What do you think?
Rate this book
The Unnatural Nature of Science: Why Science Does Not Make (Common) Sense
How is it that nobody―except maybe scientists―sees science for what it is? In this entertaining and provocative book, Lewis Wolpert draws on the entire history of science, from Thales of Miletus to Watson and Crick, from the study of eugenics to the discovery of the double helix. The result is a scientist’s view of the culture of science, authoritative and informed and at the same time mercifully accessible to those who find cohabiting with this culture a puzzling experience.
Science is arguably the defining feature of our age. For anyone who hopes to understand its nature, this lively and thoughtful book provides the perfect starting point.
Science is arguably the defining feature of our age. For anyone who hopes to understand its nature, this lively and thoughtful book provides the perfect starting point.
205 pages, Paperback
First published November 9, 1992
9 people are currently reading
292 people want to read
About the author
Lewis Wolpert
35 books109 followersLewis Wolpert CBE FRS FRSL was a developmental biologist, author, and broadcaster.
Career
He was educated at the University of Witwatersrand, Imperial College London, and at King's College London. He is presently Emeritus Professor of Biology as applied to Medicine in the Department of Anatomy and developmental biology at University College London.
He is well known in his field for elaborating and championing the ideas of positional information and positional value: molecular signals and internal cellular responses to them that enable cells to do the right thing in the right place during embryonic development. The essence of these concepts is that there is a dedicated set of molecules for spatial coordination of cells that is the same across many species and across different developmental stages and tissues. The discovery of Hox gene codes in flies and vertebrates has largely vindicated Wolpert's positional value concept, while identification of growth factor morphogens in many species has supported the concept of positional information.
In addition to his scientific and research publications, he has written about his own experience of clinical depression in Malignant Sadness: The Anatomy of Depression. This was turned into three television programmes entitled 'A Living Hell' which he presented on BBC2.
He was made a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1980 and awarded the CBE in 1990. He was made a Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature in 1999.
He is a Vice-President of the British Humanist Association.
Theories
Wolpert is regarded as a rationalist. In an April 7, 2005 article entitled "Spiked", The Guardian asked a series of scientists "What is the one thing everyone should learn about science?" Wolpert responded, "I would teach the world that science is the best way to understand the world, and that for any set of observations, there is only one correct explanation. Also, science is value-free, as it explains the world as it is. Ethical issues arise only when science is applied to technology – from medicine to industry."
In a lecture entitled "Is Science Dangerous?", he expanded on this: "I regard it as ethically unacceptable and impractical to censor any aspect of trying to understand the nature of our world."
On May 25, 1994, Wolpert conducted an hour-long interview with Dr. Francis Crick called "How the Brain 'sees' " for The Times Dillon Science Forum; a video of the interview was produced by Just Results Video Productions for The Times.
On January 15, 2004, Wolpert and biologist/ parapsychologist Rupert Sheldrake engaged in a live debate regarding the evidence for telepathy. It took place at the Royal Society of Arts in London.
In the late 1960s Wolpert proposed the illustrative French flag model, which explains how signalling between cells early in morphogenesis could be used to inform cells with the same Genetic regulatory network of their position and role.
He is credited with the famous quote: "It is not birth, marriage, or death, but gastrulation which is truly the most important time in your life."
An early book was The Unnatural Nature of Science. His most recent book is Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast.
In May 2008, he gave one of four plenary lectures at the European Society for the Study of Science and Theology in Sigtuna, Sweden. His talk was reported as follows:
Lewis Wolpert's plenary address entitled "The Origins of Science and Religion" was provocative, amusing and from a totally materialist perspective. In his view, religion arose from the uniquely human need for causal explanations, and neither religion nor philosophy contributed anything of importance to scientific undersanding. ... ESSSAT is to be congratulated for offering its platform to a strong-minded materialist, but in the end Wolpert proved unable to enter serious debate with the conference theme or its participants.
-
Career
He was educated at the University of Witwatersrand, Imperial College London, and at King's College London. He is presently Emeritus Professor of Biology as applied to Medicine in the Department of Anatomy and developmental biology at University College London.
