Editorial Review

Her name was Henrietta Lacks, but scientists know her as HeLa. She was a poor Southern tobacco farmer who worked the same land as her slave ancestors, yet her cells—taken without her knowledge—became one of the most important tools in medicine. The first “immortal” human cells grown in culture, they are still alive today, though she has been dead for more than sixty years. If you could pile all HeLa cells ever grown onto a scale, they’d weigh more than 50 million metric tons—as much as a hundred Empire State Buildings. HeLa cells were vital for developing the polio vaccine; uncovered secrets of cancer, viruses, and the atom bomb’s effects; helped lead to important advances like in vitro fertilization, cloning, and gene mapping; and have been bought and sold by the billions.

Yet Henrietta Lacks remains virtually unknown, buried in an unmarked grave.

Now Rebecca Skloot takes us on an extraordinary journey, from the “colored” ward of Johns Hopkins Hospital in the 1950s to stark white laboratories with freezers full of HeLa cells; from Henrietta’s small, dying hometown of Clover, Virginia—a land of wooden slave quarters, faith healings, and voodoo—to East Baltimore today, where her children and grandchildren live and struggle with the legacy of her cells.

Henrietta’s family did not learn of her “immortality” until more than twenty years after her death, when scientists investigating HeLa began using her husband and children in research without informed consent. And though the cells had launched a multimillion-dollar industry that sells human biological materials, her family never saw any of the profits. As Rebecca Skloot so brilliantly shows, the story of the Lacks family—past and present—is inextricably connected to the dark history of experimentation on African Americans, the birth of bioethics, and the legal battles over whether we control the stuff we are made of.

Over the decade it took to uncover this story, Rebecca became enmeshed in the lives of the Lacks family—especially Henrietta’s daughter Deborah, who was devastated to learn about her mother’s cells. She was consumed with questions: Had scientists cloned her mother? Did it hurt her when researchers infected her cells with viruses and shot them into space? What happened to her sister, Elsie, who died in a mental institution at the age of fifteen? And if her mother was so important to medicine, why couldn’t her children afford health insurance? 
          
Intimate in feeling, astonishing in scope, and impossible to put down, The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks captures the beauty and drama of scientific discovery, as well as its human consequences. ... Read more

Reviews

Thank you for this beautiful tribute to Henrietta Lacks, February 5, 2010
Wow. This book should be required reading for scientists and students of life. The true story of Henrietta Lacks and her family has finally been told, beautifully, in this book. The book encompasses science, ethics, and the story of a family who was terribly wronged in the pursuit of scientific research. I could gush about this book for pages but I'll try first to hit the main points of why this book is so remarkable in list form for the sake of brevity:


1. The author clearly developed a strong relationship with the Lacks family, which was absolutely critical to ensuring the story was told accurately and with the respect to Henrietta Lacks that was so deeply deserved.

2. The storytelling is amazingly moving despite the need to convey a lot of scientific information. It reads like fiction.

3. Ms. Skloot's research into the science is impeccable.

4. The book is FAIR. It presents the unvarnished truth, obtained DIRECTLY from as many prinicpal people involved in the story as is humanly possible. It would have been easier to simplify the story into heroes vs. villians, but Ms. Skloot deftly handles all sides of the story.


For some detail: I have worked with HeLa cells in the past, but did not know even the barest information about the story of Henrietta Lacks until a few years ago. It simply was not common knowledge, until a few less ethical folks released her name and medical records to the public. This obviously should not have been done without the express permission of the Lacks family, which Ms. Skloot obtained. In the past, others have not been as ethical. The book covers Ms. Lacks' early life, how her cells came to be harvested, and what happened to both the cells and her family afterward.

The contributions of HeLa cells to science are absolutely staggering and cannot be over-stated. The sections where the science was described were clear and accurate. With the story of Ms. Lacks' family interwoven, this book was fairly close to perfect. I found myself moved to tears several times because of the fate of the Lacks family and Henrietta's daughter's indomitable spirit. I do not think anyone but Ms. Skloot could have written this book. She worked with the family for over a decade in order to get the story right. This was critical, as the family had been wronged too many times in the past.

Thank you for this astounding work of art. I will be donating to the Henrietta Lacks foundation in honor of the entire family, and I hope many others will read the book and be similarly moved.

Captivating, engrossing, fascinating, heartbreaking, englightening...ALL in one stellar book!, January 16, 2010

2010 Non-Fiction Award Winner?, January 8, 2010

Absolutely superb, January 17, 2010

A fantastic effort about the life of a forgotten woman, March 14, 2010
Henrietta Lacks was born to an impoverished family of in rural Virginia in 1920. Her family worked on the same tobacco fields that their slave ancestors did during the preceding century, and after her mother died she grew up in her grandfather's dilapidated log cabin that served as slave quarters. She left school after the sixth grade to pick tobacco for ten cents per day on the farms of local whites. Henrietta had her first child with her first cousin Day at age 14, and they eventually married and moved to a small town outside of Baltimore during World War II so that Day could work at Bethlehem Steel for less than 80 cents an hour.

In early 1951, Henrietta went to the gynecology clinic at Johns Hopkins Hospital after feeling a "knot" in her womb. After she was taken to a "Colored" examination room, the gynecologist on duty found a firm mass on her cervix that seemed cancerous, but was unlike anything he had ever seen. He sent a slice of the mass for analysis, and Henrietta was soon diagnosed with cervical cancer.

Henrietta returned to Johns Hopkins a few weeks later, where she underwent treatment for cervical cancer. She was given a generalized consent form that gave permission for her doctors to perform any operative procedures necessary to treat her illness. However, she was not told that one of the staff gynecologists was collecting specimens of clinic patients with cervical cancer for a clinical study, and biopsies of healthy and cancerous cervical tissues were taken from her during her initial procedure. The cancerous cells, which were named HeLa after the first two letters of Henrietta's first and last names, proved to be the first human cells that could be grown indefinitely in a nutrient broth, and the Johns Hopkins researchers were overjoyed at this long awaited success.

The treatment she received at Hopkins was state of the art, but was unsuccessful, due to the aggressive nature of her primary tumor, and she succumbed to her illness several months later. The researchers wanted to acquire more specimens from her tumor ridden body by performing an autopsy with biopsies. Her husband, after initially denying a request for an autopsy, was misled into agreeing to allow the Hopkins pathologists to perform a limited autopsy, after he was told that the doctors wanted to run tests that might help his children someday.

The HeLa cell line was provided to scientists and organizations worldwide for minimal cost, as neither the researchers nor Johns Hopkins profited from the first immortal human cell line. However, a number of companies made millions of dollars by mass producing HeLa and selling them at a much higher cost. HeLa was used in numerous important biomedical studies, including the development of the Salk polio vaccine at the University of Pittsburgh in the mid-1950s, cancer and viral research projects, and studies of the effects of weightlessness and space travel on the human body by NASA.

During this time Henrietta's husband and children were completely unaware that her cells had been harvested for medical research by the Hopkins doctors. By that time most of them were living in poverty in Baltimore, and were unable to afford basic health insurance. Articles about HeLa began to appear in medical journals and in the lay press, but it wasn't until 1973 that the family accidentally learned about the HeLa cell line. The family was contacted by Johns Hopkins, so that their cells could be analyzed and compared to those taken from Henrietta 22 years earlier. Once again they were misled into believing that the purpose of these tests was to determine if any of her children also had cancer, which caused Deborah, Henrietta's oldest surviving daughter, many years of anguish.

Once Henrietta's name was released in the media, the family was besieged by journalists and others wishing to profit from her story, causing her husband and children to become distrustful and wary.

Rebecca Skloot became interested in Henrietta Lacks after hearing about the HeLa cell line and its forgotten host as an undergraduate student. She spent many months and countless hours attempting to contact the Lacks family, and she slowly but painfully gained the trust of Deborah and her siblings, after she promised to tell the family's story alongside the history of HeLa.

The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks is a fantastic achievement, given the hurdles that Skloot had to overcome to obtain information from the Lacks family, Johns Hopkins, and the other key actors in this story. In addition to an in-depth history of this ordinary yet quite remarkable family, she provides just the right amount of information about HeLa and what it meant for biomedical research, along with information about informed consent from the 1950s to the present, the effect of race on medical care in the United States and the views of African-Americans toward medical experimentation, and the biology of cancer. The book is meant for a lay audience, but it would be of interest to those with a formal medical background. I found the book to be a bit overly sentimental and personal at times, but this is a very minor criticism of a fabulous book.

5 star story, February 17, 2010
Just so id doesn't sound like I damn this book with faint praise, let me say that this was an excellent story told well (for the most part). I'll save the synopsis for others. Needless to say, Henrietta Lacks' story is just as gripping as the science that was done with her cells. You will most likely enjoy her story (as I did).

My criticisms:

The author spends a rather substantial portion of the book describing her own efforts. It didn't add to Henrietta's story and leaving it out would have made for a better, more concise narrative.

Black people were treated inhumanely to say the least (go look up the Tuskeegee Syphilis Study, for example). At the risk of sounding callous, this is well trod ground and some of it could also have been omitted for the sake of brevity without losing any of the story's impact.

Lastly, there is an implicit condemnation of the doctors that took her cells (the author does say that this was "common practice" at the time). I can tell you that as a former cancer patient who has been biopsied more times than I care to remember, once a doctor removes something from you, it's gone. They are not going to pay you for it.

Those criticism aside, this is a worthy read.

An astonishing scientific, sociological, racial exploration--and an engrossing work of art, December 28, 2009

Good try, but could have been better, July 31, 2010
I'm a big fan of science and medical non-fiction, so when I saw the rave reviews for The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, I was excited to read it. It started off strong; I'd give the first half five stars. The oral history of the Lacks family was fascinating, and I loved reading about how the cells got their start in the lab. When the author introduced the adult family (Deborah, et al), I felt a strong sympathy for them and what they'd been through. I was already recommending it to friends, anticipating that the second half would be as good.

However, once I got to the second half, it went downhill considerably. The writing was fairly tight in the beginning, keeping all of the stories woven together in a comprehensible way, but seemed to unravel as the book went on. When I read the introduction, I didn't understand why Skloot was so defensive about inserting herself into the book (in my experience, medical non-fiction authors do it all the time), but I soon realized why - because by the second half, the book becomes less about HeLa, science, history, and ethics, and instead turns exclusively into a memoir about Skloot's dealings with the family. And at this point, the family became unsympathetic and insufferable. The writing became repetitive, somewhat informal, and ridden with unnecessary details. One reviewer called this book "deftly written" and I'd have to disagree. The second half gets one star.

The book ended on a strong note, with the Afterward. The Afterward took us back to questions of bioethics. As I was reading it, I wondered why the Afterward was a separate part - couldn't it have been woven into the second half of the book?

In short, I thought this book was merely ok, but as the reviews show, a lot of people loved it. If you think that you're one of the people who will love it, read it. If you're looking for a book that's just outstanding, look somewhere else.

Is Immortality really worth the price?, January 21, 2010

Two different books, August 25, 2010
I enjoyed the first half of the book. It was informative and educational. The second half - not so much. It took a bad turn with the introduction of Deborah and their trip together. The author depicted her as a woman who has the mind of a hyperactive 5 year old with ADD. "Oh my god. . . . I did this to her?" Maybe. Maybe not. The book went from the scientific and factual to the land of superstition and sensationalism I was left with the impression the book was a collage of facts and embellished observations. It's a good idea to leave your readers for a desire for more. I was left with a desire for less. ... Read more

Editorial Review

The Periodic Table is one of man's crowning scientific achievements. But it's also a treasure trove of stories of passion, adventure, betrayal, and obsession. The infectious tales and astounding details in THE DISAPPEARING SPOON follow carbon, neon, silicon, and gold as they play out their parts in human history, finance, mythology, war, the arts, poison, and the lives of the (frequently) mad scientists who discovered them.

Reviews

Accessible science for any age, July 2, 2010
I have to confess I didn't pay much attention to chemistry. Once the instructor talked about electrons, protons, atoms and the nucleus I usually turned on my Walkman (the cassette kind, now antique!). It never seemed interesting because it wasn't something that related at all to real life. If I had a teacher like Sam Kean, however, that could have been different.

Fast forward too many years, and now I'm engrossed in this nonfiction 'memoir' of the Periodic Table of Elements. Like any good biography, this has scandal, lies, fraud, madness, explosions (!!!) and lots of name-dropping. Kean explains just what the periodic table is, but in a format that reads more like a novel, with anecdotal details to liven it up. Mercury pills were used by Lewis and Clark for their health? Yep, and you can trace their path (um, at least their bathroom trips on their journey) by where scientists have found unusually high amounts of mercury in the soil. The poet Robert Lowell? Did lithium ruin his work by making him sane? Who knew the lies and fraud and mind games played by scientists intent on getting a Nobel Prize!

There's no getting around it, this is a book that makes you think. It's not simple and it assumes you have a basic knowledge of science. Some areas were over my head, but not for long. Kean is a wonderful teacher with a sassy wise guy voice that livens up any of the deeper areas.

Periodic Table Tour de Force, July 13, 2010
Sam Kean has written a marvelous book that will delight general readers and experts alike. The writing is crisp and sharp and includes an unusual political savyness for somebody treating scientific issues. Kean uses his journalistic skills to succeed in doing what many, perhaps most, academics fail to do when presenting the relevance of chemistry to the real world. Not just applications but also how the history of individual elements has affected the lives of ordinary people. See for example his account of niobium and tantalum. Then there are chapters that weave together the lives of famous chemists and physicists such as one on Segre and Pauling, all in the context of the discovery of elements and developments in twentieth century chemistry and physics. Technicalities are kept to a minimum and when necessary explanations are provided in a clear and lucid manner.
Everybody should read this book, period.

Dr. Eric Scerri, author of The Periodic Table, Its Story and Its Significance, Oxford University Press, 2006.

A fun and interesting read!, July 14, 2010
I love books but only have so much time, so I'm pretty careful about what I choose to read. I heard great things about this book through word of mouth, and it didn't disappoint! Kean does a masterful job of explaining the interesting facts and stories behind the elements that make up our universe in a way that's easy to understand and fun to read. Especially for people like me, who love to learn...but maybe spent more time in high school science class shooting spitwads than actually reading our boring text books! With "The Disappearing Spoon," Kean truly makes science and history come alive--I highly recommend!

Worth its weight in Au, July 24, 2010
This book is going to join a very select group of those which I have read multiple times. There is so much fun and interesting information in this work that I suspect I will keep finding new things upon another go-around. Sam Kean has created what is truly a scientific masterpiece with this book.

Breaking up the periodic table into various sections which blend the elements into tales of science, politics, medicine, and philosophy--to name just a few--Kean pulls off the magic trick of making the dreaded periodic table exciting and interesting again. There is no shortage of future conversation-starting facts and tidbits in this book. I confess that in some parts I had to go through it rather slowly to make sure I understood what I was reading, because the breadth of the book is very impressive and roams all over physics and chemistry. But trust me when I say that I have serious doubts that anyone could have made the science more accessible than the author of this book. It may be the case that experts in some of the more esoteric areas about which he writes might quibble about over-simplification, but for the general reader, the book is a fine example of how to bring science out of its perceived shell of boredom.

This book was an absolute trifecta for me, including science, humor, and suspense wrapped up with some brilliant writing into a near-perfect package. I read it on my Kindle but am going to buy a hard copy for my library. A big thank-you to Sam Kean for such an enjoyable read.

Start in Chapter 2, August 15, 2010
As a professor of chemistry, I have to say I was a bit worried after reading Chapter 1 of this book. A great case study in classic misconceptions -- that there is something "satisfying" for an atom to have a complete octet, for example, or that lungs regularly deal with carbon dioxide and so "see nothing wrong with absorbing its cousin, SiO2...." or that in chemical compounds, "rings are states of high tension" just to cite a few.

But overall, it was a great read. Kean has a great sense of comic timing and is a wonderful story teller. I especially enjoyed the story of aluminum (aka aluminium), which I had never heard.

Just ignore most of the chemistry being "taught"! Start in Chapter 2.

Terrific!, August 3, 2010
From Sam Kean:
"I ended up with an honors degree in physics, but [...] my real education was in my professors' stories. [...] I realized that there's a funny, or odd, or chilling tale attached to every element on the periodic table."

Kean came to those professors already primed for their stories -- by having been fascinated to find mercury not only in the Periodic Table of science class but also in his childhood thermometers ... and in literature's mad hatter ... and in the mercury-laxative leftovers discovered in Lewis & Clark's trail of latrines.

Though I didn't keep strict track, I think Kean includes a tale for every single element in this terrific book. And while he did so, he opened my eyes to things I'd forgotten (or not ever known!!), for example:

* Chemistry is based on atoms' electrons and physics on their nuclei;
* "Alchemy" is true: every element traces back to the fusion of solar hydrogen atoms;
* The familiar Periodic Table is just one of many potential configurations of the elements, some of which are 3D;
* There are more than three states of matter;
* Our bodies don't monitor whether we're inhaling enough oxygen, only that we're exhaling enough carbon dioxide;
* Midas was real as well as fictional;
* Why sci-fi life-forms are based on silicon;
* Why Americans call it "aluminum" but it's "aluminium" to everybody else.

There's chemistry here, and physics and biology. But there's also astronomy, geology, history, politics, warfare, economics, gender studies, human ambition and inter-personal conflict. And there's a whole lotta humor. There are also dozens of entertaining and informative endnotes, suggestions for further reading, and an index. The only way to make it even better would be to read it alongside Theodore Gray's The Elements.

(Review based on an advance reading copy provided by the publisher.)

Opinion of a chemist, July 29, 2010
Kean strikes a good balance between entertaining and informing. He blends the history of chemistry, the science of chemistry, and entertaining anecdotes - all relayed in a clear style with mostly nontechnical language.

I noticed some errors in his discussion of fluorescence and phosphorescence, but overall it is a very well researched book.

A Fantastic Book - A Real Page Turner, August 22, 2010
If this guy (Sam Kean) had been my Chem teacher, I would be headed for a Nobel Prize.

A great read with info that sticks to you like duck tape

Read this and ignore the bad (3 star) Reviews.

A Very Lively and Sweeping Portrayal of Science, August 8, 2010
This is five-star science writing at its best. Although the book's main theme is the periodic table of the elements - chemistry's rallying point - the scientific fields that are discussed are quite diverse. They include: various branches of physics, geology, palaeontology, biology and several others. But that's not all. The scientific discussions are blended into a backdrop of archaeology, history - from ancient through medieval to modern - as well as the occasional political and social machinations. And last, but definitely not least, the author has enriched almost every page with the ever-present, always-fascinating, often-confrontational and sporadically-baffling human element that many authors often omit.

As pointed out by at least one other reviewer, there are some technical errors; I found some in the discussions involving radioactivity and nuclear physics. But these minor shortcomings do not detract from the book's important qualities.

The writing style is very lively, friendly, often humorous/tongue-in-cheek, entertaining, widely accessible, never boring and quite captivating. In short: a page-turner. This book can be thoroughly enjoyed by anyone, especially those with a fascination for science: how it works, how some discoveries came about, some of the people involved (ancient to recent) and science's wonderful history. It is also a special treat for science buffs. I believe that this work is an important contribution towards making science understandable and fun for the general population. It may even inspire future Nobel Prize winners. To the author: well done!!

I'm reminded to take my dose of lithium, August 22, 2010
"Between hydrogen at the top left and the man-made impossibilities lurking along the bottom, you can find bubbles, bombs, money, alchemy, petty politics, history, poison, crime and love. Even some science." - Sam Kean (stating perhaps the briefest possible synopsis of his THE DISAPPEARING SPOON

"Never underestimate spite as a motivator for genius." - Sam Kean

In THE DISAPPEARING SPOON, science writer Sam Kean attempts to do what Bill Bryson does with his magnificent A Short History of Nearly Everything, i.e. tap dance with humor over a wide-ranging subject for the entertainment and edification of the reader. In the Bryson's case, the arena is, well, nearly everything, while Kean's is a much more constricted stage, the Periodic Table of the Elements. The fact that the former performs more nimbly shouldn't dissuade one from reading the latter's book, which is, for the most part, a work of popular science that's likely to be both engaging and largely comprehensible to the sweaty masses. (It's currently in the mid-90s outside. Schvitzy work, this.)

Sam doesn't proceed through the squares of the Periodic Table in an orderly progression as one might progress across the squares of a hopscotch court from start to finish, but rather jumps around randomly, the element of the moment being determined by a larger context whether that be its relation to medicine, money, poisons, explosive weaponry, temperature, tools of measurement, gold rushes, human insanity, misguided science, artistic output, or the politics of the Nobel prize.

Occasionally, the author becomes a bit too arcane and the reader not heavily grounded in chemistry (or physics!) may find his/her eyes glazing over, such as when he discusses bubble chemistry, superatoms, quantum dots, the alpha constant, or electron jumps between orbitals. And when the narrative became wrapped up in the personalities and rivalries of the investigators involved in the discovery of the transuranic elements, I had to ask myself if I cared much about the soap opera. The answer was "no." Generally speaking, however, the tales Kean has to tell are interesting and worth storing away in memory to retell around the office coffee maker or as part of interesting small talk at the next cocktail party (even if there are no chemistry geeks in attendance). Who knows? It may be useful to rescue a lagging conversation by declaring that the longest word ever to appear legitimately in an English document not for the purpose of setting a length record names a protein in the tobacco mosaic virus:

"Acetyl seryl tyrosyl seryl iso leucyl threonyl seryl prolyl serylglutaminyl phenyl alanyl valyl phenyl alanyl leucyl seryl seryl valyltryptophyl alanyl aspartyl prolyl isoleucyl glutamyl leucyl leucylasparaginyl valyl cysteinyl threonyl seryl seryl leucyl glycylasparaginyl glutaminyl phenyl alanyl glutaminyl threonyl glutaminylglutaminyl alanyl arginyl threonyl threonyl glutaminyl valylglutaminyl glutaminyl phenyl alanyl seryl glutaminyl valyl tryptophyllysyl prolyl phenyl alanyl prolyl glutaminyl seryl threonyl valylarginyl phenyl alanyl prolyl glycyl aspartyl valyl tyrosyl lysyl valyltyrosyl arginyl tyrosyl asparaginyl alanyl valyl leucyl aspartylprolyl leucyl isoleucyl threonyl alanyl leucyl leucyl glycyl threonylphenyl alanyl aspartyl threonyl arginyl asparaginyl arginyl isoleucylisoleucyl glutamyl valyl glutamyl asparaginyl glutaminyl glutaminylseryl prolyl threonyl threonyl alanyl glutamyl threonyl leucylaspartyl alanyl threonyl arginyl arginyl valyl aspartyl aspartylalanyl threonyl valyl alanyl isoleucyl arginyl seryl alanyl asparaginylisoleucyl asparaginyl leucyl valyl asparaginyl glutamyl leucyl valylarginyl glycyl threonyl glycyl leucyl tyrosyl asparaginyl glutaminylasparaginyl threonyl phenyl alanyl glutamyl seryl methionyl serylglycyl leucyl valyl tryptophyl threonyl seryl alanyl prolyl alanylserine"

Finally, for a reason I can't really explain, one of the more fascinating paragraphs in the book was that describing the action of lithium to ameliorate mood swings in manic depressives.

I'm always happy to report on any volume that increases my knowledge about the world around me without being too impenetrable. I wish THE DISAPPEARING SPOON had been available to me in high school Chem 1A. So, despite a sporadic unevenness in presentation, I'm recommending it with four stars. ... Read more

Editorial Review

Sam Harris’s first book, The End of Faith, ignited a worldwide debate about the validity of religion. In the aftermath, Harris discovered that most people—from religious fundamentalists to nonbelieving scientists—agree on one point: science has nothing to say on the subject of human values. Indeed, our failure to address questions of meaning and morality through science has now become the most common justification for religious faith. It is also the primary reason why so many secularists and religious moderates feel obligated to "respect" the hardened superstitions of their more devout neighbors.In this explosive new book, Sam Harris tears down the wall between scientific facts and human values, arguing that most people are simply mistaken about the relationship between morality and the rest of human knowledge. Harris urges us to think about morality in terms of human and animal well-being, viewing the experiences of conscious creatures as peaks and valleys on a "moral landscape." Because there are definite facts to be known about where we fall on this landscape, Harris foresees a time when science will no longer limit itself to merely describing what people do in the name of "morality"; in principle, science should be able to tell us what we ought to do to live the best lives possible. Bringing a fresh perspective to age-old questions of right and wrong and good and evil, Harris demonstrates that we already know enough about the human brain and its relationship to events in the world to say that there are right and wrong answers to the most pressing questions of human life. Because such answers exist, moral relativism is simply false—and comes at increasing cost to humanity. And the intrusions of religion into the sphere of human values can be finally repelled: for just as there is no such thing as Christian physics or Muslim algebra, there can be no Christian or Muslim morality.

Using his expertise in philosophy and neuroscience, along with his experience on the front lines of our "culture wars," Harris delivers a game-changing book about the future of science and about the real basis of human cooperation.

... Read more

Reviews

A Provocative Feast, October 5, 2010
Sam Harris seems to have a knack for staying on the cutting edge of the religious debates. His first book, "The End of Faith," ignited the so-called New Atheist movement. Now after several years and after earning a Ph.D. in neuroscience from UCLA Harris returns igniting a new debate, this time about the moral landscape of our world. People have been arguing back and forth whether there was anything new in the so-called New Atheist movement. But if this book counts as part of that movement then Harris does succeed in bringing something new to the table.

Theists like to remind atheists of the old days, the days of Nietzsche, Camus and Sartre, the so-called robust atheists of the past who didn't think there could be an objective morality for us all. Now with this book there is truly a new atheism, one that affirms an objective morality based in the sciences. And it will be hotly contested by both sides.

In this book Sam Harris admirably attempts to steer between a moral absolutism that has answers to most moral questions and a relativism that has nothing objective to say about them. For him moral facts exist, but relativism is false. For him the answers to moral questions do not come from religion, which can and does produce more harm than good, but from science, which helps us understand what makes for human flourishing. Science should be able to tell us in principle how we ought to live our lives.

Given that our experience is constrained by the laws of the universe, Harris argues there must be scientific answers to the question of how best to move up to the peaks of this moral landscape, toward greater happiness.

According to Harris there can be no such thing as Muslim algebra or Christian neuroscience so also there can be no religion specific morality.

While there are conflicting moral claims that might never be solved, most moral issues are not like this, he argues. For if we could eliminate "war, nuclear proliferation, malaria, chronic hunger, child abuse," etc. this would provide for human flourishing and be morally good for everyone.

He argues that at bottom moral questions are about neurology, biology, psychology, sociology, and economics.

According to Harris: "It seems to me that the only way we are going to build a global civilization based on shared values--allowing us to converge on the same political, economic, and environmental goals--is to admit that questions about right and wrong and good and evil have answers, in the same way the questions about human health do."

I hope his argument succeeds. It should. He argues for it in a masterful way.

Though I agree with many of Sam Harris's views on religion, I was expecting a book on "how science can determine human values.", November 9, 2010
Before I begin, and hopefully before people reflexively click the "no" for review helpfulness, simply because I did not assign five stars to this book, allow me to get a few things out of the way:

1. Like Sam Harris, I reject supernatural claims.
2. I agree with most statements Harris makes in the book regarding morality and well-being, especially the evolutionary origins of morality.
3. I agree that science has a part to play in the study of morality, and can provide information to help in moral decisions.
4. I am neither a moral relativist, nor a postmodernist, so I agree that morality is not infinitely relative across cultures.
5. There are several serious problems throughout this book, many of which may cause negative associations with nontheistic views or people.
6. When one argues against freethought or freedom of/from religion, one produces arguments that can be used against oneself. I can well imagine some of the famous freethinkers flinching at portions of this book.

Now, the title of this book is "The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values," which implies that the book will demonstrate how *science* can *determine* human values. I understand that in the U.S., the publishing industry occasionally re-titles a book in order to produce a sensation, improving sales, but causes unfortunate misunderstanding. This happened to Bart Ehrman, with the publishing of his bestselling book, "Misquoting Jesus." That was the title in the U.S., and was not the real title of the book, but was something he had no control over. The book was not about anyone misquoting Jesus.

I have to wonder if the same thing happened to Sam Harris, because this book is not about what the title suggests. How science can determine human values does not enter the picture. Harris does present opinions as to what is moral and what is not. He defines morality as being based on human well-being, which in turn depends on events in the brain and in the world. Notice that he has in effect given us the answer to what we must value, without science to back it up. I agree in principle, but I was under the impression that science was going to make the determinations, not Harris. Plus, human well-being, and what produces it, is likely not as clear-cut as Harris implies, but the frequency with which he uses terms like "clearly," as though all debate is superfluous, belies his confidence that he already has the answers.

However, on page 7, he does mention the somewhat relative nature of morality, though not to the extreme sense of postmodernist moral relativism. He suggests that the "moral landscape" may have many peaks, or more than one right answer for some questions. In this we can agree, and I appreciate his offering this particular opinion, though it is difficult to see his words on many other pages in agreement with pg 7.

Assuming morality is to be measured by well-being, are we considering only an individual's well-being, community well-being, national well-being, or planetary well-being? How do we measure human well-being against the well-being of other animals? How do we measure the well-being of one human against the well-being of another human (as these are frequently mutually exclusive, if one pays attention to the world around them)?

While I find myself agreeing with most of his arguments about what is best in regard to human well-being, I have to observe that he has not produced any significant science or reference to science done in regard to the majority of his arguments or why his definition of morality has been proven by science. Would it not be best to have that in hand before producing a book arguing for a scientific approach to morality, or at least before filling it to the brim with his judgments on what the answers will be once we evaluate moral questions scientifically? Throughout the book, he seems to know what evidence will be produced by scientific experiments before they have been done. He knows what science will deduce as moral when the question is put to it.

What tool is neuroscience primarily using for examining questions of brain activity at this point? fMRI, as far as I can tell, and that is what is used in any studies mentioned in the book. What does it measure? Blood flow (or blood oxygen levels) to areas of the brain. What does that mean? Generally, that those areas being suffused with higher blood flow (increased oxygen levels) are being used more. It does not tell us what is necessarily being thought, and can only suggest correlations to stimuli, but correlation does not imply causality. Harris mentions on pg 221, in footnote 17 for chapter 3, "fMRI may be blind to the difference between excitatory and inhibitory signals, as metabolism also increases with inhibition."

There is ambiguity in fMRI as a tool to evaluate the brain, which suggests it is a very blunt instrument, even having detected activity in the brain of a dead salmon (search fMRI salmon). From what I have read elsewhere from other neuroscientists, some have mentioned the possibility of a future discovery that fMRI has no more ability to produce reliable conclusions than phrenology, which was an enormous science in the 19th century, since discredited. (See also The New Phrenology: The Limits of Localizing Cognitive Processes in the Brain (Life and Mind: Philosophical Issues in Biology and Psychology).) However, fMRI surely has to be better than that, but as a relatively new technology, there is much work to be done before we have the confidence we need.

This is not to say that we will not be able to determine some things, but if one keeps in mind the complexity of many moral decisions, and considers what technology has to offer at the current time, I am quite skeptical that we will be getting clear answers as to what is best for well-being from evaluation of brain activity by fMRI.

When he sings the praises of possible future reliable lie detection (pp 134-136), in any setting, by hidden devices, it is positively Orwellian, not to mention possibly overconfident about the future technology. What have we learned about polygraph tests (even mentioned in the text)? The danger of lie detection lies in the lack of 100% accuracy (polygraph much less) and implication of innocents. At least Harris acknowledges this, but seems to be okay with a percentage of error, since we have a percentage of error now. He seems to imply we might have the ability to be monitored anywhere that we are, especially when truth matters most, like the courtroom or boardroom, but anywhere important conversations take place. "1984," anyone?

In the footnotes, at least he also mentions the shortcomings of current technology such as fMRI for accomplishing this. What he does not mention is the possibility that lying by genuine psychopaths may be not be detectable with this technology, and there will immediately be a black-market science within organized crime to circumvent the promise of guaranteed honesty. What can we surmise from those two strong possibilities? Perhaps we will unknowingly exonerate the ones we most wish to catch, but maybe it will help if we keep this in mind.

The attack on Francis Collins in the "religion" chapter is unnecessary, though I'm no fan of Collins. Anyone should agree that religion and science is not compatible, but I'm not entirely certain that prohibiting a Christian from taking the position at the NIH, purely on religious grounds, is "moral." It is clear that Sam Harris thinks that a scientist in that position must be required to be an Atheist. I'm not a constitutional scholar, but I would bet that requirement would be unconstitutional, not to mention bigoted. If the religious views of Collins inhibits his performance for such a position, I would agree his appointment is inappropriate. Sam Harris writes as though he has no unsupported beliefs, himself. We know better than that.

He implies that Kenneth Miller and Andrew Brown (pg 173) "clearly feel that unjustified beliefs and disordered thinking should not be challenged as long as they are associated with a mainstream religion," but this is a straw man argument, as it is bigoted not because Harris criticized unreasonable thoughts or ideas, but because he is insinuating that a scientist that just happens to be wrong in some area of his thinking, even if it does not ultimately interfere with his job, does not deserve to have the job, because his thinking in all possible areas is not flawless -- because he is religious. Next, he may be suggesting (if he hasn't already) that Ph.D. candidates in any scientific field must be subject to a religious test before being awarded a Ph.D, and only awarding it if the scientist is an Atheist. One cannot have a thought-criminal be a scientist, and unless I misunderstand him, one day Harris hopes we have the technology to tell if you are committing a thought-crime.

I found myself irritated with the casual dismissal of the naturalistic fallacy delineated by David Hume, the 18th century philosopher, since it does not work with Harris's model. Hume's whole point is that you cannot tell what someone "ought" to do based on what "is." On pg 204, note 22 for chapter 1, he says we can just do away with the idea of "ought," then be left with scientific "cause and effect" telling us what we "should" do. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure "ought" and "should" are synonyms, and I do not see how "should" is more scientific than "ought."

I worried that with people like Pinker, Dawkins, and Krauss putting endorsements on this book, I must be entirely wrong, but I reread Krauss's endorsement carefully -- even he alludes to his disagreement, while praising Harris's rhetorical ability (a virtue in evidence throughout the book). Massimo Pigliucci, a scientist and philosopher with three Ph.D.'s, has some genuinely valid concerns about Harris's outlook on this subject. Pigliucci questions whether it would be moral to use corporal punishment on children if scientific data shows it to be beneficial. Elsewhere, Harris has said it would be, writing "I asked whether subjecting children to 'pain, violence, and public humiliation' leads to 'healthy emotional development and good behavior' (i.e. does it conduce to their general wellbeing and to the wellbeing of society). If it did, well then yes, I would admit that it was moral." Pigliucci said he would reject the data, based on his "moral intuition." (See links in first comment.) Perhaps Pigliucci is right that Harris should include philosophy with science in morality evaluation.

What if the burka is suggested by scientific experiments to increase or preserve well-being for more women than not in Muslim cultures? Will Harris also change his mind about the morality of forcing women to wear the burka? I agree with his assessment of the burka being immoral, but I have read statements by even American women that converted to Islam that they found the burka to be comforting and protective, so how could we expect the data to certainly show otherwise in Saudi Arabia? Certainly, the well-being of a Saudi woman not wearing a burka in public would be in question at this point, correct?

One last major concern I have is that it almost appears Harris has pursued a Ph.D. in neuroscience in order to use his "learning license" to pursue evidence against religion, and have a scientific platform from which to authoritatively argue the atheistic viewpoint -- somewhat like atheist evangelism. I hope that is not the case. There is a larger focus on criticizing religion in this book than any other subject, possibly with the exception of his focus on convincing us of contribution to well-being as the definition of morality. Once again, though I agree with most of his views on religion, I was expecting a book on science. I thought that was a reasonable expectation, as he has become a scientist since his last book publication, and the title implies that is his focus here.

This ultimately seems to be science through rhetoric -- an argument for science to explore what Harris defines as moral -- not for science to determine what is moral. Plus, he provides arguments about the lack of clearly delineated free will, but with no suggestions about how we decide morality if no one can help what they do. Maybe science, along with philosophy, will gradually shed light on some of the more complex questions.

It's the Beginning, not the End, of the Debate, October 5, 2010
Sam Harris has written a simple, yet extraordinarily powerful book about the "science of morality" and it is quite a revelation. He cuts through the cloudy thinking of religion and relativism to get at the heart of the problem: How do we as human beings maximize our well being?

Harris provides no hard and fast answers, he is attempting to lay the foundations here. He is not, like Moses, stumbling off Mt. Sinai with stone tablets emblazoned with the "truth," he is merely sketching out how we might orient ourselves to best tackle the mountain ourselves.

Refreshing and brilliant.

Interesting read, but very shoddy argumentation, October 14, 2010
First of all, I must say that I am a Sam Harris fan. I enjoyed his previous two books and really like his writing style, which is lucid, lively and engaging. Unfortunately, while the quality of Harris' prose in "The Moral Landscape" remains excellent, the same cannot be said of the quality of his reasoning.

In "The Moral Landscape", Sam Harris posits that there *are* objective moral values and they can be determined by science. Briefly, his argument is that morality should be defined as the well-being of conscious creatures, and since the question of what acts or situations will promote/undermine well-being is an empirical one, it is a question that science can (in principle) answer. This is an audacious thesis, and as reluctant moral skeptic who is constantly on the lookout for a convincing account of moral objectivity, I was excited to see whether Harris could support his claims.

However, I was sorely disappointed. Harris' argumentative technique consists primarily of making bare assertions or rhetorical statements. For example, he says things like "There is little doubt that well-being must include fairness, compassion, etc" or "It seems clear that whether a certain state of pleasure is 'good' has to do with whether it is conducive to well-being". Anyone familiar with argumentative writing would know that when a writer has to resort to bare claims about how "obvious" or "clear" a proposition is, he really doesn't have any support for that proposition at all.

In a similar vein, Harris rejects Hume's venerable is-ought distinction by insisting, "If this notion of 'ought' means anything we can possibly care about, it must translate into a concern about the actual or potential experience of conscious beings." He then summarily dismisses the views of people who disagree by asserting that they must be wrong, lying or not making sense! This is very poor argumentative technique indeed.

Harris is slightly more persuasive when he draws analogies between morality and science or medicine. He points out that science and medicine also rest on certain unsubstantiated premises - for example, science assumes that empirical evidence can be relied upon for determining truth, while medicine presupposes that "health" means a long life free of diseases. Yet nobody would say that science cannot discover objective facts, or that health cannot be studied scientifically. By the same token, the fact that one cannot prove that morality is about the well-being of conscious entities is not fatal to the scientific study of morality.

However, upon closer scrutiny, one will find that Harris has ducked the issue altogether. The issue is not whether morality can be studied scientifically, once we accept the premise that morality is about the well-being of conscious creatures. Rather, the issue is whether science can determine what morality consists of *in the first place*. In other words, the question is not, "Can science tell us how to achieve X, assuming that X is moral/desirable/valuable?" Instead, the question is, "Can science determine *whether* X is moral/desirable/valuable?" While the subtitle of Harris' book suggests that he is addressing the latter question, his book is in fact concerned with the former.

In conclusion, Harris' book lacks logical rigour and fails to accomplish what it set out to achieve. Nevertheless, it is still a well-written, highly readable book that is informative and interesting, especially when it deals with the neuroscientific aspects of belief, free will and morality. In spite of its significant flaws, I would still recommend it to the average layperson who is interested in this subject area.

Science cannot answer moral questions, I'm afraid, November 12, 2010
[Below are some excerpts from a fuller review, currently in press in Skeptic magazine] Let me first begin by making clear that there is much about which Harris and I agree. We are both moral realists, i.e. we believe that moral questions do have non-arbitrary answers, though our realism is, as will be clear in a moment, of a very different nature. We both agree that religion has absolutely nothing to do with morality, though I don't think of it as "the root of all evil" either, to use Richard Dawkins' phrase, which Harris seems to endorse with glee throughout this (and his previous) book. Lastly, as an obvious corollary of our moral realism, both Harris and I think that moral relativism is a silly notion, and that it is in fact downright pernicious in its effects on individuals and society.

Here is where the two of us disagree: I do not think that science amounts to the sum total of rational inquiry (a position often referred to as scientism), which he seems to (implicitly) assume. I do think that science should inform the specifics of our ethical discussions, and hence is in an important sense pertinent to ethics, but I maintain that ethical questions are inherently philosophical in nature, not scientific. This is a problem, I think, because ignoring this distinction does a disservice to both science and philosophy. Finally, as a corollary of my rejection of scientism above, I do think that there are significant differences between science and philosophy, even though of course the demarcation line between the two is far from being sharp. Indeed, I think that a combination of these two disciplines -- which used to be called "scientia" (knowledge in the broadest possible sense) -- is our best hope for a more rational and compassionate humanity.

Harris undermines his own project in two footnotes tucked at the end of his book. In the second note to the Introduction, he acknowledges that he "do[es] not intend to make a hard distinction between `science' and other intellectual contexts in which we discuss `facts.'" But wait a minute! If that is the case, if we can define "science" as any type of rational-empirical inquiry into "facts" (the scare quotes are his) then we are talking about something that is not at all what most readers are likely to understand when they pick up a book with a subtitle that says "How Science Can Determine Human Values" (the italics are mine). One can reasonably smell a bait and switch here. Second, in the first footnote to chapter 1, Harris says: "Many of my critics fault me for not engaging more directly with the academic literature on moral philosophy ... I am convinced that every appearance of terms like `metaethics,' `deontology,' ... directly increases the amount of boredom in the universe." That's it? The whole of the only field other than religion that has ever dealt with ethics is dismissed because Sam Harris finds it boring? Is that a fact or a value judgment, I wonder?

Harris' insistence on neurobiology becomes at times positively creepy, as in the section where he seems to relish the prospect of a neuro-scanning technology that will be able to tell us if anyone is lying, opening the prospect of a world where government (and corporations) will be able to enforce no-lie zones upon us. He writes: "Thereafter, civilized men and women might share a common presumption: that whenever important conversations are held, the truthfulness of all participants will be monitored. ... Many of us might no more feel deprived of the freedom to lie during a job interview or at a press conference than we currently feel deprived of the freedom to remove our pants in the supermarket." If these sentences do not conjure the specter of a really, really scary Big Brother in your mind, I suggest you get your own brain scanned for signs of sociopathology (or watch a good episode of Babylon 5).

In the end, I did not learn much about either science or ethics from reading Harris' book (though I am very clear on the fact that he really, really dislikes Francis Collins, the new director of the NIH). But at the same time I just happened to be reading Michael Sandel's Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? If you wish to understand ethics, do yourself a favor, and read Sandel instead, your time and money will be much better spent.

Unconvincing, October 27, 2010
Although I am a fan of Mr. Harris' prior two books, the subtitle of his latest book made me cringe. I came to it not expecting much and I wasn't disappointed. I noticed by the way that no philosopher endorsed it. At least there wasn't one on the dust jacket. I consider this latest work a philosophically naive attempt to defend hedonic utilitarianism( HU ), which BTW is what our country is founded on. A quick read of the first sentence of the Declaration of Independence confirms this: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.' Hmm...apparently Jefferson didn't need neuroscience to write that sentence. If we as a society determine that the goal is to maximize our hedonic utility collectively, then I think science, and in this case neuroscience, can help make our decisions more informed. But the issue is a lot more complicated than that which is why I consider this lastest book naive.

I am sympathetic with his goal of securing the notion that we do not need a belief in god(s) or religion to live healthy, moral and fulfilling lives. I think he overreached himself however. I did not read anything in the book to change my mind that humans impute value. We do not discover it.

The other low starred reviews discuss many of the things I think are wrong with his position, let me just mention a few of my own.

First of all, there is the measurement problem. Utilititarianism has spawned a huge literature in economics none of which he has engaged with regarding measuring a person's utility function. Basically, it is considered impossible. Looking at a bunch of pretty colors in an fMRI machine doesn't help. Do we measure short term happiness or long term happiness. Do we take the average? Does it matter? Maybe short term equals long term. Harris's equivocations amount to not taking a stand. How is science going to determine the optimal ratio of short term pleasure versus long term pleasure? This is an intractable problem in principle. Those decisions require human non-scientific judgement.

Secondly, Mr. Harris assumes that there is an isomorphism between the brain states of the population that neuroscientists study and the general population. This means that one can extrapolate from a sample to the rest of the population. This ultimately means that the moral truths learned apply to the average human. Are you average? In so doing, he essentializes humans. He also neglects to discuss how learning plays into determining what behaviors create well-being. We've all had the experience of disliking something when we are young and then later on learning to find an activity pleasurable. Sex naturally comes to mind here. We can measure happiness he says. I can hear the board of ethicists now, 'Mr. Smith, we've discovered that 99.0% of the people aren't happy if they engage in this behavior, therefore it would be immoral for us to allow you to do it.' Also consider the Happy Slave thought experiment which highlights the distinction between subjective well-being and objective well-being. We all are taught to believe that enslaving another human being is immoral. But imagine for a moment a slave who is content and happy with their enslavement. Any other situation would be intolerable for the person and would decrease their well-being. We back this up with brain scans and find yes indeed this person would experience horrific pain if they were freed. Not allowing the slave to enjoy his well-being is to tell him what to VALUE ( he/she doesn't value primitive freedom ). Harris would respond like Socrates that this person acts out of ignorance and does not perceive their 'true' objective well-being. If they only knew the truth, they would understand that they could be so much happier if they were not a slave. ( Think also of the 'Story of O' here ). Of course, Mr. Harris and his team of fellow neuroscientists are ready to supply those objectively true values/morals...it also causes us so much pain to see you enslaved. Thereofore for our subjective well-being, and your objective well-being, you must be freed even if it doesn't enhance your subjective well-being. But Harris would say, we solved the hedonic calculus equations. This is moral truth.

So what are we to have then, a board of scientists who determine what the objectively true morals are? He dismisses the fascist implications of his position which are quite real. Many from my generation can remember how individuals wanting to leave the former Soviet Union were categorized as mentally ill by the government and incarcerated in mental hospitals. Why? No sane person would want to leave the 'worker's paradise'? What if science shows that people are happiest in a monogamist male-female relationship where the couple has sex at least once a week. Are we going to promote this as national policy? What about those who are not average and want to remain single or would like to be in a polyamorous group? He would say there are multiple peaks to the moral landscape, ie multiple ways of pursuing well-being that do not make others worse off in a Pareto optimal sense ( he seems unfamiliar with Pareto optimality however ). But multiple peaks seem to me to eviscerate the whole concept of moral truth. Who determines if some behavior is another peak and not a moral valley? Who detects shoddy science? Remember the eugenics movement in the US in the 1920s.


Consider another thought experiment: The allies have just taken Berlin at the end of WW2. A team of soldiers with medics rush into Hitler's bunker. You find him lying on the floor bleeding from a botched suicide attempt. Should you save his life? Why or Why not? I don't see how science would help us make this decision.

Thirdly, following in the venerable tradition of Aristotle, Mr. Harris assumes that morality and well-being are non-separable. However, it is very clear that they are and many philosophers would have a hard time accepting the idea that they are not. Basically separability means that it is logically possible for a person to have a fulfilling happy life without being moral and vice versa. Imagine for a moment a society that determines that acting in pornographic movies is immoral. Yet, you interview a sample of actors and find that they are living fulfilling happy lives and they could not imagine doing anything else. This would be an example of someone behaving immorally yet is happy. So it is logically possible. In my Happy Slave example, even though the slave was worse off morally, this fact alone does not tell us anything about the slave's well-being.

Harris says that people who find happiness while engaging in grossly immoral acts are brain damaged. This would seem reasonable for serial killers, etc, but at what point in the continuum does the person start to be considered brain damaged? This is yet again a decision where human's have to judge using non-science derived values.

In my view, he adds nothing to the debate. The book could have been more informed had he undertaken a closer reading of utility theory in economics. A wider reading in game theory would also been helpful as would a reading in biosemiotics ( ala Jesper Hoffmeyer ). Mr. Harris dismisses culture as if it is unimportant. Only science provides certainty to his mind. So if we want an independent morality that we can force religious people to adopt, then it must come from science. I don't agree. Humans have made moral progress without resorting to 'science' so-called. This is the whole enlightenment tradition. Humans create culture like beavers build dams. It is not mere culture, it the source and background of all meaningful signification. Most of our moral progress is from learning what doesn't work to enhance well-being. It is a fragile knowledge that depends on culture and not science. For example, women's rights depend on culture not science. If we find that a woman's brain turns the right colors in an fMRI machine when they have full reproductive rights, this does not tell us that they should have those rights. Only people VALUING those rights make them secure. The Liberal Arts are more vital today than ever. I would rather have a comparative literature or history graduate determining our society's moral truth any day over a neuroscientist.

I also found his folksy conservative morality offputting at times. Apparently the pair-bond male-female monogamous family is the paradigmatic family structure. Quoting from his shallow reading of Evolutionary Psychology, apparently we evolved to have women seek out high status males who strut and show off to win over females and provide them with resources. How very right wing Christian of him. However, there is a lot of evidence that this is a cultural adaptation subsequent to the agricultural revolution approx. 10,000 years ago...mere culture again.

No humans do not find or discover values just as we don't find or discover meaning. Humans create meaning and values. That's what we do. We can't hide behind science when we make decisions. It's called moral responsibility.

Ultimately what was the point of writing a book just to say what Mill said 100 years ago? Maximize individual autonomy and exercise your autonomy without causing harm to others. We don't need neuroscience to tell us that this can enhance well-being.

A Contribution to Consequentialism, Not a Panacea for Moral Philosophy, November 24, 2010
In this book, Sam Harris advocates for the relevance of science to moral judgments and moral decisions. Harris defines himself as a consequentialist or utilitarian moral theorist, and within that tradition in moral philosophy, the relevance of science to morality is not so controversial. If you can define "happiness" (or some other condition to be maximized), and you can adopt a definition of "maximized", and you can calculate the contribution of any act to what you've defined as happiness, you've provided at least a rudimentary method for determining the morality of those acts. And scientific research is certainly relevant to that determination, especially if you've defined "happiness" ("well-being" for Harris) in scientifically friendly terms. Harris does so, claiming that "well-being" has to do with the brain states of conscious creatures.

That's a coherent position to take. It's not without controversy or refinement. Figuring out what "maximize" means, for example, is pretty critical to whether or not we value equal distributions of happiness across a population or only the sum total. If only the sum total, then radically unequal distributions are morally superior so long as they sum out higher than more equal ones.

Harris knows about such problems. In fact, he discusses but takes no stand on the average vs. sum question in Chapter 2 of his book. Nor does he offer any sort of detailed guidance on how such a question would be settled scientifically, if he thinks that can be done.

Harris has less to say about debates between consequentialist moral theory and other main strains of thinking about what morality is. As he himself says, he is not going to provide any sort of strict definition for his key term "well-being", referring rather to an analogy to the term "health", in which numerous approaches to what is "healthy" can be mutually consistent without supposing that the term itself thereby becomes radically undetermined or meaningless. I think he's right about that. But it's exactly that indeterminateness that is the root of a great deal of philosophical debate about morality.

Philosophers sometimes distinguish three main branches in the history of moral philosophy. One is consequentialism, Harris' branch. Another is Kantian moral thought, in which it is not the consequences of an action that make it moral or immoral, but rather what Kant calls the "subjective principle of volition" behind the action -- we can call that the "intention" behind the action just for the sake of argument (but Kantians will howl). And the other is Aristotelian moral thought, based on the concept of virtue and the development and exercise of virtue in a life. Harris has little to say about either of those lines of thought, except to say that his notion of "well-being" is elastic enough to encompass whatever other people may mean when they talk about things like "duty" (a core Kantian term), "justice", etc.

Harris thinks, like some other consequentialists, that any validity those other strains of thought have can be captured within the consequentialist framework. After all, as Harris argues, if those things matter, they must matter because they contribute to someone's well-being. Sounds reasonable.

But I think that without more fully addressing those alternative strains of moral thought, Harris doesn't address some pretty central questions. For example, how much does the fact that I am the one causing pain or happiness for others count in my moral decisions as opposed to just anyone causing that same pain or happiness? If I were asked to fire an employee I manage, and I believe the firing to be unjust, should I refuse to do it, even though I know that if I do so, I will be fired for refusing, and the employee will be fired anyway? That's not a made-up case -- among others, that was Elliot Richardson's position, when his boss, Richard Nixon, ordered him to fire Archibald Cox. On one way of thinking about morality, my character (and my virtues) count centrally in the decision. On strict consequentialist grounds, it doesn't, except in so far as we can reconstruct my character in terms of "happiness" or "well-being", detouring around the central question of whether character in itself counts.

There are also more radical strains of thought. One that is particularly relevant to Harris' arguments, is that the moral autonomy of human beings extends to the very definition of well-being itself. Put in terms closer to Harris, what makes us happy is then something we can influence ourselves, by training, or by commitment, or other methods. At times, Harris seems to admit such possibilities (see his discussions in Chapter 2 of the faults in our moral intuitions and the possibility of training ourselves out of them, or his remarks there about how we might alter our moral perceptions with drug treatments). Should we train ourselves to value equality, so that we perceive our own well-being served by equality (with the resulting positive conscious brain states Harris associates with well-being)? Or conversely, should we train ourselves to value extreme distributions, finding satisfaction in the lives of others even if we can't achieve those heights ourselves? If so, then we might be able to increase our collective well-being by simply training ourselves to positively perceive a given state of affairs. Should we do that?

The opponents that Harris aims at are not alternative theories of morality per se, but rather religion and moral relativism. He thinks that many immoral acts and institutions are purportedly justified by religious belief, and he liberally cites the Taliban and Muslim extremism in general as examples. Then he decries modern liberals for shrinking back from moral judgment against those acts and institutions on relativist grounds.

Understood this way, as I said, I don't see that much to object to in Harris' claim that science can contribute to determining the moral value of actions, at least in consequentialist terms.

We could object that his sweep across "religion" makes little room for distinctions among fundamentalist believers and others. That's probably a topic better addressed in reference to his book on "The End of Faith" than this one. Chapters 3 and 4 of this book concentrate on "Belief" and "Religion", but I don't think that any of the claims in those chapters bear directly on unanswered questions relating to consequentialism and its alternatives.

We could also object to Harris' rhetoric -- his style is polemical, not academic. He seems to think that anybody who disagrees with him is an idiot or a fool.

For my part, I just don't think that he has solved the problems of moral philosophy, either the ones within his consequentialist branch or the ones between consequentialism and others strains of thought about what morality is. And I don't think that Harris has shown that those problems can be solved scientifically, if he intended to do so.

Philosophy, yes; Science? Hardly., November 26, 2010
I've enjoyed Sam Harris' wonderful writing since The End of Faith but I cannot recommend this book. It is certainly interesting as philosophy for those who like that sort of thing. But science? As far as I can ascertain Harris' claim that his proposed moral landscape is scientific is based on the fact the human actions take place in the real world, with real causes and effect and therefore since certain causes have certain effects, then the ones that cause goodness (wellness) can be determined in theory as can the ones that cause evil (harm). The whole thing is absurdly trivial and almost equivalent to the old theory that if we knew the velocity and position of every subatomic particle we could in theory foretell all events.

Worse than the triviality of the premise is the underlining tone that the concepts and morals that Harris likes also happen to be the ones that science will no doubt agree with. Again and again he presents arguments for maladaptive behavior and informs us that (without a doubt) that science will certainly tell us this behavior is contrary to human happiness. One can only assume this is based on his reasoning, not science; for Harris acknowledges this is a fledgling field and is merely suggesting what is possible in theory. Then how is it he knows the answers already?

Sorry Sam that is not science. It is philosophically reasoning. It is good reasoning; I certainly agree with your moral standpoints. Reason and logic are good guides. But that does not make your reasoning science. It reminds me of an old question: "How many legs would a donkey have if you called its' tail a leg?" Answer: "Four - calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg". Calling philosophy science does not make it science.

I've all ways maintained the greatest challenge to a scientist is knowing what questions need to be asked; that can be asked; and the should be asked. Just because something is phrased as a premise doesn't make it worth investigating: that's why there are thesis advisors. Sam is barking up a useless tree with this thesis. In a way the inability to understand what is a good scientific question and what isn't is the difference between science and pseudo-science. Sam is dangerously close on this one to the wrong side of the fence.

What it can teach us is trivial - even without using the proposed method Sam Harris and any other person can arrive at the same conclusions by reason alone. Nothing is illuminated, nothing gained. Science not only explains what we already know, it illuminates new vistas. What new insights could his moral landscape provide? What could falsify this theory? I wonder what moral belief that Harris finds repugnant would be "proven scientifically" useful for mankind's well being? I must assume none, from reading this. Just the fact that such an idea "happens" to coincide with exactly the views I hold before investigating it would have made me stop and realize I was engaging the useless practice of justifying my reasoning by bolstering it with the name of science. I would have stopped and used Feynmann's recommendation that one should bend over backward to state what is wrong with one's theory. None of that from Harris I am afraid.

Nothing new here really, just more philosophy. Good philosophy, but to paraphrase Shakespeare - I could eat all the science in this book on Good Friday and ne'er break my fast.

Food for thought, December 24, 2010
This book makes the case that morality can be objective, since there can be objective ways to work on making everyone as happy as possible, since happiness is a result of brain states that can be objectively and scientifically measured, described and altered. And, well, that's about it for the thesis, really. It's not about evolutionary reasons why we have ethics, although the topic does come up, so if that's what you thought the title meant, look elsewhere.

The first part of the book mostly tries to get this point across in differently phrased ways. Once I understood that Harris wasn't trying to present this system of metaethics as some sort of universal, scientific law (like the "law of moral right" thing you always used to see full-page ads for in Scientific American), but rather as a method to "maximize human well-being", I found his points made more sense. At some point, it really doesn't make sense to let people cause the suffering of other people simply because it's part of their culture, and while it is good to be objective and equal-minded when studying other cultures, that doesn't mean it's because cultures are inherently equally good at maximizing their constituents' happiness. However, the presentation of this thesis, rather than trying to provide positive evidence, says that if you disagree with the claim that the happiness of conscious beings is the most important thing in the universe, then you might as well close the book right now because there's just no reasoning with you. True, perhaps, but not very well supported.

After this, the book addresses a wide range of subjects, including a chapter on the nonexistence of free will that doesn't really link it to metaethics and seems a little out of place (it ends by saying that the illusion of free will is itself an illusion then just moves on to something unrelated in the next chapter) and a chapter largely dedicated to explaining why the director of the Human Genome Project, Francis Collins, is inconsistent in his view of the sources of knowledge for also being a born-again Christian. The point about science and religion not just being different "ways of knowing" is a relevant one, but it seems to focus almost entirely on Collins, and not just in an exemplary way. Harris wrote a scathing review of Collins' book "The Language of God" in 2006, so this isn't especially surprising, but the chapter reiterates a lot of points from that review.

I went to see Harris talk about the book in Seattle in October, and while the talk understandably reiterated a lot of points from the book, there were some interesting graphics that would have been quite useful in understanding the book. For example, a CGI picture of a landscape-graph-thing where the peaks represented points of high happiness and the valleys represented low happiness and equally high peaks represented different ways of going about the same happiness really helped illustrate the titular "Moral Landscape" concept. There was also a graphic of a long line with tons of red lines connecting parts of it that Harris noted was a graphic of the Bible's inconsistencies, which probably wasn't entirely on-topic but was informative nonetheless.

Overall, this book probably won't instantly convert you to ethical hedonism, but it is food for both thought and discussion on ways we can acknowledge which approaches to human happiness just don't really work.

Listen to or read this book now!, December 18, 2010
This book will undoubtedly go down in history as a sentinal piece of literature. Harris is extremely capable with the English language and introduces many ideas and arguments in this book that require quite a bit of thought to absorb. I started with the audiobook- though I will almost certainly buy the book after listening to the audiobook again. This one is a must read/listen.

Several small cautions for listeners of the audiobook however, just to temper ones expectations. First, I think he would have been better off to give the narration over to a professional reader rather than do it himself. I have heard Sam Harris give public speaches, and he is a fine speaker. However, he is a bit monotone here and at times comes across a little lifeless when it would seem to have been easy for him to be more energetic. Second, some of the material is so intellectually dense, so uterly profound, that you may find yourself stopping the tape just to ponder and think. Third, his overuse of "etc" is a bit maddening, but that's just my personal pet peeve. In spite of these comments, which represent exceptionally minor quibbles with a ground breaking book, I enjoyed it immensely.

Listen to or read this book!
... Read more

Editorial Review

This new edition of the acclaimed bestseller is lavishly illustrated to convey, in pictures as in words, Bill Bryson’s exciting, informative journey into the world of science.

In A Short History of Nearly Everything, beloved author Bill Bryson confronts his greatest challenge yet: to understand—and, if possible, answer—the oldest, biggest questions we have posed about the universe and ourselves. Taking as his territory everything from the Big Bang to the rise of civilization, Bryson seeks to understand how we got from there being nothing at all to there being us. The result is a sometimes profound, sometimes funny, and always supremely clear and entertaining adventure in the realms of human knowledge, as only Bill Bryson can render it.

Now, in this handsome new edition, Bill Bryson’s words are supplemented by full-color artwork that explains in visual terms the concepts and wonder of science, at the same time giving face to the major players in the world of scientific study. Eloquently and entertainingly described, as well as richly illustrated, science has never been more involving or entertaining.


From the Hardcover edition. ... Read more

Reviews

Perhaps the Best Armchair Scientist Book I've Ever Read, May 28, 2003
I picked this one up expecting "good". Instead, I got one of the most delightful reading experiences in science that I have ever had. What a wonderful surprise.

Bryson tries to do what most school textbooks never manage to do, explain the context of science in a way that is relevant to the average person. At the beginning of the book, he recalls an event from his childhood when he looked at a school text and saw a cross-section of our planet. He was transfixed by it, but noticed that the book just dryly presented the facts ("This is the core." "This part is molten rock." "This is the crust.", etc.), but never really explained HOW science came to know this particular set of facts. That, he quite correctly points out, is the most interesting part. And that is story he sets out to tell in this book.

Bryson obviously spent a great deal of time and effort developing and checking his facts and presentation. He obviously enjoyed every minute of it too, and it shows. Never have I read a book where the author conveyed such joyful awe of what we have learned as a species (with the possible exception of some of Richard Feynman's books).

My benchmark for this kind of book is usually; How well does it explain modern physics? There are few books out there that manage to explain relativity, quantum mechanics and string theory in a way that doesn't make your eyes glaze over. The Dancing Wu Li Masters by Gary Zukav is the best of the lot in my opinion. While this book did not change my opinion, Bryson's explanations of these mind-bending theories are not only lucid and sensible, they are also full of his telltale tongue-in-cheek side comments and therefore are just plain fun to read. However, Bryson goes way beyond Zukav, focusing not only on physics, but on the full panoply of scientific disciplines. He also focuses more on the discoverers themselves, and the process of discovery.

One of the things I like about this book is that Bryson again and again makes sure credit is given where credit it due. For many discoveries, he tells us the "official" story, but also tells us the often untold story of the small-time scientist who got the idea first but, for whatever reason, never got credit. This happens a great deal in science, and Bryson appears to be on a quest to set the record straight when he can. The result is not only charming storytelling, it's got a certain justice that just feels good.

I didn't have huge expectations for this book, but I am delighted to report that it is one of the best of its kind. Hurrah to Bryson for writing it, and hurrah to me for stumbling on it.

A Man Said to the Universe, November 13, 2005
Bryson's "A Short History of Nearly Everything" is beautifully written, very entertaining and highly informative--and now, it is lavishly illustrated as well.

Bryson is not a scientist, but rather a curious and observant writer who, several years ago, realized that he couldn't tell a quark from a quasar, or a proton from a protein. Bryson set out to cure his ignorance of things scientific, and the result was "A Short History of Nearly Everything," which was originally published in 2003.

For readers who are new to science and its history, "A Short History of Nearly Everything" contains one remarkable revelation after another. It is amazing how enormous, tiny, complex and just plain weird the universe is. Learning about "everything" is a humbling experience, and I kept thinking of Stephen Crane's blank verse: "A man said to the Universe: 'Sir, I exist!' 'However,' replied the Universe, 'the fact has not created in me a sense of obligation.'"

Just as engaging as Bryson's story of what we know is the parallel story of how we know it--from the first clever experiments to figure out how much the earth weighs to today's ongoing efforts to describe the origins of the universe itself, it becomes obvious that science is not an answer but a process, a way of learning about a world that always seems to have one more trick up its sleeve.

Whatever else may be said about the universe, Bryson explains that learning about its mysteries is a very human endeavor. The book is peppered with tales of the odd turns, like Percival Lowell, the astronomer who saw canals on Mars when in fact there are none (and whose initials figured in the naming of "Pl"uto, the ninth planet); the Askesian Society, a learned 19th century body devoted to the study of laughing gas; and the knock-down, drag-out personal battles between scientists whose genius was rivaled only by their lack of civility.

This is a superb book and a quick read despite its length. The illustrated edition makes the journey all the more enjoyable.

All that stuff we were supposed to have learned, but ..., May 11, 2003
I am a big fan of Bill Bryson's travelogues. I was therefore surprised when I cam across this, somewhat more weighty, tome. But I am pleased that I picked it up.

The author says he didn't do very well in science when he was in school because the teachers and texts seemed to be hiding all the good stuff. Now, as an adult, he's gone after the good stuff. And he's the guy to write it so the rest of us can understand. Not only does he write clearly, but he's very good at explaining as much as a normal person can understand (of relativity, for example), while pointing to the stuff that's weird, and setting aside the stuff that you have to be a specialist to understand.

He also is very good at giving credit to people who thought of things but were ignored until someone else came along and took credit. This has happened all too frequently, and it's good for the record to be set straight.

If you too were afraid of science, this is a wonderful book. If you already know a lot of this but just like to read enjoyable writing--it's also a wonderful book.

A layman's guide to the history of the world, June 11, 2003
I've spent the past few days devouring Bill Bryson's latest work: A Short History of Nearly Everything. It's an incredible read and reinforces how amazing the history of the earth really is. Bill's wit and comedic timing that has made all his previous travel books instant classics is absent, but it has been replaced with an enthusiastic and somber tone that is just as interesting to read. I've enjoyed all his previous books, but I like this one just as much, even though it's a bit of a departure.

Bryson took three years to research the book by conducting interviews and reading lots of history and it comes through in the text. You almost feel like you were in the room with Bill, following prominent scientists around, asking newbie questions. Bryson comes off as genuinely enthralled by the subjects at hand and you learn new things along with him. The narrative reminds me a great deal of James Burke's books and Connections TV series. Bryson not only tells the tales of how things came to be, but he's constantly weaving a link between all the various stories and pulling similar themes out.

It's a fantastic book and reminds me why I was so enamored by science in school. It also drives the point home many times that we are very, very lucky to be standing here, doing what we do everyday. The chances that the universe came together to enable it are insanely slim for all sorts of reasons as you will quickly find out.

An entertaining read, cautiously recommended, July 13, 2005
Bill Bryson's "A Short History of Nearly Everything" has a lot of good points. It is above all a very entertaining and engaging read. Bryson writes in an informal, chatty style that at times reminded me of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. His subject is, essentially, life, the universe and (nearly) everything. Bryson aims to explore the history of science in general, summarizing not only what we know, but also how we know it - he sets himself the wonderful goal of trying to explain "how scientists work things out". It's a big task, and had Bryson accomplished it, this would have been an incredible book. As it is, "A Short History of Nearly Everything" is still a worthwhile read, despite its flaws, which I will soon discuss.

The organization of the book is partly chronological, partly thematic. It is divided into six parts and thirty relatively short chapters. The earlier parts focus on the physical sciences, including astronomy, cosmology, geology, physics and physical chemistry. The latter half of the book deals primarily with the life sciences - biology, ecology, botany, zoology, oceanography, organic chemistry and so on. It's a considerable challenge to organize such a large amount of material dealing with so many distantly-related subjects, and Bryson pulls it off quite well. I can make no criticism of his large-scale organization.

However, the devil is in the details, and many of the details Bryson chooses to include in his "Short History" have little if anything to do with what he's supposedly writing about. He has a persistent tendency to head off on irrelevant tangents and lose himself in anecdotes about some of the curious characters that have walked the halls of science. Bryson wastes far too much ink relating bizarre factoids picked up in the course of his research, from William Buckland's dining habits to Gideon Mantell's twisted spine. He especially loves recounting the details of feuds and squabbles between scientists - the more intense, underhanded, unreasonable and destructive, the better. In all of this, the material we picked up the book to explore can get somewhat lost. Chapter 10, for instance, is "an important and salutary tale of avarice, deceit, bad science, several needless deaths, and the final determination of the age of the Earth" - in that order of importance.

Reading "A Short History of Nearly Everything", I did greatly appreciate Bryson's ability to make clear how much scientists don't know and are still working to figure out. However, I was disappointed that despite his promise to explore "how scientists work things out", Bryson often just quotes results and conclusions without further explanation. Sometimes he doesn't even do that - modern physics is largely dismissed as wacky and incomprehensible.

Even worse, Bryson makes several glaring errors in his discussion of physics (and perhaps also in other areas that I'm not so familiar with), far worse than any I've seen in other popular science books I've read. For example, he suggests particles with "spin" are actually spinning about an axis (which they are not) and presents entanglement as a violation of relativity (which it is not). Bryson also incorrectly claims that the production of black holes within future particle accelerators would destroy the world. In fact, these microscopic black holes would evaporate in a fraction of a nanosecond - something that would have been very nice to learn in "A Short History of Nearly Everything".

I enjoy reading popular science, and much of what I've read I've found better than Bryson's "A Short History of Nearly Everything". I would especially recommend Brian Greene, Stephen Hawking, Alan Guth and Martin Rees for physics, astronomy and cosmology, and Richard Dawkins and Stephen J. Gould for biology. However, I know of no other work that attempts to cover nearly as many fields as Bryson's "Short History". Even though Bryson's book wasn't able to live up to its initial promise, it was a decent read - one I recommend, though with some reservations.

Not quite everything, but enough..., November 16, 2005
I was first acquainted with Bill Bryson through his works on the English language and various travelogue types of books. In these books he proved to be an entertaining writer, witty and interesting, with just the right amount of I'm-not-taking-myself-too-seriously attitude to make for genuinely pleasurable reading. Other books of his, 'Notes from a Small Island' and 'The Mother Tongue', are ones I return to again and again. His latest book, one of the longer ones (I was surprised, as most Bryson books rarely exceed 300 pages, and this one weighs in well past 500), is one likely to join those ranks.

Of course, a history of everything, even a SHORT history of NEARLY everything, has got to be fairly long. Bryson begins, logically enough, at the beginning, or at least the beginning as best science can determine. Bryson weaves the story of science together with a gentle description of the science involved - he looks not only at the earliest constructs of the universe (such as the background radiation) but also at those who discover the constructs (such as Penzias and Wilson).

A great example of the way Bryson weaves the history of science into the description of science, in a sense showing the way the world changes as our perceptions of how it exists change, is his description of the formulation, rejection, and final acceptance of the Pangaea theory. He looks at figures such as Wegener (the German meteorologist - 'weatherman', as Bryson describes him) who pushed forward the theory in the face of daunting scientific rejection that the continents did indeed move, and that similarities in flora and fauna, as well as rock formations and other geological and geographical aspects, can be traced back to a unified continent. Bryson with gentle humour discusses the attitudes of scientists, as they shifted not quite as slowly as the continents, towards accepting this theory, making gentle jabs along the way (Einstein even wrote a foreword to a book that was rather scathing toward the idea of plate tectonics - brilliance is no guarantee against being absolutely wrong).

Bryson traces the development of the universe and the world from the earliest universe to the formation of the planet, to the growing diversity of life forms to development of human beings and human society. Inspired by Natural History (the short history refers more to natural history than anything else), this traces the path to us and possible futures. Bryson juxtaposes the creation of the Principia by Isaac Newton with the extinction of the dodo bird - stating that the word contained divinity and felony in the nature of humanity, the same species that can rise to the heights of understanding in the universe can also, for no apparent reason, cause the extinction of hapless and harmless fellow creatures on earth. Are humans, in Bryson's words, 'inherently bad news for other living things'? He recounts many of the truly staggering follies of species-hunting, particularly in the nineteenth century, calling upon people to take far more care of the planet with which we have been entrusted, either through design or fate.

Bryson's take on things is innovative and his narrative is interesting, but there is a point to it, just as there is with most of his writing. He writes not merely to entertain, or to inform, but to persuade. Bryson is intrigued by science, having a joy that comes across the page of someone who essentially did not know or understand a lot of the background of science and how it worked in the world until recently, and now wants to share that joy with everyone! He definitely has points to argue - for starters, the need for open-mindedness, even among (perhaps particularly among) those who are supposed to have the open and searching intellects, the scientists themselves. He also wishes others to know more about science, professionals and laypersons, and more about our own origins as a people, both in terms of where we've come from, and how we've come to know about it.

This is a new version of his already-published text, this time with graphics, paintings, pictures, maps and other things that make the history come alive in new and interesting ways. This is a good revision, adding quite a bit to Bryson's already interesting text. Unique among Bryson's writing in many ways, this is in some ways a travelogue through geology, paleontology, cosmology and evolution. A fun and fascinating read!

Not Dumbed down. Gets you very excited about science., October 31, 2003
This book is the type of book that would inspire you to become a biologist or a geologist or an astronomer. From this book you are able to see bits and pieces of famous scientists lives and get a feeling by the end that its not all fun and games but at the same time it soooo very worth it to dedicate your life to the pursuit of furthering the knowledge of your fellow human beings and in some small way pushing our species in a positive direction. From reading this book you find out how all the knowledge from hundreds of years ago has become the basis of where we are today. This is conveyed extremely well to the audience. The other thing which is conveyed so very well is the power and destructive force of mother nature here on earth and in space. Parts of this book read better than seeing an end of the world movie because the author is so good at getting a vivid picture drawn in the reader's minds eye.

This book is so good and so comprehensive I can see myself reading this over again.

Thank you Bill Bryson for your hard, extensive research! Quite remarkable.

Wonderful Overview of Science and Scientists, August 13, 2003
I think this book should replace the texts used in most high school science courses. If it did, I think we would see more kids pursuing science careers, because Bryson does a wonderful job of conveying the joy and excitement of doing science as well as a sense of awe that our world evolved as it did.

Sure, given a book of this nature, there is plenty people could quibble with. Bryson's writing style is amusing and entertaining, though it doesn't come close to matching "A walk in the woods," (but then again, not much could...). Readers expecting the humor quotient of that book or Bryson's other travel books will be disappointed, however. And although one can tell Bryson struggled valiantly to make the chapter on quantum physics understandable, he didn't succeed (at least for me). For example, he relates a study showing that one atomic particle can affect another atomic particle 70 miles away, simultaneously. I still don't understand how that can happen and wish somebody could explain it to me.

But those are minor complaints compared to what this book is able to accomplish, which is to provide a broad, yet admirably detailed, education in the physical and biological sciences. I am overjoyed to see this book on the bestseller lists, because if enough people read it, we can no longer be accused of being the scientific ignoramuses that we largely have been. I think it could also work to serve more effectively as an environmental wake-up call than the wide array of existing polemical books that are read only by the already convinced.

Lastly, perhaps the aspect of the book I admired and enjoyed the most is the way Bryson provides the human side of science through his frequent character sketches of the quirks and foibles of the many scientists whose work is reviewed. I may soon forget, once again, all three of Newton's laws of motion, but I will never--for the rest of my life--forget that he once inserted a rod behind his eyeball and stirred it around "just to see what would happen." This book is worth reading just for the anecdotes, and along the way you will learn an incredible amount of science.

Armchair Traveler Develops Genius of Rocket-Scientist!, November 15, 2003
When I picked up "A Short History of Nearly Everything" I had abosolutely no idea what to expect. As a travel junkie who can rarely afford to travel myself, I grab Bill Bryson's books whenever I can with great enthusiasm. His keen wit in presenting characters and scenes is unparalleled, and in this new romp (in which he narrates a journey through not just a county but through the scientific world as well as space and time) he is in top form.

Bryson's everyman prose makes the mysteries of scientific thought interesting, understandable, and funny. The book begins with the building blocks of the universe and works its way slowly down through the smaller mysteries such as life on earth and why human beings even exist. However, the science of the work does not become overwhelming to the lay-reader and Bryson maintains an admirable sense of wonder and joy throughout.

And, of course, the text is delightfully littered with anecdotes about the men and women who have dedicated themselves to discovering and defining these mysteries. Both living and dead, these men and women take on life that leaps off the pages, making them feel like old friends. And from the comfort of your favorite reading spot, you feel like you could be sharing a pint with them and Bill in a cozy pub somewhere.

I recommend this book to anyone who has a inclination for pondering the large questions of life but who is equally interested in keeping his or her sense of humor and sanity in tact.

Science Explained For The Rest Of Us, July 14, 2003
Bill Bryson has done something exceedingly useful: written a book that explains the major tenants of science in a form that non-scientists can understand and enjoy.

This is a smart and intelligent book that retains Bryson's charming and witty voice in the telling of the broad range of natural history. It is interesting that this author can retain his appeal across mediums -- he is known as a witty travel writer and has also produced fun and intelligent books on the history of the English language. Now, he goes far afield and explains natural philosophy, as the sciences were once called, in a way that textbooks have avoided ever since there have been science textbooks.

Bryson tackles space, the origins of the universe, geology, the formation of the Earth, physics, the beginning and development of life, cells, DNA and humans in this natural world round-up. Each chapter follows a similar format. A fascinating tidbit is introduced to draw the reader in, the history of understanding in each field is discussed and the evolution of thinking to the current state of understanding explained. This format is enlivened by the personalities past and present (including science's crackpots, iconoclasts and geniuses).

Besides the Bryson wit, what makes this a phenomenally good read is the author's ability to relate scientific principles with examples that laymen can understand and that clarify often confusing scientific knowledge and theories.

For example, I was floored to learn that our solar system is so vast, that it literally could not be drawn to scale on any size in a meaningful way. Neptune is five times farther from Jupiter than Jupiter is from Earth. On a scale drawing with Earth the size of a pea, Jupiter would be a thousand feet away and Pluto a mile and a half (and the size of a bacterium). Now that illustrates space in our immediate environs better than I've every seen it described before.

What is the largest concentration of magma waiting to blow? (and possibly blow us out of existence) It's under Yellowstone National Park. Ten percent of the weight of a six year old pillow is dead skin flakes, mites and mite dung. Most physicists think Einstein wasted the second half of his life pursuing a unified theory instead of thinking about other useful things. Every human cell contains DNA strands that are six feet long if laid end to end. The core of the Earth is as hot as the surface of the sun - and solid because of the immense pressure compacting that mass. Only three percent of the Earth's water is fresh, and almost all of this is in ice sheets - only a scanty .03% of the total is available to us a fresh, flowing water.

Interesting tidbits like the above abound. So do dire stories about past volcanic activity, changes in magnetism, changes in atmospheric conditions and asteroid impacts that have periodically befell Earth and helped move species development forward (usually by wiping out most species existing at the time). Could they/ would they happen in the future? Sure. However, the scale of time over which the next cataclysmic event may occur could be so far removed that we will have evolved into something else (or have found a way to blow up or steer threatening asteroids out of our way).

This book fascinates and amuses. If science textbooks had a bit of this ability to relate and engage during my time in school, I'd bet today there would be a lot more scientists working to figure out the remaining mysteries of our world. ... Read more

Editorial Review

One of our most innovative, popular thinkers takes on-in exhilarating style-one of our key questions: Where do good ideas come from?

With Where Good Ideas Come From, Steven Johnson pairs the insight of his bestselling Everything Bad Is Good for You and the dazzling erudition of The Ghost Map and The Invention of Air to address an urgent and universal question: What sparks the flash of brilliance? How does groundbreaking innovation happen? Answering in his infectious, culturally omnivorous style, using his fluency in fields from neurobiology to popular culture, Johnson provides the complete, exciting, and encouraging story of how we generate the ideas that push our careers, our lives, our society, and our culture forward.

Beginning with Charles Darwin's first encounter with the teeming ecosystem of the coral reef and drawing connections to the intellectual hyperproductivity of modern megacities and to the instant success of YouTube, Johnson shows us that the question we need to ask is, What kind of environment fosters the development of good ideas? His answers are never less than revelatory, convincing, and inspiring as Johnson identifies the seven key principles to the genesis of such ideas, and traces them across time and disciplines.

Most exhilarating is Johnson's conclusion that with today's tools and environment, radical innovation is extraordinarily accessible to those who know how to cultivate it. Where Good Ideas Come From is essential reading for anyone who wants to know how to come up with tomorrow's great ideas. ... Read more

Reviews

A staggering insight into cultivating creativity
In my years as a Wall Street strategy advisor and as a life-long student of that which propels us towards our greatest potential, I am fascinated by an interesting structural tension when it comes to personal and professional excellence.

We have at our finger tips, some of the greatest knowledge, tools and processes that can help propel people and organizations towards excellence and yet despite this vast wealth of information, many people (and the organizations they are associated with) struggle.

After exploring many theories over the years, I think I just realized why this is the case and I am staggered by the implications.

I have just finished reading "Where Good Ideas Come From" by Steven Johnson (author of "Everything Good is Bad For You" and "The Invention of Air") and found the ideas contained within to be of staggering profundity.

A Different View on Creativity

With no offence intended towards well-intentioned individuals within organizations who come up with interesting ways to help us be more creative, I have often struggled with the value of some of the ideas they have come up with. Some examples come to mind, including the time I flew across the country for a mandatory, all-hands meeting where we played pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey or another time when I travelled across the country for a mandatory meeting where the primary thing that was accomplished was a competition to see who could build a toy helicopter out of Lego Blocks the fastest.

When I asked people why we were doing these things, I was informed that it was to help us learn to be more creative. I learned something alright but it was not what they hoped I had learned. By the way, I won the helicopter competition, so there are no sour grapes here. :-)

As I read Steven Johnson's book, I realized why we struggle with how to be more creative.

It's because we spend too much time trying to experience an extrinsic-centric learning event when we should be refining the foundational components of what makes a human being a source of unlimited creativity.

As I read his book, I realized why we are often more hit-than-miss when it comes to increasing our potential for creativity. His book also helped me understand why our creativity sometimes grows in leaps and bounds while at other times, we seem unable to recreate this experience, making our growth in creativity seem frustratingly random or lucky.

Seven Key Principles

Mr. Johnson's engaging writing style guides us through seven key areas that must be understood in order to maximize our creativity, the key areas being:

1. The adjacent possible - the principle that at any given moment, extraordinary change is possible but that only certain changes can occur (this describes those who create ideas that are ahead of their time and whose ideas reach their ultimate potential years later).

2. Liquid networks - the nature of the connections that enable ideas to be born, to be nurtured and to blossom and how these networks are formed and grown.

3. The slow hunch - the acceptance that creativity doesn't guarantee an instant flash of insight but rather, germinates over time before manifesting.

4.Serendipity - the notion that while happy accidents help allow creativity to flourish, it is the nature of how our ideas are freely shared, how they connect with other ideas and how we perceive the connection at a specific moment that creates profound results.

5. Error - the realization that some of our greatest ideas didn't come as a result of a flash of insight that followed a number of brilliant successes but rather, that some of those successes come as a result of one or more spectacular failures that produced a brilliant result.

6. Exaptation - the principle of seizing existing components or ideas and repurposing them for a completely different use (for example, using a GPS unit to find your way to a reunion with a long-lost friend when GPS technology was originally created to help us accurately bomb another country into oblivion).

7. Platforms - adapting many layers of existing knowledge, components, delivery mechanisms and such that in themselves may not be unique but which can be recombined or leveraged into something new that is unique or novel.

Insight That Resonates

Mr. Johnson guides the reader through each of these seven areas with examples that are relevant, doing so in a way that hits the reader squarely between the eyes. I found myself on many an occasion exclaiming inwardly "This idea or example is brilliant in its obviousness and simplicity".

"Where Good Ideas Come From" is a book that one must read with a pen or highlighter in hand as nuggets pop out and provide insight into past or current challenges around creativity and problem solving.

When someone decides to explore ways of helping you or your organization be more creative and they are getting ready to explore a rah-rah session, an offsite brain-storming session or they are looking to play pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey, ask them if they have explored the foundational reasons behind what makes us creative.

And then buy a copy of this book for them.

I believe this book should be mandatory reading for every student, teacher and leader.

We are all students of Life.

We all at some point, teach others.

And if we accept that a leader is someone who influences others and we acknowledge that everyone influences someone at some point, then we are all leaders also.

Educational institutions, governments and corporations should make this book mandatory reading for everyone within their walls.

"Where Good Ideas Come From" is a fun read as well as a profound one.

May your creativity blossom as a result of exploring it.

Create a great day.

Harry

Brilliant (again)!
For those who enjoyed The Ghost Map and The Invention of Air, Johnson's latest book is another amazing treat in which science meets history, sociology and culture.

In Where Good Ideas Come From, Johnson examines the way in which people, environments and ideas meet. With references that range from biology, mathematics, neuroscience, technology, engineering, he argues convincingly that "analyzing innovation on the scale of individuals and organizations --- --- distorts our view" and that looking at patterns of creativity within cross-disciplinary contexts is far more fruitful. And Johnson is truly a polymath.

Great ideas surveyed range from Tarnier's incubator, Baggage's Difference Engine, YouTube, double-entry accounting, the Phoenix memo, the DEVONthink database program, Gutenberg's printing press etc... But this is not about cataloguing ideas, but understanding their genesis and their development, in the context of their respective socio-cultural environment.

The author does live what he preaches. In wonderful Johnson-style prose, he examines the "connective talents" of Carbon and extrapolates on the chaotic nature of innovative system. The books itself is highly original, and, given the complexity of its ideas, extremely accessible. You will not be disappointed.

Insight into creativity
Creating a theory of innovation is not an exact science as the process is messy, erratic, and often catalogued with a high selective bias towards the final "eureka" moment. In his book, Steven Johnson attempts to unpack some of this process and proposes a framework of seven key themes:

1. Adjacent possible: different innovations vary in their ability to unlock adjacent capabilities. In other words, timing matters.
2. Liquid environments: from a coffee house to your lab, the environments ability to circulate ideas plays an incredibly important role.
3. Serendipity: more often than not, it is a rare connection of two existing ideas that sets off a lightbulb, not discovery of a new one (see 2).
4. Slow hunch: instant flash of insight usually comes from years of exploration, where at some point, those ideas collide (see 3).
5. Error: many discoveries come about as an unrelated, and unexpected consequence (ex: penicillin) - be flexible with your ideas.
6. Exaptation: existing components and discoveries can often be adapted to different use cases (ex: consumer GPS applications.. see 1).
7. Platforms: where possible, build platforms and ecosystems that foster environments where 1-6 can be recombined at will.

While the specific examples chosen by author can be argued with, and an occasional metaphor is stretched too far, the book itself is well written and very engaging! Great read.

The BEST BOOK I READ IN 2010 - Period!!!
This is THE BEST BOOK I read in 2010. PERIOD. I am pleased to recognize Steven Johnson's work, Where Good Ideas Come From - The Natural History of Innovation, (Riverhead Books - Published by The Penguin Group New York, NY Copyright � 2010 by Steven Johnson).

In an era when the U.S. requires some creative thinkers to point the way ahead, I urge you and yours to devour this work. This work is timely, a shape-shifter and contains, in my opinion, the type of thinking required for re-evaluating the current foundation, energy and trajectory applicable to individuals, organizations (BOTH public and private sector), entrepreneurs, diplomats, inventors, faith-based communities etc.

What's the thesis of this work? Listen to Steven Johnson:

"If there is a single maxim that runs through this book's arguments, it is that we are often better served by connecting ideas than we are by protecting them. Like the free market itself, the case for restricting the flow of innovation has long been buttressed by appeals to the "natural " order of things. But the truth is, when one looks at innovation in nature and in culture, environments that build walls around good ideas tend to be less innovative in the long run than more open-ended environments. Good ideas may not want to be free, but they do want to connect, fuse, recombine. They want to reinvent themselves by crossing conceptual borders. They want to complete each other as much as they want to compete." P.22 (emphasis is mine).

The U.S. has always been heralded as the global center for innovation, technological breakthroughs and the quality of a university system that attracts the finest minds from around the world. At present, the U.S. seems to be struggling with a paucity of good ideas and its infrastructure - that has historically produced global admiration (educational achievement, patents, new industries, technologies, strategic partnerships and economic prowess) - has been characterized by a myriad of measures as "in decline."

This book stirred my patriotic fervor, as well as my competitive and creative juices. It didn't just stir me up - it somehow rearranged some things for me - at a soul level. It is a uniquely hopeful book - a message of tangible, practical hope for global citizens faced with seemingly insurmountable challenges of survival and daily life.

As Johnson writes, Reading remains an unsurpassed vehicle for the transmission of interesting new ideas and perspectives. P.112

Thus, I am NOT going to litter this review with too many excerpts from Johnson's work that would encourage you to make a judgment that simply reading a review of it was somehow sufficient. Here's what happened to me after I read Where Good Ideas Come From - The Natural History of Innovation -- I immediately went out and devoured two of Johnson's previous, acclaimed works The Invention of Air and The Ghost Map.

From time to time, cultures produce thinkers whose ideas are simply essential, timely and (hopefully) infectious. These people and their ideas seem to rise up at times during certain historical epochs when they are desperately needed -- and may be deemed counter intuitive to the mainstream thinking that seems to be widely accepted.

As Johnson says in The Ghost Map: "The river of intellectual progress is not defined purely by the steady flow of good ideas begetting better ones; it follows the topography that has been carved out for it by external factors. Sometimes that topography throws up so many barricades that the river backs up for a while." P. 135

Where Good Ideas Come From - The Natural History of Innovation is a force that pierces the barricades that are currently preventing the natural flow of human ingenuity from proceeding as constructively and as freely as it might. This book is inhabited by the essential inertia that is fundamental to our present and our future - individually and collectively.

I can unequivocally declare this work to be The Best Book I read in 2010.

Enticing and Innovating Itself
A most interesting book and one that is stimulating to read, IMO. I don't think one needs a high-tech background and graduate degrees to enjoy this book. Reading about the innovations is like reading a minibiography of the various inventions and inventors. Highly recommended.

Best Steven Johnson book yet
I have read all of Steven Johnson's books, some more than once. He is one of only 3-4 authoers whose books I watch for and anticipate before their publication, so I was eager to pick up his latest, and not only did it not disappoint, it may be his most thought-provoking yet.

Those of you who have read any of his other books, "The Invention of Air", "Mind Wide Open" or "The Ghost Map" will instantly recignize his lucid, well-researched yet casual tone, and in many ways he is building upon ideas brought forth in those earlier works, consolidating them and putting them together to form new ideas, an endeavor which ironically is one of the very concepts he discusses here.

A better, though less eye-catching title would have been "How Good Ideas Come About". The book is not so much about where, as about what are the conditions most ideal for them. He makes some very interesting and convincing analogies between the natural world and human culture, and bouncing back and forth effortlessly between the two realms is very fresh and compelling.

But even more than his earlier books, the ride along the way is extremely enjoyable. Fans of Ghost Map and Invention of Air will revel in the sheer quantity of "Wow, I never knew that" moments. But this book differs in approach: rather than delve deeply into one or two individual fascinating historical figures and extrapolating conclusions about human culture at large from it, this book starts from the cultural concept (the generation of innovative ideas) and surveys many historical examples to make his points. Each of these examples is fascinating enough to warrant a book all on their own!

I have come away from this book totally affirmed for my penchant for working on 6 projects at once, and for "spacing out". And I've been energized and inspired. Thanks Mr. Johnson!

... Read more

Editorial Review

Ordinary folks can construct 13 awesome ballistic devices in their garage or basement workshops using inexpensive household or hardware store materials and this step-by-step guide. Clear instructions, diagrams, and photographs show how to build projects ranging from the simple-a match-powered rocket-to the more complex-a scale-model, table-top catapult-to the offbeat-a tennis ball cannon. With a strong emphasis on safety, the book also gives tips on troubleshooting, explains the physics behind the projects, and profiles scientists and extraordinary experimenters such as Alfred Nobel, Robert Goddard, and Isaac Newton. This book will be indispensable for the legions of backyard toy-rocket launchers and fireworks fanatics who wish every day was the fourth of July. ... Read more

Reviews

KaBOOM!!!, January 6, 2003
This is a great resource book for pyromaniacs who want to expand their horizons.

The highlight of this book is the chapter on the venerated potato cannon (a.k.a. spud gun). The author presents a simple yet effective design and gives detailed instructions on how to construct it. I have seen a number of designs on the web, and I prefer this for it parsimonious design. I have "launched" a number of spuds with this cannon, and am perfectly pleased with its operation.

Other projects include back porch rocketry (the paper match rocket, the hydro pump rocket, and the pneumatic missile), the Cincinnati fire kite, the Greek fire and the catapult, the tennis ball mortar, the flinger, Pnewton's petard, the dry cleaning bag balloon, the carbide cannon, and the ballistic pendulum.

The book is clearly written and illustrated (with drawings and black and white photographis). It contains a number of history vignettes along with some illustrations of ancient weapons. The remaining chapter includes some ideas for further study.

While I highly recommend this book, please note that some of these projects (most notably the potato gun) are illegal in some states. In that case, this book would be for "reference" only.

Great Collection for Overgrown Boys, April 29, 2003
This book is a wonderful resource for those boys who have graduated from Nerf and waterguns- and for those of us that never will. What struck me most was the sheer variety of projects in this book- from little rockets powered by a match(!) to monster potato guns, this book has everything. I built a potato gun similar to the one in this book several years ago, and have been looking for projects in the same vein. With this book, I've found them. I especially love the fact that he uses a variety of power sources- the traditional hair spray of the potato gun, air pressure, even chemical combustion.

One of the unique things about this book, as compared to other similar books, is the emphasis on both safety and history. Safety is important for obvious reasons. But most readers are enthusiasts about this sort of stuff, and the history lessons are exciting.

My only complaint is that there is no room in this book for any sort of modification to the designs. For example, there are formulas that can be used to determine the maximum chamber size for a PVC-constructed potato gun, and with this, you can design your own potato gun in relative safety. Unfortunately, the author insists that you stick strictly to his designs. This appears to be an effort to ensure that all of the "toys" created with his book are safe, so that's only a minor complaint.

Can't wait to start lobbing tennis balls!

Things that go "Boom" in the Night, March 5, 2003
What a wonderful boys book--boys from 9 to 90 will get a bang out of these projects. The author presents enough safety information to be reasonable, and mixes in scientific explanations, a bit of math, and interesting anectdotes that take us back into the history of ballistics. But most of all, he presents details plans and parts lists (including sources for hard to find parts) to build things that shoot up into the air, things that go "BOOM," and other cool stuff like fire kites.

Many of the projects described here are also well documented on the internet. But most internet postings have little to say about safety, science, or history. Using this book as a starting point, and the internet as a resource to expand the ideas, could lead one to develop a truly interesting ballistic arsenal indeed!!

Before we had homeland security to worry about, this might have been a good source book for a science fair. Now, it just might be a great way to spend a lifetime behind bars. But, if you're in touch with your inner Goddard, von Braun, or just love the idea of a tennis ball mortar ... then this is the book for you!

Superb teaching tool, September 22, 2005
By doing these projects with one's children one can teach them
engineering, mechanical, planning and fabrication skills as well as how to see through a project that may take a few days instead of 15 minutes. Their interest in the projects will
be maintained by the fascinating science as well as the impressive results.

Fantastic read, fun science, great projects, September 10, 2001
I loved this book. Whether you build these gadgets or not (and they are great gadgets, including the Potato Cannon, the Cincinnati Fire Kite, and the Hydro Pump Rocket), you will love the book. The author is funny and engaging, and he sprinkles entertaining bits of science and history into each chapter. I decided to build a few of the toys, and found that the instructions are excellent, clear, and simple, with great photos and diagrams.

Potato Cannon - Awesome! Others...so so, May 20, 2002
This is a great book. IT is one of the best out there for boys of all ages. The potato canon is awesome! Some items like the Cincinnati Fire Kit and the Match Rocket leave something to be desired. All in all, I highly recommend to anyone out there who wants to be a kid again!

a great boys book for boys of any age and either gender, September 12, 2001
-- a great "boy's" book for boys of any age and either gender. The author complements his assortment of projects that throw things (like potatoes or tennis balls) with touches of physics and history. It is well written so that it is entertaining even if you don't intend to actually build the projects. The directions and drawings are clear so that the steps of construction for the various devices are clear. Great entertainment!

Fun for GIRLS and boys, June 26, 2005
I found this book to be quite informative and helpful on building many fun ballistic devices. The chapters on the spud gun and back porch rocketry were probably my favorites. For anyone who grew up constructing innovative (but highly unsafe) projectile launchers and wants to create something the neighbors can appreciate, this book is for you!
I would also like to emphasize that GIRLS, as well as boys, can and will enjoy this book.

Parents, Dont be scared, April 26, 2003
This is a great book. Just from skimming through it you can tell that a lot of thought and precaution went into it's construction. Parents may be scared seeing a book like this in the hands of their child, but don't be frightened. Most of the projects in here are pretty innocuous and saftey is paramount. The book and author STRESS proper precautions and advise saftey gear for any dangerous experiments. If you have a kid who has been playing with fire, been showing a disturbing interest in explosives or such, then buy them this book and do these projects with them! It will give kids a productive, educational and supervised outlet for these curiosities and fascinations and will give you a chance to teach them a bit about physics and further bond with them. Some young pyros grow into arsonists, others grow into firemen and physicists... you make the choice! Instead of punishing them and trying to curb their interest in such things, channel this energy into something positive.

From the perspective of an adult or adolesent this book is still great. Fun projects and lots of information make for a fun read, and an even more fun summer project. Science teachers and the like will love this book as some of these projects could prove wonderful classroom demonstrations to aid in teaching and more importantly, in getting kids' attention and perhaps sparking an interest.

Great book. more stuff like this might help the curb effects of all the negative stuff out there like the Anarchist's Cookbook and all those [explosive] websites.

A big five stars!

Fun, but needs more work, March 17, 2005
This book is a lot of fun. The projects are things that you can do safely, and that kids really like. I just wish the author had put a little more work into it. Some of the history doesn't seem accurate, and the physics should be explained more clearly. More effort on content and less on strange facts would help.

Building the onager (torsion catapult), I had to change most of the dimensions. The book calls for 1"x1" wood, but that's hard to find. 1x2 (nominal) is easy to find, but is 3/4" by 1 1/2". A book for quick projects should use 1x2s, not some mythical 1" square lumber. The drawings were incomplete. Between the drawings and the photo it was possible to get the whole thing together, but I had to change most of the dimensions. Why he uses 1/8" dowel is beyond me. Even 3/16" broke too easily.

Overall, interesting and certainly fun, but I wish it were done more carefully. ... Read more

Editorial Review

Edited and introduced by Bill Bryson, with original contributions from "a glittering array of scientific writing talent" (Sunday Observer) including Richard Dawkins, Margaret Atwood, Richard Holmes, Martin Rees, Richard Fortey, Steve Jones, James Gleick, and Neal Stephenson, among others, this incomparable book tells the spectacular story of science and the international Royal Society, from 1660 to the present. Seeing Further is also gorgeously illustrated with photographs, documents, and treasures from the Society's exclusive archives.

On a damp weeknight in November three hundred and fifty years ago, a dozen men gathered in London. After hearing an obscure twenty-eight-year-old named Christopher Wren lecture on the wonders of astronomy, his rapt audience was moved to create a society to promote the accumulation of useful—and fascinating—knowledge. At that, the Royal Society was born, and with it, modern science.

Since then, the Royal Society has pioneered global scientific exploration and discovery. Its members have split the atom, discovered the double helix and the electron, and given us the computer and the World Wide Web. Isaac Newton, Charles Darwin, Albert Einstein, Robert Hooke, Robert Boyle, Joseph Banks, Humphry Davy, John Locke, Alexander Fleming, Stephen Hawking—all have been fellows. Bill Bryson's favorite fellow is the Reverend Thomas Bayes, a brilliant mathematician who devised Bayes' theorem. Its complexity meant that it had little practical use in Bayes' own lifetime, but today his theorem is used for weather forecasting, astrophysics, and even stock-market analysis. A milestone in mathematical history, it exists only because the Royal Society decided to preserve it—just in case.

Truly global in its outlook, the Royal Society now is credited with creating modern science. Seeing Further is an unprecedented celebration of its history and the power of ideas, bringing together the very best of science writing.

Reviews

A great read for the person with general knowledge about science., November 9, 2010
Seeing Further: The Story of Science, Discovery & the Genius of the Royal Society with Bill Bryson as the editor is a marvelous book. I have read thousands of times that the pace of science and innovation causes knowledge to double and replace itself at an alarmingly fast rate. Of course, it's not in the actual doubling of knowledge that a problem exists but in the fact that it is virtually impossible for us to keep track of that very same new knowledge. However, even in a world that is creating so much new knowledge it is reassuring to consider that the Royal Society is celebrating its 350th anniversary this year. That is a marvelous accomplishment and to be honest I can't name many institutions that have been around that long.

Bill Bryson is the perfect person to have headed this project. As a general science writer Bryson is aware of how important science and the Royal Society has been to the development of modern society. Then there is the rather eclectic group of contributors that have each offered a discussion on the development of science. Authors include James Gleick, Margaret Atwood, Margaret Wertheim, Neal Stephenson, Rebecca Newberger Goldstein, Simon Schaffer, Richard Holmes, Richard Fortey, Richard Dawkins, Henry Petroski, Georgiana Ferry, Steve Jones, Philip Ball, Paul Davies, Ian Stewart, John D. Barrow, Oliver Morton, Maggie Gee, Stephen H. Schneider, Gregory Benford, and Martin Rees. I'd have to admit that Margaret Atwoods discussion of Jonathan Swift's Academy, and Richard Dawkins' Darwin's Five Bridges: The Way to Natural Selection is for me the highlight of the book. However, each and every chapter is eye opening and worthy of your time.

It is a difficult fact to get your head around that when the Royal Society was established in 1660 we knew so little of the causes of the physical phenomenon of our planet. Whether the topic was the causes of the tides or why summer was warmer than winter, mystery tended to shroud almost everything. The Royal Society created the scientific method thus allowing discoveries to be measured and duplicated and encouraged good scientific exploration. "Good" in this case is relative, meaning that it was better than what preceded it. "Good" by today's standard still left much to be desired.

Seeing Further is written for the general public and even the most "unscientific" of us will have no problem making sense of what is read.

Well written and containing a section devoted to further reading, Seeing Further is a fun and inspiring read.

I give it five stars after reading the whole book.

Peace to all.

Bryson highlights the discoveries and geniuses of science, December 9, 2010
First, every reader should know that Seeing Further is GORGEOUS book. It is filled with color photographs of everything from Newton's death mask to beautiful glimpses of distant galaxies. But it's also a treasure trove of fascinating stories about the personalities, geniuses, mad scientist, and the like who have made the extraordinary discoveries of modern science. Bryson is in top form in bringing together this remarkable look at the glories of science.

Bryson Demonstrates a Consistent Level of Excellence that Even Great Writers Don't Seem to Aspire to - Five Stars !!!!, December 20, 2010



Bill Bryson's latest book is the story of the founding of the Royal Society of London, a unique group if there ever was one. Founded in 1660, it has done more to advance science than any other institution in the world including all the great English universities, including the great German institutions of the late 19th and early 20th centuries where so much applied science was achieved, and including our finest schools in the early part of this century.


Twelve men got together at Gresham College in London 350 years ago, and together founded a group dedicated to the assistance and promotion of the accumulation of knowledge. Could you imagine the difficulty of keeping such a group together for 3 � centuries? There was no endowment to bind them to a common cause, and no lineage of professor and student. There were wars, famine, depressions, and radical changes in government, and yet the society survived, and prospered through it all, based on the need for each of the members to add to the body of knowledge that we all benefit from today.


Bryson (he's the editor) by putting this book together has created a gift for those of us who truly appreciate great books. This story has never been told in anything approaching this kind of quality. From the exquisite artwork and graphics to the selection of contributing writers, it's first class all the way. The basis of the Royal Society was CLARITY OF EXPRESSION. They did not want scholars who were interested in impressing you with their language. It was about the power of their intellectual achievements, but people at the same time had to understand those achievements. Fortunately, the Royal Society had a succession of noteworthy secretaries who enforced clarity, a full 100 years before the English government adopted the idea of secretaries for itself.


Some of the unique characteristics of the Royal Society of London include:


* The Society was truly international in nature. That is why it is the Royal Society of London, not Great Britain. Had it been Great Britain, it might not have survived the centuries, and certainly had it survived, it would not be in its present form. It was the international flavoring that created the international acceptance.


* Prior to its formation, all science was done in Latin, the language of the ages. The Royal Society implemented the universal acceptance of English as the language of science, and it has been that way ever since.


* The Society basically invented the concept of scientific publishing with rigorous standards, and PEER REVIEW. Both concepts are still employed today universally.


* They systematized experimentation in science, and this was a revolution by itself.


* Have you ever noticed how many scientists talk using jingoistic language? To the extent that this is no longer prevalent today is the direct result of the Royal Society which argued vehemently for simple, direct language.



LAYOUT OF THE BOOK


There are 22 chapters in a narrative stretching 486 pages. There is then a list for further reading, and a list of illustrations followed by an excellent index. There are 22 outstanding authors that have contributed diverse works to this book. A few examples are James Gleick who is probably Isaac Newton's definitive biographer.


Richard Dawkins has written about Charles Darwin who was a celebrated member of the Royal Society. Paul Davies writes about the universe, and Ian Stewart writes a beautiful piece about math. It is left to Martin Rees to write about 50 years from NOW. There is not a single selection that I would not categorize as outstanding.

Bryson has also done something totally unique that I have seen employed by the publishing industy. Next to each of the 22 chapters in the book, he puts a distinctive colored bar next to the author's name. If you now hold the book closed in your hand and look at the edge of the book, the publishers have run a series of color bars along the edge of the closed pages. You literally only have to look at the color on the edging to find the chapter you want. You do not have to go by page number. It is absolutley ingenious, and amazing that no one has used this technique.


CONCLUSION:


In 350 years there have been 8200 members of the Royal Society of London, that's it. Today there are approximately 1400 Fellows. There have been 69 Nobel Laureates. If you made a list of the most extraordinary members, it would be at least a page in length. Bill Bryson has once again put together a magnificent book that covers enormous ground, and reading it is an education in itself. After reading Bryson's, A Short History of Nearly Everything, I was hoping that this book would be just as good. It may be even better, because of the assortment of great minds that have contributed to it. You are going to love this book, and thank you for reading this review.


Richard C. Stoyeck

Content is A+, wish I hadn't wasted $ on kindle version, December 10, 2010
This is a book that exemplifies the opportunity for a great reading experience on the electronic medium. Wonderful writing that is complemented by graphics and pictures that support the content.

Pity that this was neglected. No visual content was included and oddly, the picture/graphic references are embedded in the paragraph content.

Loved the writing and short stories. I have to assume that it was rushed to kindle and they ran short on $ to do the electronic version correctly. I'm holding out hope that amazon comes through for the customer and improves upon this release and then offers the update to those who have already purchased. I'm nothing if not an optimist.

Not exactly "by Bill Bryson", December 2, 2010
This is a pretty good book, but not what I was expecting. I am a big fan of Bill Bryson's writing, so when I saw a new book that was "by Bill Bryson" I eagerly bought it on my Kindle without even reading the description. I knew I'd like it because I've enjoyed all his books. It wasn't until I got to the first chapter that I realized he only wrote the introduction of this book. Mea culpa, but caveat emptor.

Worth reading, but beware the formatting of the American Kindle version ..., November 9, 2010
Published in the 350th anniversary year of the Royal Society of London, "Seeing Further: The Story of Science and the Royal Society" is more a book about science than a book about the Royal Society.

Of all the qualifications in the world, the letters FRS (fellow of the Royal Society) would certainly be the mostly highly prized ones, much better than PhD (which merely indicates that the individual at one time did enough work to earn a degree). FRS indicates that the individual has accomplished work of high standard over a prolonged period recognised by his or her fellow scientists.

This book is worth reading, but one caveat; be aware that the American eBook doesn't come with the illustrations (not in itself a bad thing - the illustrations are pretty to look at, but in the main don't add much to the text), but do include the captions, in the middle of the text, which is a little off-putting. One example, in a discussion of the experiments which could have been performed on the peak of Tenerife, the Kindle version includes:

... And many more: candles, vials of smoky liquor, sheep's bladders filled with air, pieces of iron and copper, and various living things, to be carried thither.
Opposite & Previous Page:
A record of the founding of the Royal Society and the first meeting, 28 November 1660.
A stew of good questions, but to no avail ...

Buyer beware! This is the reason I initially gave it 1 star as a warning.

The book consists of 21 essays by 21 authors, so it's difficult to give an overall opinion. What I liked, others won't (and vice versa). I personally prefer books to be written by the one author who then has enough space to develop his or her ideas (there's a chapter by Paul Davies who has condensed several of his books, such as "the Eerie Silence" and "the Goldilocks Zone" and one by Richard Holmes writing about ballooning, which was also discussed in his "the Age of Wonder").

The chapter I liked most of all was the one by Oliver Morton "Globe and Sphere, Cycles and Flows: How to See the World" which starts with the evocative image from Apollo 17 on December 7, 1972 of the fully illuminated Earth from 29,000 km. It finishes with the Earth as seen by the Mars Exploration Rover 'Spirit'. Without the images, it wouldn't mean much ...

Great book, poor Kindle formatting, November 14, 2010
Review on the Kindle book as of November 10th...

Someone has argued that a poor review solely based on the formatting of the book is inadequate. However good the point may be, I still would not recommend a book, whether paperback or Kindle, to a friend if the organization of it were bad. This book is poorly formatted, and given the dramatically increasing number of people using Kindle, I think the two stars I am giving this book are relevant.

The content is great. Fascinating as usual with Bryson, though most of it obviously has not been written by himself but by 21 different scholars.

But the KINDLE formatting make reading it a slightly annoying experience. As mentioned previously, not only have the illustrations been completely omitted, but their captions have been left behind right in the text. Really?

Kindle books are outrageously expensive, sometimes more than plain, good old paperbacks. Don't get me wrong, I love the Kindle. But if we're going to pay so much for a book (that we can't sell, exchange or return) the least we can expect from Amazon is to provide quality stuff.

Disappointed I have to say. If you are looking into the paperback, you should go for it though.

seeing further, November 12, 2010
If a publisher decides to offer a book electronically and not include illustrations, Kindle must be obligated to state this clearly. Why a publisher would do this is mysterious to me. But the point is I tend to count on amazon/kindle to be trusworthy and forthcoming about such things, otherwise trust frays, and there are an ever growing number of ways to download books...

An Editor is Not an Author, December 20, 2010
Though I agree it is my responsibility to read the fine print, when a bookseller actively solicits my early order for a title that it bills as by "Bill Bryson," I did not think it necessary to search to see if Mr.Bryson (whose books I relish)were the author or the editor. I returned the book and asked not to be charged postage because of this confusion. The book is lush and, I'm sure, fascinating, but my appetite when I ordered was for more of Bryson, having just finished his recent tour of "Home." I will look more carefully next time; however, I would also ask Amazon copy editors to be more careful, if not more honest, about the authorship of books. ... Read more

Editorial Review

The solar system most of us grew up with included nine planets, with Mercury closest to the sun and Pluto at the outer edge. Then, in 2005, astronomer Mike Brown made the discovery of a lifetime: a tenth planet, Eris, slightly bigger than Pluto. But instead of its resulting in one more planet being added to our solar system, Brown’s find ignited a firestorm of controversy that riled the usually sedate world of astronomy and launched him into the public eye. The debate culminated in the demotion of Pluto from real planet to the newly coined category of “dwarf” planet. Suddenly Brown was receiving hate mail from schoolchildren and being bombarded by TV reporters—all because of the discovery he had spent years searching for and a lifetime dreaming about.

Filled with both humor and drama, How I Killed Pluto and Why It Had It Coming is Mike Brown’s engaging first-person account of the most tumultuous year in modern astronomy—which he inadvertently caused. As it guides readers through important scientific concepts and inspires us to think more deeply about our place in the cosmos, it is also an entertaining and enlightening personal story: While Brown sought to expand our understanding of the vast nature of space, his own life was changed in the most immediate, human ways by love, birth, and death. A heartfelt and personal perspective on the demotion of everyone’s favorite farflung planet, How I Killed Pluto and Why It Had It Coming is the book for anyone, young or old, who has ever dreamed of exploring the universe—and who among us hasn’t? ... Read more

Reviews

A Great Story About the Science, September 28, 2010

Very well-written, both educational and enjoyable, October 1, 2010

You don't have to be an astronomer..., September 26, 2010

Compelling and fast-moving, October 11, 2010

From "It Is to Write", December 19, 2010
It shocked me to realize just over halfway through "How I Killed Pluto and Why It Had It Coming" that such a book would orbit the top of my short list of all-time favorites. But it did--and it landed closer to the periapsis than the apoapsis. Why?

I'm not a scientist; indeed, my interest in astronomy, while healthy, halts one step short of an emotional attachment to Pluto. Hence, I suppose it was easier, unencumbered by a wounded celestial psyche, to embrace Mike Brown's story of the stepchild planet and his unapologetic role in its demise.

I am, however, a writer, and Mike Brown's startlingly delightful prose is priceless--educational, poignant, illuminating, and subtly hilarious, if that doesn't put too much of a strain on one's oxymoronic sensibilities. How do you read a book full of gritty technical detail covering years and years of painstaking astronomic observation and find yourself laughing out loud page after page. Just look at the title if you want a glimpse of his writing voice. I mean really, how do you *not* read a book with a title like that?

The emotional attachment I did develop was to the author and his family. Mike weaves his personal trajectory from single PhD student to fianc� then to husband and father seamlessly into his ascension as a renown astronomer and a scientist. As a non-technical type, I was smugly pleased how wife, Diane, and daughter, Lilah, influenced Mike's cerebral center of mass a bit closer to the right-brain end of the spectrum, albeit kicking and screaming the entire way.

Finally, Mike ambushed me with his beloved science. While already somewhat familiar with orbital dynamics, by the end of the book I was surprised to discover how much I had learned about astrophysics without even realizing it was happening. Actually, that's the only way I could learn anything about astrophysics. He made it fun.

Kudos to Mike, a chivalrous bow to Diane and a big squeeze for Lilah. All three of you made my day.

Nitty Gritty of Planetary Astronomy plus Public Relations., November 23, 2010

Still mourning the loss of Pluto from the list of planets? This engaging account explains what happened and why, November 8, 2010

How 21st Century astronomy is done, and made compelling, September 29, 2010

This book is to astronomy, December 18, 2010
as "Soul of a New Machine" was to the birth of the "small computer" revolution. I thought it would be a fun bedtime read for a week or two . . . instead it kept me awake until I was done. Previous reviews have explained the story well enough . . . I'll just add a vote that it's a great, fun read . . .

Pluto's executioner speaks!, December 12, 2010
The bit about killing Pluto is a joke, of course. Pluto is still out there, just as oblivious of what people call it as ever. But it was Mike Brown whose discoveries forced the astronomy community to address the anomaly of Pluto being classified as a planet. And he, despite his years-long quest to discover a tenth planet, despite the glory associated with being the only living discoverer of a planet, was true to his scientific convictions, and argued against his discovery, and therefore against Pluto, being considered a planet.

I will admit that I came into the Pluto controversy with a strong view of my own. I am one of those people who concluded many years ago, long before I ever heard of Mike Brown, that Pluto was not a planet. When it was discovered Pluto was thought to be quite a large object, and its designation as a planet made sense. But additional measurements showed it to be much smaller than originally thought,* smaller, in fact, than Neptune's moon Triton, itself believed to be a captured Kuiper Belt object. Further, it is locked in a orbital resonance with Neptune, where Pluto makes three orbits of the sun in the time Neptune makes two. So Pluto doesn't even orbit freely around the sun.**

I've heard Mike Brown talk about his experiences, and came to this book expecting a good read. He delivered. The astronomy is interwoven with Brown's life during the period of discovery. Some may object to this, but scientific discoveries are made by people who are concurrently living their lives. Too often what we hear about are the odd ducks who live only for their science. But most scientists aren't like that; most have lives beyond science, and their work is intertwined with their broader existence.

In this book we follow Brown from his early years in astronomy to his decision to look for another planet beyond Pluto. During his early, less than successful, attempts he meets, as a result of his work, the woman who will become his wife. We follow his courtship, marriage, and honeymoon as the search continues. The fruition of his search, the discovery of several large Kuiper Belt objects, overlaps the gestation and birth of his daughter.

During the time he is completing papers on his discoveries, and awaiting his daughter's birth, controversy erupts. A previously unknown astronomer in Spain appeared to have found one of his discoveries, and beat him to a public announcement. Initially gracious, Brown learns that the Spaniard apparently used the internet to learn where he had pointed a telescope to track the object, and used that knowledge to find the object and claim the discovery. This motivates a discussion of how science works, and the competing pressures to, on the one hand, announce discoveries so as to claim credit and, on the other hand, to get the facts together and write a comprehensive paper that adequately describes the discovery.

Having weathered that controversy, the Pluto issue explodes. Brown provides a comprehensive discussion of why it doesn't make sense to call Pluto a planet. He writes about the last time astronomers had this problem. (No, Pluto wasn't the first.) When Ceres was discovered between Mars and Jupiter in 1801 it was considered the eighth planet. (Neptune hadn't yet been discovered.) Then more "planets" were discovered between Mars and Jupiter. It was eventually realized that all these bodies couldn't be considered planets, and they ended up all being called asteroids. (The decision of the International Astronomical Union on Pluto made Ceres, like Pluto, a "dwarf planet".)

Similarly, Brown argues convincingly that Pluto is simply one of the larger bodies in the Kuiper belt. Its interaction with Neptune caused it to be discovered earlier than other large Kuiper Belt objects, but it is otherwise unexceptional. The book includes an excellent discussion on how scientists choose categories for objects, and why definitions matter.

All in all, this is a compelling book that captures the story of discovery and two controversies, as well as the reality--sometimes mundane, sometimes not--of how scientists actually live and work. And how can you not love a book where the astronomer gets the girl?


* In 1980 A. J. Dessler and C. T. Russell wrote a humorous one page paper that was published in EOS (vol. 61, no. 44, page 690) titled "From the Ridiculous to the Sublime: The Pending Disappearance of Pluto". In it they pretended to take the historical mass estimates of Pluto as being correct, did a mathematical fit, and predicted that Pluto would disappear in 1984. They then speculated on what would happen after it disappeared. This is available online, just search for it.

** I've heard the argument that Neptune could just as well be said to be in an orbital resonance with Pluto. While in a narrow technical sense that is true, saying it makes about as much sense as saying Neptune is in orbit around its moon Triton. Neptune is eight thousand times more massive than Pluto, and "captured" Pluto while itself remaining in a nearly circular orbit. Further, there are other Kuiper Belt objects in orbital resonance with Neptune, Pluto is simply the largest. When it comes to gravity size--or at least mass--matters. ... Read more

Editorial Review

Reviews

Read the Reviews!, October 28, 2006
I've just finished reading the 141 reviews above mine, and I think they're utterly fascinating--almost as interesting as the book. And the scores--the numbers who find each review helpful--are equally remarkable.

Some reviewers, delighted to find their opinions supported by Dawkins, use the opportunity to bask in their superior intellects and display their generous contempt for those who disagree.

Other reviewers feel personally attacked by this book, fending it off as best they can so they can retain their illusions, which are obviously valuable and meaningful to them.

Actually, you don't even have to read the reviews to see which is which. Just look at the numbers. If you see very few finding the review useful, you'll know the review was written by someone opposing Dawkins' ideas. And if the majority find the review helpful, that means it agrees with Dawkins.

This tells me that most of the people who are bothering to read the reviews are already pro-Dawkins--and it bodes ill for his hopes that his book will convert the believers.

It won't convert many believers, not because it is wrong--it isn't--and not because it isn't well-written--it is--but because whatever else you can say about faith, it isn't easily extinguished. For those who have it, it is the only life raft on a limitless ocean. Those who don't have learned how to swim, or plan to.

The most annoying reviewers, from my point of view, are those whose remarks demonstrate they haven't read the book (such as the fellow who insists Einstein was a believer), or those who feel Dawkins doesn't have the Biblical knowledge to back up his conclusions.

He doesn't need any Biblical knowledge. None of us do, when it comes to the question of belief. Memorizing the Bible neither adds nor subtracts from our ability to feel faith.

And that's the bottom line for me. I am unable to accept an assertion of any kind supported by nothing more than faith. I need some kind of truth, some kind of evidence.

There are or might be moments when I am jealous of those capable of faith. I would love to believe, when a loved one dies, that he or she is going to a better place and that we'll meet again some day. What a lovely, comforting thought. Would that it were true, or that I could believe it. But I don't--and it makes this life and every moment in it more valuable to me.

I once asked myself how a person totally unfamiliar with religion, might choose among the world's offerings, might decide to adopt one of the world's thousands of religions. I could find no way. They all claim they're right and all the other religions are wrong. But are any of them right?

Now I'm thinking similar thoughts about God. I saw a website recently that compiled the names of all of the gods, worldwide and throughout history. They found 3800 different gods or supernatural beings. If I were inclined to believe, which one would I choose and why?

Dawkins points out that we're all atheists. We don't believe in Amon-re, Zeus, Thor, Apollo, Odin, etc., etc., etc. He just goes one god further.

Disillusioned Catholic, November 11, 2006
I read numerous reviews before I bought this book. Because of the controversial nature of the topic I was very interested in the perspective of the reviewer. Often this perspective was easy to guess but not always. So to make this review more valuable to the reader I would like to state my background first. I am a 50 year old active Catholic who has slowly become disillusioned by religion starting as a child when told my Protestant friend would not go to heaven. For years I existed on "faith" since I personally could find no evidence that God existed. As a Catholic there is also a good helping of "guilt" for good measure. I am also a very strong Constitutionalist and believe that the only way to get along is to have freedom of and freedom from religion. With the recent surge of religious fundamentalism and its effects on politics I have become increasingly concerned about what Dawkins calls the American Taliban and the push for a Christian Theocracy. This actually scares me more than Al-Qaida. The words "Faith" and "Belief" have been morphed into the word "Truth". This new "Truth" has caused me to do a lot of searching for answers for what really is true.

Richard Dawkins book was extremely helpful and was the first book I have read on the Atheist side of the fence. I found Chapters 1 through 4 and 7 through 9 easy to read. Chapters 5, 6, 7 and 10 were more scientific and a hard read for the average person. I actually needed a dictionary at my side to get through those chapters. I particularly liked the section in Chapter 3 on Pascal's Wager which I had mistakenly credited to Einstein in the past.

What I had found so interesting is that he expressed ideas that I had been developing in my brain for years, but did not feel free to discuss with others. (although he can state them more eloquently than I can). The result is that I have been pushed from a 5 to a 6 on his scale of belief.

The book is not only preaching to the Atheist choir, but to all those who a truly open minded enough to form there own opinions about God and religion. If you are in this category it is certainly worth purchasing.

Previous reviews stated that Dawkins was mean spirited and blamed religion for social evils. I did not find this to be the case, and I found that he was as fair minded as someone who believes as he does can be.

Dawkins imagines no religion., September 19, 2006
"As a scientist," Richard Dawkins writes, "I am hostile to fundamentalist religion because it actively debauches the scientific enterprise. It teaches us not to change our minds, and not to want to know exciting things that are available to be known. It subverts science and saps the intellect" (p. 284). In other words, the greatest crime of fundamental Christianity is to think without asking scientific questions. For those readers already familiar with Dawkins' work, it will come as no surprise that this book is nothing less than brilliant. Pity those readers, however, who either won't read this book (they should) or who will find nothing positive to say about it, because this is the work of one the greatest thinkers of our time.

In THE GOD DELUSION, Dawkins, the celebrated evolutionary biologist, Oxford Professor, and author (The Selfish Gene: 30th Anniversary Edition--with a new Introduction by the Author, The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design, A Devil's Chaplain: Reflections on Hope, Lies, Science, and Love, The Ancestor's Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution), gives us a carefully-reasoned yet entertaining treatise on atheism that is equally eloquent and provocative. His basic argument is that the collective irrational belief in "The God Hypothesis" is not only wrong ("intellectual high treason"), but pernicious in its resulting intolerance, oppression, bigotry, arrogance, child abuse, homophobia, abortion-clinic bombings, cruelties to women, war, suicide bombers, and educational systems that teach ignorance when it comes to math and science. Sure to provoke his adversaries, Dawkins not only portrays the "psychotic" God of the Old Testament as "arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully" (p. 31), but also challenges, quite convincingly, every major argument for God's existence, and shows that the Founding Fathers considered religion to be a threat to democracy. Thomas Jefferson, for instance, claimed "Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man" (p. 43). Benjamin Franklin said "Lighthouses are more useful than churches" (p. 43). A 1796 treaty signed by John Adams declares, "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion" (p. 40). Adams also said, "this would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it" (p. 43). Even conservative icon, Barry Goldwater, threatened to fight fundamentalists "every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans" (p. 39).

While Dawkins is clearly out to change minds here, unfortunately, for most of his readers, he is only preaching to the choir. Nevertheless, for its erudite advocacy of science and rationalism at odds with the divisive, oppressive, injurious, and deadly forces of religion, THE GOD DELUSION is highly recommended. Further reading in this area includes Daniel Dennett's, Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon (2006) and Sam Harris's, Letter to a Christian Nation (2006) and Christopher Hitchens' recent God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.

G. Merritt

A Philosophical Handbook, April 25, 2007
There seems to be no middle ground with readers of The God Delusion, they either love it or hate it. That seems to reflect the preconceptions one brings to the volume, the religious feel attacked and the atheists feel vindicated. The religious scramble to find some way to counter the arguments, the often hostile beratement Dawkins delivers, while the atheists dance on the grave of dying religiosity.

My one real beef with the book is that although packed with enough argumentative logic to make it a seminal discourse on the refutation of deity (the Christian, Jewish, and Muslim deity almost exclusively), Dawkins relishes the ad hominem and childish attacks too much. That undermines his own work in places, and while the humor is biting and I found myself openly laughing I also see how offensive it could be to people of faith.

While I'm not going to contribute an overview because that's been covered so many times, in so many ways - in fact the words dedicated to synopsis by the various reviewers most likely exceed the actual words in the substantial volume itself - I will give an impression, my impression. My impression is that this is a book that I will refer to many times in the future. This is a book that I will keep on my shelf with the other reference tomes, and one which will become more valuable than the Bible itself.

Religion and the belief in God isn't going away, despite the arguments against deity. But I do think we need to arm ourselves against unwanted religious intrusion into our public and national lives. Dawkins, for all his gloating, does give a substantial refutation of the idea that morality is religious in nature. That alone is worth the cover price. It's brilliant to be able to cite logical case by case for the ideas of humanism as a source of moral behavior and good conduct.

Other than that, it's a great read, a valuable resource. I'll recommend it to all my friends, and send it as presents at Christmas (nothing could be more appropriate).

- CV Rick

Reaches its intended audience, December 21, 2006
Many have criticized this book for not speaking in a voice that could influence religious fundamentalists away from their delusion. There is no way the topic can be discussed that would have any hope of doing this. It would be akin to writing a book that through gentle persuasion would reason a paranoid out of his delusions. Ain't going to happen.

I believe the intended audience is those who already have grave doubts, and are looking for a well reasoned examination of the issue. I was impressed by the simple and straightforward approach to resolving a basic question: "since we can't know for sure if God exists, shouldn't we all be agnositics?"

I also enjoyed his definition of a pantheist (I'll leave that for the reader to discover).

The opening sections on Einstein and his "religious" beliefs, and a general discussion of pantheism and deism are worth the price of the book just by themselves.

As an aside -- those reviewers who cite Einstein's religious conversion away from atheism have clearly not read even this much of the book.

Written with great humor and wonderful quotations -- I am sure there is something here to offend just about everyone -- but also with great courage and forthrightfullness.

Not the best work on atheism, January 4, 2007
Before considering Professor Dawkins's bestseller, a mention must be made of the over 300 reviews here posted as well as the assorted blogs, debates, and article the book has provoked. Reading through these, whether pro or con, one can not help but notice a clear and unnerving trend, not unlike one sees in reviews regarding works on the Middle East conflict; those who agree with his thesis from the outset almost always offer resounding and unadulterated praise without considering even the possibility of flaws in his methodology or logic. Of course, at the same time, those who hold his position as heresy rarely respond in any logical method to his position and rarely even seem willing to acknowledge the professor's obvious strength's as a writer. Such failure of reasoning on both sides points to a disheartening decline in the state of the western intellectual tradition that should give every person pause.

As a great fan of Professor Dawkins's previous work, "The Selfish Gene," a book that provided me with great food for thought several years back and profoundly altered my thinking, I looked forward with excitement to "The God Delusion." Reading the new book on recognizes quickly that this is in fact one book, with three goals. Professor Dawkins imagines these goals as not only compatible, but structural to the argument he seeks to build. As for me I am less certain.

The first part restates much of what might be found in "The Selfish Gene," albeit more briefly and with some editions based on more recent scholarship. There is no need to review the whole of thesis, his obvious purpose will suffice; defending Darwinian evolution from the current relentless and often absurd assault it now suffers at the hands of certain individuals who prefer to shout at the storm rather than consider an umbrella. Now "The Selfish Gene," was nothing short of brilliant, and Dawkins here again demonstrates much of what makes him a gifted writer of science, explaining the strengths of Darwin's theory, and devastating many of the positions of those who argue against it. Other works of course cover this same ground, but there can be no doubt Dawkins here shines.

Of course, these points are not the goal of Dawkins's work, but only the foundation of a broader argument. From there he moves into an evolutionary thesis for the origin of belief and religion. Here he remains on firm ground, though many may find it disquieting, even as he moves to the next logical position that evolution and the cosmos requires no deity to explain itself. And it is from there that the Professor moves onto shakier ground as he seeks not to simply discount the evidence often cited for a supreme being, but rather argue against the possibility of its existence. Of course, the logical difficulty of proving an absolute negative - for example, "there are no blue dogs," are legion -- yet this of course does not deter the professor who approaches the subject with a zealot's fervor. Yet, many of the arguments here stand as both pugnacious and flawed, moreover revealing that while well versed in science, professor Dawkins might consider a few classes in philosophy, not to mention religion so that he might recognize that the Anglicanism in which he was raised is not the totality of all Christianity and, moreover, Christianity is by no means the totality of religion.

One might take his arguments one at a time, but I will focus on one, it having received great attention. Dawkins posits "A designer God cannot be used to explain organized complexity because any God capable of designing anything would have to be complex enough to demand the same kind of explanation in his own right." Of course this ignores the prevalent notion of both the Jewish and Islamic tradition that God exists both inside and outside his creation, and thus cannot be fully known. Moreover, he likely would not like this argument applied to cosmology; the fact that it grows increasingly complex as our understanding grows does not make the next more complex factor less likely, but merely outside of our current grasp. The effort to understand this with probability as a method of rendering a supreme being unlikely comes across as self serving and holding to a standard the professor would surely not wish to apply to science.

Yet it is in the final piece of his work that Professor Dawkins becomes the most vitriolic and, in fact, a bit sophomoric as he attacks religion by pointing to all the evil in history rendered in its name. The effort appears like the work of a rather polemic inclined undergrad, especially as the Professor fails to consider the good brought by religion, nor seriously consider the degree to which concepts arising from religion have influenced or even founded much of the secular humanist philosophy he holds so dear. Moreover, Professor Dawkins shows no taste for considering the considerable evil done in the name of atheism. Regarding these, however, he has no stomach for discussion, writing curtly ""We are not in the business of counting evils heads, compiling two rival roll calls of iniquity." Yet that is exactly what he does when it comes to those of faith, ignoring the torture and murder of many, often due to their particular commitment to religion done in the name of "reason" by Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and their ilk. Instead, Dawkins contrasts theoretical atheist utopia with the religions practical and often horrific evils. Sadly, such an effort generates much heat and little light. Had he been willing to engage the more interesting and complex issue, he might well have concluded that humanity is capable of much horror and violence, for many motivations. But then, such a conclusion would hardly serve his narrow polemic goals.

Nothing in the world should be held as not subject to reason. Unfortunately, Professor Dawkins could well have used more of it in engaging in his efforts. While one can certainly render cogent arguments for atheism, indeed many have, the effort here seems more designed to score easy points by burning straw men at the stake. No doubt, this review will receive votes for and many more against, not based on its reasoning, but simply based on people's particular faith on which side of these issues the reside. But then again, most seem inclined to simply march along side their ideological kin, rather than engage in serious consideration of such weighty matters.

Inspirational, if perhaps ultimately idealistic., November 10, 2006
Dawkin's writing is always passionate, here though is a polemic that screams urgency on nearly every one of its 350 odd pages. Clearly born of a growing dismay at the re-encroachment of religion into not only moral but political discourse, Dawkins has set out his lifelong objections to both the irrationality of religious belief and also to the damaging effects he argues it has on society and above all to children. In a particularly controversial and biting chapter he condemns the religious indoctrination of young people as a form of child abuse greater than that of the catholic priest sex scandals.

I find Dawkin's prose electrifying, provocative and at times beautiful, particularly here when describing the compatibility of awe and wonder at the universe with the atheistic position. Dawkins attempts to rebut most of the historical arguments for God's existance, refute the claim that morality is dependent on at least a belief in God (if not his actual existence) and in general the idea that religion serves as some kind of Platonic noble myth keeping society sane, happy, moral and together. He ends the book by arguing that children should not suffer the abuse of being force fed religion, and instead should be raised as rational beings, helping to create a mature society in which scientific method determines questions of fact and philosophical reasoning that of moral value.

I'm an aetheist, though I have a much too pessimistic view of human nature to call myself a humanist, but upon finishing the book I was rather swept away for a short time in a kind of hope that reason can indeed one day abolish dogma and superstition to produce both a fairer and a happier society. I'm rather left thinking though, that perhaps that could only be in a society of cloned Richard Dawkins, or at least of an unlikely human society where most people have a level of intellect and courage even approaching his. At one point in the book he refers to a positive correlation between intelligence and atheism without drawing any negative conclusions as to how difficult that leaves turning the mass of not so intelligent citizens into rational moralists.

Due to his well known scientific dismissal of group selection theory, and despite a long discussion of 'memes', he doesn't seem to take on board the rather unfortunate but plausible possibility that whilst religion may be a clutch of often nasty Darwinian 'misfirings', selection processes involving memes may mean that those cultural groups who clothe these evolutionary blanks in the memetic robes of religion may in fact inevitably survive over those which don't. This is arguably something we are witnessing in parts of Europe where the increasingly secular populations are simply being replaced by the more fertile muslim populations. The survival of the religious 'go forth and multiply' meme vs the humanist feminist 'woman have the right to careers' meme seems to have one predictable outcome, both for the memes and the cultures that bear them. Consider, Amsterdam, the citadel of European humanism, now a place where homosexual couples are afraid to openly show their love for fear of being beaten up for offending religious sensibilities.

Another criticism in an otherwise excellent book, is that Dawkins spends far too little time rebuting the absurd charge, commonly thrown at him, that he is an atheistic 'fundamenatlist'. And absurd as the comparison with Islamic radicals or Bible literalists may be, it is one that has become almost a deep rooted Pavlovian criticism of Dawkins even amongst highly intelligent intellectuals. This is an accusation, incidently, which Dawkins admits here is acutely painful to him.

This is a brilliant and inspirational book and deserves to be read by as many people as possible. Although unlikely to be read with fair minds by religious believers, hopefully its fate is to become more than simply a 'Bible' preaching to already converted aetheists. I would imagine Dawkins aim in writing this book was to provide an inspiration for those wishing to fight the cancerous return of unthinking dogma in public life. In this, I'm certain he has succeeded magnificently.

Dawkins takes on religion, October 29, 2006
Richard Dawkins, well known writer on evolutionary theory, begins this volume by quoting from Robert Pirsig (author of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance) (page 5): "`When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion.'" This is a volume that religious readers will despise and that nonbelievers will probably speak well of.

There certainly are questions one can raise about this volume. For instance, Dawkins claims that the founders of the United States were not overly religious. However, research clearly shows that religious sources were among the most commonly cited in the lead up to the American Revolution. And the colonists were a religious people; some colonies had been, in essence, theocracies. However, such cavils are not directly relevant for the thesis of Dawkins.

The book runs along the following lines:

First, Dawkins explores standard arguments on behalf of God's existence and disposes of each of these. Some might argue that he attacks some straw men here, but--overall--this is a readable critique that will be compelling for some and not for others.

Second, he addresses why, in his opinion, the idea of the existence of God is unlikely.

Next, he asks why religion has become widespread. He adopts an evolutionary approach to address this. He ends up speculating that (page 174): ". . .there will be a selective advantage to child brains that possess the rule of thumb: believe, without question, whatever your grown-ups tell you. Obey your parents; obey the tribal elders, especially when they adopt a solemn, minatory tone. Trust your elders without question." In short, we tend to reify the values of our parents and other respected figures. If those values are religious, then people will accept those religious values with little question. He follows this discussion up by addressing why morality is so widespread, since many equate morality and religion. He examines a series of studies that suggest that both believers and non-believers accept fairly similar moral positions. Dawkins' question (page 226): "This seems compatible with the view, which I and many others hold, that we do not need God in order to be good--or evil."

Other questions are addressed as well, such as the contention that there is a gap in human life that God fills, the down side of the confident absolutism of many religious people, and so on. The book is well written and literate. In the final analysis, though, its basic contention is such that those who begin reading the book in agreement with Dawkins will like it and those in disagreement (if they read the book at all) will be appalled. Nonetheless, for those interested in the recent books focusing on the subject of the validity of religion, this is a must read.

Important and timely, September 24, 2006
One reviewer tells us that "There is no debate (NONE!) between science and religion. ........The biblical writers didn't intend us to take them literally, that is obvious. They were addressing metaphysical/spiritual matters with literature. So where's the debate?"

Where? Simple! Religionists will certainly not leave the determination of facts to scientists since as we have seen, they continue to make implausible empirical assertions about everything from the age of the earth to the literal exitence of angels. They also try to force religious ideas into the educational system. On the other hand, scientists (especially atheist scientists) are not about to leave moral and spiritual questions up to religionists (at least I won't).

Of course, even more important is the global political factors. The zeal with which those infected with religious fire try to convert the world and prevent folks from behaving in certain ways is astounding. Violence is always a possiblity when the belief is strongly enough felt. I was raised in a religious home, but overall, I now feel frightened by religion.

Dawkin's never fails to engage the issues intelligently and frankly. This book is no exception. Read with an open mind and try to not worry about what the meaning of life without God might be. It does have meaning but you must not let fear of death or hell get in the way of reason.

Good read, not for the layperson, January 8, 2010
I thoroughly enjoyed TGD, and appreciate the logic with which it was written. It does indeed point out the absurdity of an intelligent creator and at least the typical monotheistic idea of God. It is also a good introduction into rational thought vs. religious thought, and forces the reader into following a scientific system of reasoning when looking at evolution, rather than a religious and dogmatic one. The only problem that I see is that the language used may be out of reach for those with less than a college degree, and even some with one. At times Dawkins covers some very dry subject matter, but if you stick with it he eventually brings it all back to his thesis.

It's a definite must-read for those questioning their faith, looking for an alternative to religious explanations of life as we know it, and atheists seeking more scientific evidence against an intelligent creator god. ... Read more

Editorial Review

"One of the funniest and most unusual books of the year....Gross, educational, and unexpectedly sidesplitting."—Entertainment Weekly

Stiff is an oddly compelling, often hilarious exploration of the strange lives of our bodies postmortem. For two thousand years, cadavers—some willingly, some unwittingly—have been involved in science's boldest strides and weirdest undertakings. They've tested France's first guillotines, ridden the NASA Space Shuttle, been crucified in a Parisian laboratory to test the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin, and helped solve the mystery of TWA Flight 800. For every new surgical procedure, from heart transplants to gender reassignment surgery, cadavers have been there alongside surgeons, making history in their quiet way.

In this fascinating, ennobling account, Mary Roach visits the good deeds of cadavers over the centuries—from the anatomy labs and human-sourced pharmacies of medieval and nineteenth-century Europe to a human decay research facility in Tennessee, to a plastic surgery practice lab, to a Scandinavian funeral directors' conference on human composting. In her droll, inimitable voice, Roach tells the engrossing story of our bodies when we are no longer with them. ... Read more

Reviews

Death is not the end, May 20, 2003
This is a book about dead bodies. As Mary Roach demonstrates in her new book, some bodies go on to do remarkable things, such as helping FAA investigators understand why a plane crashed or helping auto-makers design safety features that save thousands of lives. Others are asked to do nothing more than rot away quietly at a research lab where forensic scientists study decomposition in order to improve crime scene investigation techniques. Some are put to slightly more questionable uses, such as the severed heads used by plastic surgeons to practice their facelift technique (surely not what people had in mind when they donated their bodies to science). Others have had even more bizarre adventures. Cadavers have been nailed to a cross in order to prove the authenticity of the shroud of Turin. Severed heads have been poked, prodded, and given transfusions in an attempt to revive them long after they and their bodies have parted ways.

The anonymous cadavers that are the subjects of STIFF could hardly have asked for a livelier or more sympathetic chronicler than Mary Roach, who has managed to write a book that balances sensitivity and respect with a wonderfully sharp wit. In fact, STIFF is unexpectedly and quite blessedly hilarious, although the humor never comes at the expense at the dead bodies that populate its pages. Instead, Roach uses humor as a kind of psychic safety valve, a vital and much-appreciated tension release from what is, at times, some very intense subject matter.

The real highlights of this book are the sections that delve into some of the more disreputable uses of cadavers. There is a droll and utterly hilarious history of body snatching and a short overview of medicinal cannibalism (human mummy confection, anyone?). There�s a fascinating catalog of the methods historically used to make sure that a dead body was in fact dead. This chapter culminates in what is surely the most spectacularly strange section of the book, in which Roach relates the story of Dr. Robert White, a neurosurgeon who in the mid-1960s performed a series of surgeries constituting what could be considered the first head transplant (or full body transplant, depending on your point of view). A wonderfully engrossing book on a subject most of us are reluctant to talk about.

Good Book with Some New Perspectives on Death, April 27, 2003
First, Mary Roach has a terrific sense of humor. She takes a challenging subject and finds ways to make you laugh just when you need it. Her humor is irreverent, but never disrespectful. She can laugh at some of the absurdity, yet still appreciate the pain dying can bring.

This is well written, well researched, and thorough. My one, very minor complaint is with the organization of the book. I feel as though it starts much more strongly than it finishes. So, for example, she might have considered organizing the chapters differently.

I don't think you need a particularly strong stomach to read this book. Only one item actually turned my stomach. But when it did, it *really* did.

The book succeeded in making me think about my own death. It also made me think about my mother's death and made it easier to accept certain events. ...

I hope this book will make you laugh and then think too.

And you thought death was depressing---, July 24, 2003
Mary Roach did her homework, and it shows. She has written and information packed, insightful, educational, respectful, and, yes, funny book on what happens to these bodies of ours when we get tired of hanging out in them. I have a newfound respect for all who have donated their bodies in the name of science. Not that I give it a lot of thought, but I figured cremation would be the most logical choice. After reading this book, heck, they can do whatever they want with me. I've always felt an obligation to help others, and if I can continue to do so after I have left this world, then HOORAY.
Meanwhile, expect some odd looks when you are sitting there reading a book obviously about the dearly departed, and you started sputtering, and can't help but laugh out loud! Quirky humour, but that's my favorite kind. Thank you, Mary Roach.
I recommend this book to anyone in healthcare, or the clergy, or anyone even dealing with people who experience loss. It gives you a new perspective.
On the other hand, I will have a hard time ever eating gelatin again...

Stiff, August 11, 2003
A few nights ago I made a weekend resolution that I'd tackle the much-neglected stack of fiction that teeters on my bedside table. However, while reverentially picking up 'The Body Artist' by Don Delillo, I was distracted by a misplaced reader's copy of Mary Roach's 'Stiff'. Evidently, despite my best intentions, a modest volume of non-fiction had managed to steal it's way into my fiction pile. As morbid curiosity has always been a personal failing, I cheerfully chucked aside 'The Body Artist' and eagerly cracked open Roach's book. For the first time in over two years, I read an entire volume in one sitting.

Roach opens her book with the comparison of death to a pleasure cruise: The way I see it, being dead is not terribly far off from being on a cruise ship. Most of your time is spent lying on your back. The brain has shut down. The flesh begins to soften. Nothing much new happens, and nothing is expected of you....

Stiff is, without a doubt, a bizarre yet remarkably engaging read: not surprising since Roach is such a terrific writer. The author possesses the ingenious ability of being able to make digestible the most repulsive of subjects. Curious, yet not callus, Roach manages to ask-and yes, answer-questions often best left unspoken (keeping in mind public decorum). Furthermore, Roach is hilarious. Quite honestly I was surprised at how many times the author prompted (albeit sometimes guilty) laughter. A neat trick that, keeping in mind the grisly subject matter.

Roach gleefully covers merry topics such as: practicing surgery on the dead, embalmment, body snatching, the process of decay, human crash test dummies, crucifixion experiments, live burials, human head transplants, ecological (read: green) releasments, and everyone's all-time favourite- cannibalism. All the while Roach manages to honour the dead, yet simultaneously takes deliberate pains not to over-glorify the cadaver-science is science after all. One of the most remarkable aspects about Roach's book is her take on cultural definitions of `acceptable behaviour' in relation to the human carcass.

Tonight, inspired by Roach's second to last chapter: Out of the Fire, into the tissue digester: and other new ways to end up... I asked an agnostic friend if, following her death, she'd be willing to have her body ground into dog food. "No," replied my friend, despite her love for all things canine, "...I don't think so- it seems somewhat undignified." I then asked my friend if she'd be willing to have her remains tossed into the lion pen at her local zoo. My friend replied in the positive, "Most certainly, yes that'd be very cool. Maybe even a shark tank..." Vanity to be certain. Meat either way.

A warning to the queasy: Not for you.

Gee, Mommy, can I too be a STIFF when I grow up?, May 22, 2003
Perhaps author Mary Roach thought the title of her book, STIFF, too ghoulish because she immediately begins in a festive mood:

"... being dead is not terribly far off from being on a cruise ship. Most of your time is spent lying on your back. The brain has shut down. The flesh begins to soften. Nothing much new happens, and nothing is expected of you." Carnival, