What do you think?
Rate this book
Science Is Culture: Conversations at the New Intersection of Science + Society – Illuminating the Interdisciplinary Renaissance with Prominent Thinkers
Seed magazine brings together a unique gathering of prominent scientists, artists, novelists, philosophers and other thinkers who are tearing down the wall between science and culture. We are on the cusp of a twenty-first-century scientific renaissance. Science is driving our culture and conversation unlike ever before, transforming the social, political, economic, aesthetic, and intellectual landscape of our time. Today, science is culture. As global issues—like energy and health—become increasingly interconnected, and as our curiosities—like how the mind works or why the universe is expanding—become more complex, we need a new way of looking at the world that blurs the lines between scientific disciplines and the borders between the sciences and the arts and humanities. In this spirit, the award-winning science magazine Seed has paired scientists with nonscientists to explore ideas of common interest to us all. This book is the result of these illuminating Seed Salon conversations, edited and with an introduction by Seed founder and editor in chief Adam Bly. Science Is Culture includes:
368 pages, Paperback
First published October 1, 2010
50 people are currently reading
372 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews
January 13, 2012
This book is awful. It is set up as a series of dialogues.Each chapter has two people, starts with their bios and then a full-page black & white picture of each person. Then it has a “transcript,” words only (no transcribing tone or facial expressions or anything), of each conversation.This structure leave a lot to be desired. You’re left feeling as if you’re in the middle of a pretty boring, very pretentious cocktail party. And, it should be noted, a cocktail party full of white people, mostly dudes, most of whom think they are the smartest person in the room.
There are 6 women in this book. 2 are scientists. 2 are artists, one is an art curator. 1 is a philosopher. 1 is an author. Since most of the chapters are a scientist paired with a non-scientist, I think it’s(predictably) problematic that women are twice as likely to end up on the non-scientist side of a book that obviously think science is pretty awesome.* Particularly since there are 6 women to...wait for it, 37 men. Thirty. Seven. It’s like they didn’t even try.
Some of the more notable chapters:
Chapter 1: Evolutionary Philosophy First line from E. O. Wilson: “It seems to me the thing we have in common and why we can talk together—whereas I wouldn’t be able to talk to most people in the humanities—is the perception that evolution is the key to understanding the human species.” Oooh, evopsych nonsense AND a jab at the humanities (In a book. About. Culture.) in the first sentence! But it gets better. Right after this, Daniel Dennett agrees and says this: “it probably isn’t too important for an entomologist to know the history of the field going back to the eighteenth century. But it really is important to know the history of philosophy if you’re going to do philosophy, and the reason is actually very simple. The history of philosophy is a history of very tempting mistakes,” unlike, he is suggesting,the history of science. Apparently, he and I are aware of VERY DIFFERENT histories of science, because the history I know is full of very tempting...well, I won’t call them mistakes, but certainly phenomena. Science has been (is still) used to justify all kinds of sexist, ableist, racist, classist bullshit (and not just by people writing about science, but by actual scientists and their experiments/observations). This is actually, I think, one of the massive problems with science education right now; every student wanting to be a scientist should take a general history of science course and a course in the history of their specific field.
ANYWAY, I think Wilson and Dennett both have their heads up their asses, and this conversation shows it.
Chapter 9: The Truth of Fiction The only chapter that didn’t make me angry, because it was lovely! It is between two fiction authors, one who is also a scientist, grappling with the fact that language is rhetorical and metaphorical, and thus any attempt at purity is futile and stupid. Money quote:“I don’t do straightforward nonfiction in my books because I think it’s slightly dishonest. It’s never straightforward nonfiction; there’s no such thing.” <3
Chapter 13: Who Makes Science? This chapter was between Natalie Jeremijenko, “an artist whose background includes studies in biochemistry, physics, neuroscience, and precision engineering,” and Lawrence Krauss, a theoretical physicist. Krauss is obnoxious. He starts irritating me by saying that objective facts always win: “the final arbiter of success isn’t people. It’s science, it’s experiments. It’s the ability to make it work. If it works, then people buy into it, whether they like it or not.” LOL. I’ll just go tell that to all the teens that can’t buy Plan B.
Then he says that while he understands science-production is sociological, scientists are just better off ignoring all that. They should only be concentrating on science, which, even though he just said the opposite, apparently doesn’t include any consideration of the culture in which it is produced? Luckily Jeremijenko is badass, and responds with this well-articulated gem: “To take scientific knowledge production and methodologies, science itself, and hold them out of society—the messy, icky world that doesn’t apply—is, I think, the big tragedy. And certainly, I’m not going to claim that nothing is real, everything’s constructed. But, if we understand our scientific and technical knowledge as constructed within these social constraints, I think we can do better science, better technology, and have better ways to get at what we mean by something being good or being progressive, without saying, ‘Okay, scientists know how to tell us the answer on this, and everyone else can shut up.’” Oh man, I want to marry this woman. Of course, Krauss dismisses her and changes the subject, but he’s already proven himself to be a wanker.
Chapter 14: What Is Human? Actually, this chapter isn’t notable. But one of the people uses the phrase “noble savage” with a complete lack of irony. (“Bushmen are just so CONNECTED TO THE EARTH, you know?”) For fuck’s sake.
*The title Science Is Culture doesn’t seem to mean that the production of science is cultural, but rather that scientific knowledge helps to determine cultural content. GEE, HOW RADICAL OF YOU TO NOTICE. That hasn’t been true since at least the 19th century or anything.
There are 6 women in this book. 2 are scientists. 2 are artists, one is an art curator. 1 is a philosopher. 1 is an author. Since most of the chapters are a scientist paired with a non-scientist, I think it’s(predictably) problematic that women are twice as likely to end up on the non-scientist side of a book that obviously think science is pretty awesome.* Particularly since there are 6 women to...wait for it, 37 men. Thirty. Seven. It’s like they didn’t even try.
Some of the more notable chapters:
Chapter 1: Evolutionary Philosophy First line from E. O. Wilson: “It seems to me the thing we have in common and why we can talk together—whereas I wouldn’t be able to talk to most people in the humanities—is the perception that evolution is the key to understanding the human species.” Oooh, evopsych nonsense AND a jab at the humanities (In a book. About. Culture.) in the first sentence! But it gets better. Right after this, Daniel Dennett agrees and says this: “it probably isn’t too important for an entomologist to know the history of the field going back to the eighteenth century. But it really is important to know the history of philosophy if you’re going to do philosophy, and the reason is actually very simple. The history of philosophy is a history of very tempting mistakes,” unlike, he is suggesting,the history of science. Apparently, he and I are aware of VERY DIFFERENT histories of science, because the history I know is full of very tempting...well, I won’t call them mistakes, but certainly phenomena. Science has been (is still) used to justify all kinds of sexist, ableist, racist, classist bullshit (and not just by people writing about science, but by actual scientists and their experiments/observations). This is actually, I think, one of the massive problems with science education right now; every student wanting to be a scientist should take a general history of science course and a course in the history of their specific field.
ANYWAY, I think Wilson and Dennett both have their heads up their asses, and this conversation shows it.
Chapter 9: The Truth of Fiction The only chapter that didn’t make me angry, because it was lovely! It is between two fiction authors, one who is also a scientist, grappling with the fact that language is rhetorical and metaphorical, and thus any attempt at purity is futile and stupid. Money quote:“I don’t do straightforward nonfiction in my books because I think it’s slightly dishonest. It’s never straightforward nonfiction; there’s no such thing.” <3
Chapter 13: Who Makes Science? This chapter was between Natalie Jeremijenko, “an artist whose background includes studies in biochemistry, physics, neuroscience, and precision engineering,” and Lawrence Krauss, a theoretical physicist. Krauss is obnoxious. He starts irritating me by saying that objective facts always win: “the final arbiter of success isn’t people. It’s science, it’s experiments. It’s the ability to make it work. If it works, then people buy into it, whether they like it or not.” LOL. I’ll just go tell that to all the teens that can’t buy Plan B.
Then he says that while he understands science-production is sociological, scientists are just better off ignoring all that. They should only be concentrating on science, which, even though he just said the opposite, apparently doesn’t include any consideration of the culture in which it is produced? Luckily Jeremijenko is badass, and responds with this well-articulated gem: “To take scientific knowledge production and methodologies, science itself, and hold them out of society—the messy, icky world that doesn’t apply—is, I think, the big tragedy. And certainly, I’m not going to claim that nothing is real, everything’s constructed. But, if we understand our scientific and technical knowledge as constructed within these social constraints, I think we can do better science, better technology, and have better ways to get at what we mean by something being good or being progressive, without saying, ‘Okay, scientists know how to tell us the answer on this, and everyone else can shut up.’” Oh man, I want to marry this woman. Of course, Krauss dismisses her and changes the subject, but he’s already proven himself to be a wanker.
Chapter 14: What Is Human? Actually, this chapter isn’t notable. But one of the people uses the phrase “noble savage” with a complete lack of irony. (“Bushmen are just so CONNECTED TO THE EARTH, you know?”) For fuck’s sake.
*The title Science Is Culture doesn’t seem to mean that the production of science is cultural, but rather that scientific knowledge helps to determine cultural content. GEE, HOW RADICAL OF YOU TO NOTICE. That hasn’t been true since at least the 19th century or anything.
December 26, 2021
2004-2006 yılları arasında yapılan söyleşilerin bir derlemesi. Kitabı okurken büyük bir can sıkıntısına düşülüyor. Bunun sebebi geçen 10 yılı aşkın sürede bilimsel/toplumsal kültür alanında pek çok daha etkileyici konuşma ve içerikten haberdar olmamız olabilir.
Zamanı geçmiş bir eser olsa da not alarak okuduğum bazı yerler vardı. Bu arada Türkçe çeviride kitabın adının bile yanlış çevrilmiş olması hayal kırıklığı yaşattı.
Zamanı geçmiş bir eser olsa da not alarak okuduğum bazı yerler vardı. Bu arada Türkçe çeviride kitabın adının bile yanlış çevrilmiş olması hayal kırıklığı yaşattı.
May 29, 2024
A beautiful collection of conversations between everyone that you would never imagine reading conversations between. The connections drawn here between biology, neuroscience, dance, ecology, art, culture, language, and more are fascinating, and I'd recommend any scientist who can't believe that all of these things are interconnected give this a read!!
December 1, 2013
This book is incredibly thought provoking and covers a range of topics, but it is of a certain format, and clearly some people didn't like that format. I think this method of elucidating how seemingly disparate fields actually have quite a lot to learn from each other is stunningly effective. However, it is a format which is not often used, and people seem to feel as if they are on the sidelines of a "boring cocktail party conversation". It is unfortunate that people did not get a lot out of this book, because the intersectionality of science and "culture" (art, philosophy, pop culture, etc.) is often overlooked or taken for granted. I think this book did an excellent job of revealing some of the more subtle ways that culture influences science, and vice versa. I highly recommend it, but I recognize that the presentation style is not accessible to everyone.
May 22, 2019
This is one of those "your mileage may vary" books. The title of the book is, perhaps, aspirational. Adam Bly apparently wished that people equated science with culture, so he set up dinner dates in which two people--scientists, philosophers, artists, designers, etc.--discussed some topic of mutual interest.
The curious reader will find at least some of these 22 conversations interesting, and will decide for himself or herself how many of the participants knew what they were talking about.
Like so many topical books these days, this one, compiled only nine years ago, has been rendered somewhat obsolete by the galloping pace of history and scientific discovery. And there was an optimism at the beginning of the Obama presidency that has been dashed by the combination of Trump and McConnell.
The curious reader will find at least some of these 22 conversations interesting, and will decide for himself or herself how many of the participants knew what they were talking about.
Like so many topical books these days, this one, compiled only nine years ago, has been rendered somewhat obsolete by the galloping pace of history and scientific discovery. And there was an optimism at the beginning of the Obama presidency that has been dashed by the combination of Trump and McConnell.
February 23, 2021
Each conversation should be judged on its own. For example, the first one is absolutely horrid. Really felt like two old men stuck in their ways who were insisting on their dated concepts (less so from the philosopher, however). It was immediately followed by a very engaging conversation in which both subjects had knowledge of each other’s work and had obviously thought about what they had wanted to talk about and how it related the two of them. Sometimes, it’s hard to see the connection between the two fields of the people talking and in such cases they don’t do a good job of creating an engaging dialogue. I’ve put it down, for now, but I’ll probably come back to it throughout the next few months when I’m bored. I’d suggest picking the chapters that interest you the most and reading those, maybe giving a chance to the others every once in awhile when you have nothing better to do.
December 2, 2020
Having hard time to finish. Content wise I think for me just ok..
August 23, 2021
The art of discussion with no right or wrong answers; a beautiful portrayal of thought, belief, art, and science.
September 14, 2025
I learned interesting facts about science. Yet, at no point could the writer’s presence and efforts could be felt in this book. Because the text seemed like mere transcription with no highlights, subheadings or proper hooks.
December 17, 2012
Science Is Culture is the first culmination of the on-line magazine Seed's project to bring together scientists and non-scientists to talk about the cultural interface of science and the humanities. In this collection 22 scientist and 22 non-scientist from diverse backgrounds sit down to talk about what they have in common and how what they do effects the larger culture. Most of the participates have previously worked together on projects or have crossed paths before. So most of the conversations come off as quite amiable and carefree, but there is never really any tension and nothing new about the science, culture divide comes about. These are conversations among friends, who already agree about much of what they discuss and are reluctant to push the sticker points that come up from time to time. The format of the conversation is free form with the participates driving the conversation which was both good and bad. Some conversations led to interesting points and new insights, while others drifted off topic and became something of a political rant or grip for their cause. Which is too bad because the conversations that devolved quickly where on some the most controversial and interesting topics like self-deceit and the climate politics. Only a couple of the conversations stand out as being substantive, but not earth shattering. And only one were post-modernism thinking reared its head and then quickly back itself into a corner, but the post-modern poet did come up with a way to better involve children and non-scientist in the act of science like thinking. In the end I would sum up this book as the start of a good idea, but needs more bite to really do something of interest. Actually, that's how I would sum up Seed magazine as well.
March 25, 2013
A solid collection of heady ideas presented as transcribed conversations between sets of two great people in their respective fields describing how their work contradicts, supports, or reflects on the other.
It's so lean that it can be a bit much to take - I mean, these are some smart people, often doing things that are quite frightening. So while they're babbling on about the sublime elegance of genetic bioengineering (for example), I struggled to quiet the gibbering panic in my mind. It took some time to understand the world-view, even if I can't personally bring myself to approve of it.
And, I suppose, you can't give a book like this a better compliment than that.
It's so lean that it can be a bit much to take - I mean, these are some smart people, often doing things that are quite frightening. So while they're babbling on about the sublime elegance of genetic bioengineering (for example), I struggled to quiet the gibbering panic in my mind. It took some time to understand the world-view, even if I can't personally bring myself to approve of it.
And, I suppose, you can't give a book like this a better compliment than that.
February 6, 2013
This book has several interesting dialogues between people in different areas that collaborate or have collaborated in the past on a common project in the intersection of science and other areas. Many of them bring about interesting points. Most of them are dialogues between very interesting people from whom we want to learn what their experience and life has to teach. But the dialogue format makes it very hard and boring to read. I wish these were TED talks in dialogue format or something... My mind wandered too much as the information is very dispersed in the middle of some "monologues" on a subject. Overall interesting but not the best format.
October 15, 2010
This book is a series of transcriptions of conversations between scientists and other irritatingly accomplished people. Its a bit uneven -- yes, just skip over the ones that go over your head within the first two pages -- but on the whole it's fascinating. It will make you realize that your conversations are really, really superficial by comparison.
October 30, 2010
Very interesting; a motley of topics, which cover one chapter each, and take the form of an interview by the author with 2 experts in the field being covered by the chapter. Topics range from time, war and deceit, climate politics, consciousness, infinity, and much more. Highly recommended for the random topic lover who has love for useful and useless information alike.
Want to read
July 12, 2011I picked this up as a gift to myself in the ToadStool Book Shop in Peterborogh, New Hampshire, where I spent the afternoon of July 9, 2011. It's right up my alley, and I look forward to reading it soon.
February 3, 2013
Some conversations are better than others of course, but overall very interesting topics with thought-provoking thoughts and observations from the people who took part in this. And it's all set up in quick edible bits.
December 30, 2011
Interesting topics. Thoughtful conversations.
March 13, 2012
It's kind of a shameless plug for projects each of the interviewees are working on - really disappointing, I thought it would be much more relevant and interesting.
September 9, 2012
incredible. written as verbatim dialogue between established thinkers. enthralling.
January 24, 2014
I just didn't find these interviews very interesting...but I only read a handful of them.
February 8, 2015
Really great for getting you thinking about certain things, but unfortunately doesn't go far enough in any topic. Good read though.
July 9, 2015
Interesting topic. Easy to skim and read the most pertinent interviews. Definitely a group of accomplished scientists.
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews