage of topics I had already encountered to add to my understanding.

Overall, I thought it was a thoroughly enjoyable collection of interesting problems, presented in a great way. Recommended

[Adam.delconte · Rating 4 out of 5]

If you want to really breakdown the nature of knowledge, and what can truely be known, you should check this out. Parts are entertaining, others tedious, and others still will send your mind spinning off into some crazy deep s#!t (Pardon my e-cursing).

[Phil · Rating 3 out of 5]

Very interesting book. Lots of conundrums and paradoxes. Started getting harder to follow towards the end ... and I'm still not entirely sure that I understand what an NP-Complete problem is. So .... early chapters more interesting than the last few, but definitely worth a read.

[Dan · Rating 3 out of 5]

Acquired Sept 10, 1999
City Lights Book Shop, London, Ontario

[Emma · Rating 5 out of 5]

Best read in small doses as you then have time to ponder each paradox/puzzle described. Entertaining and easy to follow.