He is well known in his field for elaborating and championing the ideas of positional information and positional value: molecular signals and internal cellular responses to them that enable cells to do the right thing in the right place during embryonic development. The essence of these concepts is that there is a dedicated set of molecules for spatial coordination of cells that is the same across many species and across different developmental stages and tissues. The discovery of Hox gene codes in flies and vertebrates has largely vindicated Wolpert's positional value concept, while identification of growth factor morphogens in many species has supported the concept of positional information.
In addition to his scientific and research publications, he has written about his own experience of clinical depression in Malignant Sadness: The Anatomy of Depression. This was turned into three television programmes entitled 'A Living Hell' which he presented on BBC2.
He was made a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1980 and awarded the CBE in 1990. He was made a Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature in 1999.
He is a Vice-President of the British Humanist Association.
Theories
Wolpert is regarded as a rationalist. In an April 7, 2005 article entitled "Spiked", The Guardian asked a series of scientists "What is the one thing everyone should learn about science?" Wolpert responded, "I would teach the world that science is the best way to understand the world, and that for any set of observations, there is only one correct explanation. Also, science is value-free, as it explains the world as it is. Ethical issues arise only when science is applied to technology – from medicine to industry."
In a lecture entitled "Is Science Dangerous?", he expanded on this: "I regard it as ethically unacceptable and impractical to censor any aspect of trying to understand the nature of our world."
On May 25, 1994, Wolpert conducted an hour-long interview with Dr. Francis Crick called "How the Brain 'sees' " for The Times Dillon Science Forum; a video of the interview was produced by Just Results Video Productions for The Times.
On January 15, 2004, Wolpert and biologist/ parapsychologist Rupert Sheldrake engaged in a live debate regarding the evidence for telepathy. It took place at the Royal Society of Arts in London.
In the late 1960s Wolpert proposed the illustrative French flag model, which explains how signalling between cells early in morphogenesis could be used to inform cells with the same Genetic regulatory network of their position and role.
He is credited with the famous quote: "It is not birth, marriage, or death, but gastrulation which is truly the most important time in your life."
An early book was The Unnatural Nature of Science. His most recent book is Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast.
In May 2008, he gave one of four plenary lectures at the European Society for the Study of Science and Theology in Sigtuna, Sweden. His talk was reported as follows:
Lewis Wolpert's plenary address entitled "The Origins of Science and Religion" was provocative, amusing and from a totally materialist perspective. In his view, religion arose from the uniquely human need for causal explanations, and neither religion nor philosophy contributed anything of importance to scientific undersanding. ... ESSSAT is to be congratulated for offering its platform to a strong-minded materialist, but in the end Wolpert proved unable to enter serious debate with the conference theme or its participants.
-
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews
February 3, 2015
Why do people persist in trying to square the circle, trisect the angle, run vehicles on water, build perpetual motion machines, deny evolution or attack vaccination?
Aside from being stupid, that is . . . Wolpert's view, with which I agree, is that much of science is counter to our intuition. The world DOES look flat, superficially, the Sun DOES seem to move across the sky.
I blame the teachers, but then I would, being an old science teacher. I was lucky enough to chair a lecture that Wolpert gave in Sydney, so I have a personal inscription in mine. It is precious. Lovely bloke, lovely mind!
Aside from being stupid, that is . . . Wolpert's view, with which I agree, is that much of science is counter to our intuition. The world DOES look flat, superficially, the Sun DOES seem to move across the sky.
I blame the teachers, but then I would, being an old science teacher. I was lucky enough to chair a lecture that Wolpert gave in Sydney, so I have a personal inscription in mine. It is precious. Lovely bloke, lovely mind!
November 23, 2020
There are very few books that I would say have had a significant effect on the way I have lived my life. I read primarily for pleasure, and the topics I read on simply reflect my interests.
However, this book has had a significant impact on my life, more than any other I have ever read. I first read this before applying for university (biochemistry) and have now graduated, and I can directly see how this book has shaped my thinking and feelings towards science.
I will not comment on the actual content of the book as many other reviews have done so better than I ever could.
Overall- I would highly recommend this book, especially to those on the advent of a career or education in a scientific field. It may not help everyone, but hopefully there are others like me who it may have such a beneficial effect on.
However, this book has had a significant impact on my life, more than any other I have ever read. I first read this before applying for university (biochemistry) and have now graduated, and I can directly see how this book has shaped my thinking and feelings towards science.
I will not comment on the actual content of the book as many other reviews have done so better than I ever could.
Overall- I would highly recommend this book, especially to those on the advent of a career or education in a scientific field. It may not help everyone, but hopefully there are others like me who it may have such a beneficial effect on.
July 15, 2016
Aku memungut buku ini dari rak, bersama2 dengan Open Society tulisan Popper, sewaktu kemuncak isu gerakan anti-vaksin baru-baru ini.
Open Society menekankan tanggungjawab keilmuan dan beban moral seseorang warganegara untuk mempertahankan demokrasi dan menyingkir pemikiran2 dogmatik (seperti kecenderungan skeptisisme terhadap fakta2 yang telahpun mapan dan teruji, dapat kita lihat pada gerakan2 antivaksin) yang bakal membantutkan pengamalan demokrasi yang sihat. Adapun buku ini menceritakan bahawa salah satu sebab sains moden begitu sukar diterima oleh sesetengah sektor di dalam masyarakat adalah kerana cara pemikiran sains tidaklah selari dengan akal budi atau 'common sense' - yakni cara pemikiran yang manusia ramai praktikkan pada kehidupan harian.
Buku ini sedikit mengejutkan aku dengan tindakan penulisnya meneroka isu-isu yang jarang disentuh oleh seorang saintis yang berkecimpung aktif dalam bidang kajian saintifik seperti Lewis Wolpert - yang dalam kes ini merupakan pakar bidang embryologi.
Bab2 pertama bermula dengan cara tipikal buku2 'Popular Science' mutakhir ini: trivia2 menarik, penemuan2 baru, quote2 dsb.
Di sini aku bersetuju dengan idea utama penulis bahawa sains tidaklah begitu 'common sense'. Andaikan kita hidup dalam dunia tanpa pengkaji falak, pengkaji hayat, pengkaji bumi, pengkaji fizik: bagaimana mampu kita cerap daripada pengalaman seharian tentang sifat bumi yang sfera, tabiat pergerakan objek sepertinya konsep inertia atau beza antara velositi dan pecutan, bagaimana zuriat diperolehi, kenapa ada manusia mati tua dan ada yang mati muda...senarai ini terlalu panjang untuk dititipkan satu2.
Juga adalah hakikat dimana selama hampir 2500 tahun, sains dan teknologi bukanlah sekutu rapat seperti yang kita saksikan sekarang. Itu satu lagi penggarisan kontras (contrast-distinction) penting yang diingatkan penulis. Penciptaan tenaga stim yang begitu emblematik dengan modeniti umpamanya adalah bermula dengan usaha beberapa generasi jurutera yang beberapa kali cuba dan gagal di dalam percubaan mencipta enjin baru sebelum akhirnya disempurnakan oleh James Watt (1736-1819). Mereka lakukan semua ini dengan pengetahuan saintifik yang hampir sifar di dalam dunia yang baru berjinak2 dengan idea pergerakan Newton (1642-1727). Hanya dengan perkembangan tradisi Wissenschaft di Jerman pada abad ke-18 dan abad ke-19 baharulah perkaitan antara perusahaan ilmiah, kajian dan aplikasi, terikat kemas dan dibangunkan secara sistematik di dalam persekitaran institusi, seperti disaksikan sekarang.
Aku rasa bermula dengan bahagian satu pertiga terakhir buku ini baharulah gear perbahasan dinaikkan dengan penulis mula menyerang dan menjawab kritikan demi kritikan terhadap sains moden yang dihadapkan oleh sosiologi dan sejarahwan sains.
Kritikan sains sosial terhadap sains moden bernada relativis untuk yang biasa mengikutinya. Sosiologis/sejarahwan mengatakan bahawa saintis terlalu pantas mengandaikan bahawa rumusan2 tentang tabiat alam yang dicapai mereka, menerusi ujikaji demi ujikaji yang bergerak secara falsifikasi, adalah objektif mutlak. Wolpert tidak senang dengan kritikan sebegini.
Sebagai peminat sejarah aku sedikit cenderung untuk berpihak kepada hasil analisis dan dapatan oleh sosiologis/sejarahwan. Namun Wolpert memberikan respon yang tidak kurang ampuh: kalau begitu gamaknya kata sosiologis/sejarahwan maka apakah model sains atau cara pandang alam atau kosmologi lain yang mampu hadir sebagai ganti?
Wolpert sebutkan disini umpamanya tesis ketiadasetaraan (incommensurability) Kuhn yang mengatakan antara dua paradigma sains, tiada kayu ukur objektif mampu digunakan demi melacak yang mana antara keduanya adalah lebih saintifik.
Kedua-dua mereka, contohnya mekanik klasikal Newton jika dibandingkan kuantum fizik Planck atau bidang kimia sebelum dan selepas Lavoisier, bergerak atas andaian atau asumpsi2 yang berbeza tentang alam. Ibarat mengukur spektrum warna dengan ukuran sentimeter, sebarang percubaan untuk mengatakan yang satu lebih tepat dengan realiti, dan yang lain tidak, adalah sia2.
Telahan Kuhn ini andai diperinci mengisyaratkan beberapa konklusi yang sukar diterima. Adakah tindakan beberapa komuniti orang pribumi yang menari beramai2 apabila musim kemarau dengan harapan supaya hujan turun, mampu dikatakan tidak kurang tepat pada takah kosmologi, dengan tindakan meteorologis yang menanam awan (cloud-seeding) untuk tujuan sama?
Menariknya, pada muka surat seterusnya Wolpert ada membangkitkan tentang ketempangan sains moden dalam membincangkan beberapa hal, satu bentuk pengiktirafan dari beliau yang yang aku hormati. Cuma malang sekali, sebaik sahaja beliau berkata sedemikian, Wolpert tidak bersandar kepada perbahasan ilmu etika dan estetika sewaktu berbincang tentang topik implikasi kejuruteraan genetik dan tanggungjawab saintis terhadap hasil kajian mereka (Wolpert memberi contoh kes penemuan tenaga nuklear dan membandingkannya dengan pergerakan eugenik).
Kelemahan buku ini adalah penulis terlajak-anggar kepakarannya di dalam mengolah beberapa isu seputar fenomena sains (bukan fenomena saintifik). Itu bukan bermakna perlecehan idea beliau. Seperti yang aku katakan, banyak daripada buah-buah fikir Wolpert adalah absah untuk dibangkitkan - walaupun aku akui kritikan beliau terhadap sosiologi/sejarahwan bukanlah satu kritikan yang akan diambil peduli dengan berat oleh sains sosial (aku masih tidak mampu articulate sebabnya).
Cuma pembaca perlu tahu bahawa buku ini ditulis dari suatu pandang sudut yang menyeru untuk sudut pandangnya tersebut diberati dan direnungi sewaktu berbicara tentang sains dan perusahaannya.
Open Society menekankan tanggungjawab keilmuan dan beban moral seseorang warganegara untuk mempertahankan demokrasi dan menyingkir pemikiran2 dogmatik (seperti kecenderungan skeptisisme terhadap fakta2 yang telahpun mapan dan teruji, dapat kita lihat pada gerakan2 antivaksin) yang bakal membantutkan pengamalan demokrasi yang sihat. Adapun buku ini menceritakan bahawa salah satu sebab sains moden begitu sukar diterima oleh sesetengah sektor di dalam masyarakat adalah kerana cara pemikiran sains tidaklah selari dengan akal budi atau 'common sense' - yakni cara pemikiran yang manusia ramai praktikkan pada kehidupan harian.
Buku ini sedikit mengejutkan aku dengan tindakan penulisnya meneroka isu-isu yang jarang disentuh oleh seorang saintis yang berkecimpung aktif dalam bidang kajian saintifik seperti Lewis Wolpert - yang dalam kes ini merupakan pakar bidang embryologi.
Bab2 pertama bermula dengan cara tipikal buku2 'Popular Science' mutakhir ini: trivia2 menarik, penemuan2 baru, quote2 dsb.
Di sini aku bersetuju dengan idea utama penulis bahawa sains tidaklah begitu 'common sense'. Andaikan kita hidup dalam dunia tanpa pengkaji falak, pengkaji hayat, pengkaji bumi, pengkaji fizik: bagaimana mampu kita cerap daripada pengalaman seharian tentang sifat bumi yang sfera, tabiat pergerakan objek sepertinya konsep inertia atau beza antara velositi dan pecutan, bagaimana zuriat diperolehi, kenapa ada manusia mati tua dan ada yang mati muda...senarai ini terlalu panjang untuk dititipkan satu2.
Juga adalah hakikat dimana selama hampir 2500 tahun, sains dan teknologi bukanlah sekutu rapat seperti yang kita saksikan sekarang. Itu satu lagi penggarisan kontras (contrast-distinction) penting yang diingatkan penulis. Penciptaan tenaga stim yang begitu emblematik dengan modeniti umpamanya adalah bermula dengan usaha beberapa generasi jurutera yang beberapa kali cuba dan gagal di dalam percubaan mencipta enjin baru sebelum akhirnya disempurnakan oleh James Watt (1736-1819). Mereka lakukan semua ini dengan pengetahuan saintifik yang hampir sifar di dalam dunia yang baru berjinak2 dengan idea pergerakan Newton (1642-1727). Hanya dengan perkembangan tradisi Wissenschaft di Jerman pada abad ke-18 dan abad ke-19 baharulah perkaitan antara perusahaan ilmiah, kajian dan aplikasi, terikat kemas dan dibangunkan secara sistematik di dalam persekitaran institusi, seperti disaksikan sekarang.
Aku rasa bermula dengan bahagian satu pertiga terakhir buku ini baharulah gear perbahasan dinaikkan dengan penulis mula menyerang dan menjawab kritikan demi kritikan terhadap sains moden yang dihadapkan oleh sosiologi dan sejarahwan sains.
Kritikan sains sosial terhadap sains moden bernada relativis untuk yang biasa mengikutinya. Sosiologis/sejarahwan mengatakan bahawa saintis terlalu pantas mengandaikan bahawa rumusan2 tentang tabiat alam yang dicapai mereka, menerusi ujikaji demi ujikaji yang bergerak secara falsifikasi, adalah objektif mutlak. Wolpert tidak senang dengan kritikan sebegini.
Sebagai peminat sejarah aku sedikit cenderung untuk berpihak kepada hasil analisis dan dapatan oleh sosiologis/sejarahwan. Namun Wolpert memberikan respon yang tidak kurang ampuh: kalau begitu gamaknya kata sosiologis/sejarahwan maka apakah model sains atau cara pandang alam atau kosmologi lain yang mampu hadir sebagai ganti?
Wolpert sebutkan disini umpamanya tesis ketiadasetaraan (incommensurability) Kuhn yang mengatakan antara dua paradigma sains, tiada kayu ukur objektif mampu digunakan demi melacak yang mana antara keduanya adalah lebih saintifik.
Kedua-dua mereka, contohnya mekanik klasikal Newton jika dibandingkan kuantum fizik Planck atau bidang kimia sebelum dan selepas Lavoisier, bergerak atas andaian atau asumpsi2 yang berbeza tentang alam. Ibarat mengukur spektrum warna dengan ukuran sentimeter, sebarang percubaan untuk mengatakan yang satu lebih tepat dengan realiti, dan yang lain tidak, adalah sia2.
Telahan Kuhn ini andai diperinci mengisyaratkan beberapa konklusi yang sukar diterima. Adakah tindakan beberapa komuniti orang pribumi yang menari beramai2 apabila musim kemarau dengan harapan supaya hujan turun, mampu dikatakan tidak kurang tepat pada takah kosmologi, dengan tindakan meteorologis yang menanam awan (cloud-seeding) untuk tujuan sama?
Menariknya, pada muka surat seterusnya Wolpert ada membangkitkan tentang ketempangan sains moden dalam membincangkan beberapa hal, satu bentuk pengiktirafan dari beliau yang yang aku hormati. Cuma malang sekali, sebaik sahaja beliau berkata sedemikian, Wolpert tidak bersandar kepada perbahasan ilmu etika dan estetika sewaktu berbincang tentang topik implikasi kejuruteraan genetik dan tanggungjawab saintis terhadap hasil kajian mereka (Wolpert memberi contoh kes penemuan tenaga nuklear dan membandingkannya dengan pergerakan eugenik).
Kelemahan buku ini adalah penulis terlajak-anggar kepakarannya di dalam mengolah beberapa isu seputar fenomena sains (bukan fenomena saintifik). Itu bukan bermakna perlecehan idea beliau. Seperti yang aku katakan, banyak daripada buah-buah fikir Wolpert adalah absah untuk dibangkitkan - walaupun aku akui kritikan beliau terhadap sosiologi/sejarahwan bukanlah satu kritikan yang akan diambil peduli dengan berat oleh sains sosial (aku masih tidak mampu articulate sebabnya).
Cuma pembaca perlu tahu bahawa buku ini ditulis dari suatu pandang sudut yang menyeru untuk sudut pandangnya tersebut diberati dan direnungi sewaktu berbicara tentang sains dan perusahaannya.
July 4, 2023
Science is "unnatural" or "unbelieavable" (as in the German translation's title "unglaublich") because it is counter-intuitive. Scientific breakthroughs require thinking outside of the box or creativity - which is nothing new to a reader who's familiar with Arthur Koestler's The Act of Creation. In this respect Wolpert only differs from the earlier book of Koestler in nuances: Wolpert stresses some differences in the scientific modes of creativity from creativity in the arts, Koestler sees stronger links between those two. However, Wolpert's book is not just a rephrasing of Koestler's (or Thomas Kuhn's paradigm-shifting idea of scientific development, which also comes to mind and is occasionally explicitly referred to in this book here). Wolpert is a late, but fervent revenant of the age of enlightenment. He believes in the power of (self-)education, in rational arguments, in the reasoning capabilities of mankind. He sees science and scientific knowledge often being misunderstood in our larger societies. And thus he fights for more understanding of the how sciences work, in principle, in general, and he fights for conceptually separating science and technology. If the general public understands more about the scientific mode of thinking and working, this general, democratically organized public can make more informed and better decisions in all matters that are influenced or touched by science. The effect that Wolpert is hoping for is that people stop blaming science for negative social or technological developments and collectively come up with more informed decisions. In the later chapters, where Wolpert explicitly discusses some ethical / moral issues often linked with science (like nuclear weapons, fear of gene research and technology, social darwinism and eugenics), he insists that whether or not building something based on those ideas is a social question and decision, not one that can be delegated to scientists alone. It is a scientist's responsibility to inform the general public of (in)certainties inherent in their knowledge, the probability of their outcomes, and certainly also of dangers that might arise, when newly found scientific knowledge is applied to technology (which, Wolpert claims, happens less often than we think... A lot of our technological inventions required less science that we habitually tend to think).
Wolpert's arguments in this book are well-developed, progress systematically towards it goal, and make this book worth reading. It's shortcoming however is the too strong belief in rational arguments. If one knows how Predictably Irrational we humans are, one finds it hard to believe that only more widespread understanding of how sciences work will automatically lead to better decision-making.
And a last note on the German translation: It seems to have been created in a rush, as there are some obvious flaws in accuracy. Where the original English book refers to Thomas Kuhn's famous 1961 book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, the German translation changes it with a reference to "Die Entstehung des Neuen" (a translation of Kuhn's 1977 work The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change). There are other places where the translation has typos or exchanged a scientist's name erroneously.
Wolpert's arguments in this book are well-developed, progress systematically towards it goal, and make this book worth reading. It's shortcoming however is the too strong belief in rational arguments. If one knows how Predictably Irrational we humans are, one finds it hard to believe that only more widespread understanding of how sciences work will automatically lead to better decision-making.
And a last note on the German translation: It seems to have been created in a rush, as there are some obvious flaws in accuracy. Where the original English book refers to Thomas Kuhn's famous 1961 book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, the German translation changes it with a reference to "Die Entstehung des Neuen" (a translation of Kuhn's 1977 work The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change). There are other places where the translation has typos or exchanged a scientist's name erroneously.
January 5, 2013
في الحقيقة لا يمكنني إعطاء تقييم واضح لهذا الكتاب , فانا لم أستطع إستيضاح فكرته جيداً ربما لأن الترجمة التي قرأتها له مبتسرة 93 :191 صفحة !!
ولكن الكاتب يريد أن يؤصل أن العلم هو شئ متفرد بذاته , ومستقل عن التكنولوجيا حتى , وأن العلم لا علاقة له بالأخلاق أو بالظروف الإجتماعية أو بالفلسفة , لم يورد حججاً تروى ظمأي بهذا الصدد , وإتبع منهج في نقد مخالفيه جعل من الصعب علي فهم أفكاره أو فهم مخالفيه !!
والفكرة الأهم أنه جعل ظهور مفهوم العلم بمعناه الحالي قاصراً فقط على أفكار الإغريق و الديموقراطية الإغريقية و محاورات الفلاسفة دون التقيد بنظام عقدي ما .
فكرة في منتهى الغرابة طبعاً , وهو يبرر هذا بأن من سبقوا االإغريق من المصريين و الصينيين إنما كانوا مهندسين و تكنولوجيين ولم يكونوا علماء ولم يحدد من بينهم أشخاص كأرسطو و أفلاطون , وكانت علومهم وفلسفاتهم كلها تنصب على خدمة أفكارهم الدينية حيث كانت الأسئلة الكبرى مجابة لديهم , بعكس الإغريق الذين كانوا يبحثون عن الأسئلة الكبرى من خلال العلم و المناهج المنطقية , ولا يمكنني أن أجيب على هذا بالنفي أو بالإثبات إلا انني أزعم أن أفكار أرسطوا وغيره من الفلاسفة لم تكن سوى أفكار الإغريق الدينية بعد نزع الديباجة الوثنية التجسيدية منها و إعطائها الصورة الحقيقية لها فبدلاً من الآلهة إستخدمت قوى الطبيعة .
وانصح ألا تقرأوه فالكتاب يتحدث عن كل شئ ولا يجيب على شيئ -ربما تلك الترجمة العربية السخيفة- الكتاب يحاول أن يخرج بالعلم من مستواه ويجعله متجاوزاً منزها عن أفكار العلماء وحتى عن التكنولوجيا , بالرغم أن أي علم ليس له تكنولوجيا يمكن ألا يعد علماً .
سخافة !
ولكن الكاتب يريد أن يؤصل أن العلم هو شئ متفرد بذاته , ومستقل عن التكنولوجيا حتى , وأن العلم لا علاقة له بالأخلاق أو بالظروف الإجتماعية أو بالفلسفة , لم يورد حججاً تروى ظمأي بهذا الصدد , وإتبع منهج في نقد مخالفيه جعل من الصعب علي فهم أفكاره أو فهم مخالفيه !!
والفكرة الأهم أنه جعل ظهور مفهوم العلم بمعناه الحالي قاصراً فقط على أفكار الإغريق و الديموقراطية الإغريقية و محاورات الفلاسفة دون التقيد بنظام عقدي ما .
فكرة في منتهى الغرابة طبعاً , وهو يبرر هذا بأن من سبقوا االإغريق من المصريين و الصينيين إنما كانوا مهندسين و تكنولوجيين ولم يكونوا علماء ولم يحدد من بينهم أشخاص كأرسطو و أفلاطون , وكانت علومهم وفلسفاتهم كلها تنصب على خدمة أفكارهم الدينية حيث كانت الأسئلة الكبرى مجابة لديهم , بعكس الإغريق الذين كانوا يبحثون عن الأسئلة الكبرى من خلال العلم و المناهج المنطقية , ولا يمكنني أن أجيب على هذا بالنفي أو بالإثبات إلا انني أزعم أن أفكار أرسطوا وغيره من الفلاسفة لم تكن سوى أفكار الإغريق الدينية بعد نزع الديباجة الوثنية التجسيدية منها و إعطائها الصورة الحقيقية لها فبدلاً من الآلهة إستخدمت قوى الطبيعة .
وانصح ألا تقرأوه فالكتاب يتحدث عن كل شئ ولا يجيب على شيئ -ربما تلك الترجمة العربية السخيفة- الكتاب يحاول أن يخرج بالعلم من مستواه ويجعله متجاوزاً منزها عن أفكار العلماء وحتى عن التكنولوجيا , بالرغم أن أي علم ليس له تكنولوجيا يمكن ألا يعد علماً .
سخافة !
January 25, 2017
The author writes clearly and succinctly about what science is, why it's difficult for many to understand, and the role of science in our culture. Until I read this book, I had not fully realized how much common sense can make understanding of scientific ideas so difficult. The chapters on pseudo-science, or what the author calls "non-science," and "moral and immoral science" are worth reading by themselves.
Want to read
May 6, 2009Just reminding myself to pick this up soon.
September 29, 2025
Could not get past the first 30 pages of this book. And that’s rare. I dont think this has ever happened to me. But the more words I read the more my blood pressure was raising so I decided to stop early.
Hence, take my review with a pinch of salt. Who knows - maybe it gets better later on.
The problem is that the books whole premise is based on an utterly flawed concept. That science is difficult because it goes agaist common sense. That people dont use the scientific method for their everyday tasks. I am actually rather shocked that any scientist would think this about the population with a non-scientific background.
Science IS common sense. Yes, answers you find with the scientific method can be counterintuitive. Einstein did not really believe in some of his own theories afterall.
The author also argues that SOME parts of science are pretty “useless” for everyday life. Which of course makes sense for in depth science discoveries. But arguing that people don’t need to know how DNA works? (which he uses as example). That is a big pile of poop *pardon my french*. The general population NEEDS to be educated on basics science concept to understand where their tax money goes and to help voting in an informed way.
This book (as far as the first chapters go) reinforces the idea that science is not for everyone in a fieble attempt at justifying its complexity. As a scientist AND science communicator, this is unacceptable.
As a book reviewer, this was a block of repetitive wording written in a poorly accesible way. We don’t even write science articles with this language anymore.
Hence, take my review with a pinch of salt. Who knows - maybe it gets better later on.
The problem is that the books whole premise is based on an utterly flawed concept. That science is difficult because it goes agaist common sense. That people dont use the scientific method for their everyday tasks. I am actually rather shocked that any scientist would think this about the population with a non-scientific background.
Science IS common sense. Yes, answers you find with the scientific method can be counterintuitive. Einstein did not really believe in some of his own theories afterall.
The author also argues that SOME parts of science are pretty “useless” for everyday life. Which of course makes sense for in depth science discoveries. But arguing that people don’t need to know how DNA works? (which he uses as example). That is a big pile of poop *pardon my french*. The general population NEEDS to be educated on basics science concept to understand where their tax money goes and to help voting in an informed way.
This book (as far as the first chapters go) reinforces the idea that science is not for everyone in a fieble attempt at justifying its complexity. As a scientist AND science communicator, this is unacceptable.
As a book reviewer, this was a block of repetitive wording written in a poorly accesible way. We don’t even write science articles with this language anymore.
April 18, 2022
a keeper
January 19, 2025
Can be hard going
April 26, 2018
I was disappointed by this book. I am not convinced by the ideas that 1) science is something that has only appeared once in human history, and in Europe 2) Science and technology are fundamentally different 3) Science does not involve common sense. I think the book 1) re-mystifies science 2) reinforces age-old and the tiresome Western hegemony theme.
My own view is that that thought processes in science are common sense when you have immersed yourself in the problem. If you have the money and time available to immerse yourself in esoteric problems then that is “science”. If the problems are directly related to the development of tools (often for industry) then that is “technology”. There is clearly a big overlap as science is driven by tools and science leads to breakthroughs in technology. Also ideas can become tools and this can lead to unexpected and wonderful discoveries.
My own view is that that thought processes in science are common sense when you have immersed yourself in the problem. If you have the money and time available to immerse yourself in esoteric problems then that is “science”. If the problems are directly related to the development of tools (often for industry) then that is “technology”. There is clearly a big overlap as science is driven by tools and science leads to breakthroughs in technology. Also ideas can become tools and this can lead to unexpected and wonderful discoveries.
September 17, 2011
Where you learn the just because it's logical - it may not be true
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews