This Idea Must Die

December 22, 2014
Brockman (What Should We Be Worried About?), founder of the Edge Foundation, has compiled a series of humorous and thought-provoking short essays from a wide array of scientists, science writers, and assorted academics. Several essays deal with concepts that aren’t fully understood, even by experts; string theory, for instance, is addressed in several sections, each from a slightly different angle. More philosophical topics receive consideration as well, such as free will, nature vs. nurture, and the difference between the brain and the mind (if there is one). Even economics is included. Some topics, like the lament over the term rocket scientist or the problem with artificial intelligence, are arguments about definitions, while other discussions contemplate the morality of certain practices in science. One fascinating result of having several authors address the same topic is seeing firsthand the ways experts disagree with one another. A common thread throughout is the reminder that science and its practitioners do not exist in a vacuum: those who work in areas that many consider esoteric still fight traffic and worry about what their work will do to make the world better. Brockman succeeds in presenting scientific work that will appeal to a variety of readers, no matter their background. Agent: Max Brockman, Brockman Inc.

December 1, 2014
New science has a difficult time. As physicist Max Planck said long ago, a good idea does not automatically replace a bad one; "opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."In his latest compendium, Brockman (What Should We Be Worried About?: Real Scenarios that Keep Scientists Up at Night, 2014, etc.), publisher of the online science salon, Edge.com, asked 175 scientists, philosophers and intellectuals for ideas that have outlived their usefulness. At one to four pages, these are thoughtful essays that answer the question when they're not doing the opposite (defending the author's life's work) or wandering off to answer a different question. There are the usual suspects. Free will, Malthusianism, racism, IQ tests and religion do not do well. Mostly, the contributors hate simple explanations. Scientists studying the brain insist that it's not a computer, that the left-brain-right-brain dichotomy is silly, and that studying neurological activity won't explain consciousness because it's an illusion. Some ideas were never true: Rationality is not a major feature of human behavior. Some debates (nature vs. nurture) are nonsense. Occasionally, the news is good. Altruism is not necessarily self-sacrifice. We benefit as individuals, and most of us experience pleasure when we help others. Finally, novelist Ian McEwan disparages the book's theme, pointing out that you never know when you'll need an old idea. "It might rise again one day to enhance a perspective the present cannot imagine." No one wants to retire Shakespeare. Other contributors include A.C. Grayling, Richard Dawkins, John McWhorter, Sherry Turkle and Jared Diamond. Although they often beat dead or nonexistent horses, these ingenious cerebral tidbits will stimulate, provoke and confuse (in a good way) intelligent readers.

COPYRIGHT(2014) Kirkus Reviews, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

February 1, 2015

"What scientific idea is ready for retirement?" was the question chosen by edge.org publisher Brockman (This Explains Everything) in 2014 as part of an annual exercise to solicit original thoughts from a wide range of people. The result is 175 short essays by individuals from fields dominated by science. These include 43 psychologists, 27 physicists, and 16 neuroscientists, as well as others from such disciplines as business, economics, mathematics, and Asian studies. Participants include individuals who are broadly well known, such as Steven Pinker, Richard Dawkins, Lawrence Krauss, and the actor/writer Alan Alda, among others acclaimed within their disciplines. The writers were given free rein, leading to examinations of evidence-based medicine, the uncertainty principle, and "our narrow definition of science." Some pieces, such as Robert Kurzban's "Cartesian Hydraulicism," delve into areas that would require most lay readers to do parallel research to pick up the threads. Contrarian novelist Ian McEwan suggests: "Beware of Arrogance! Retire Nothing!" VERDICT The brevity of the essays and the apparent attempt to make most understandable to a general audience have produced a provocative and informative compilation. Readers will find plenty here to both agree and disagree with.--Richard Maxwell, Porter Adventist Hosp. Lib., Denver

Copyright 2015 Library Journal, LLC Used with permission.

December 1, 2014
One detects no small measure of glee in the latest Edge.org anthology. Each year, Brockman, the founder of the online science salon, poses a provocative questionlast time, it was What Should We Be Worried About? (2014)and invites leading scientists, philosophers, and artists to respond in concise and lucid essays. This time, he really struck a chord, inviting contributors to kill off scientific ideas that are outdated to the point of obstructing new advances. One hundred and seventy-five intellectual assassins eagerly stepped forward. Anthropologist Scott Atran calls for the demise of the IQ measurement. Quantum mechanics engineer Seth Lloyd says the idea of the universe is obsolete. Biological anthropologist Nina Jablonski says race has no place in science. Journalist Nicholas Carr has had it with science's anti-anecdotalism because anecdotes connect science to the actual experience of life. Physics, statistics, robotics, linguistics, medicineall are zestfully scrutinized in this exuberant, mind-blowing gathering of innovative thinkers, which even includes novelist Ian McEwan, who tries to put the kibosh on the entire murderous exercise, declaring, Every last serious and systematic speculation about the world deserves to be preserved. (Reprinted with permission of Booklist, copyright 2014, American Library Association.)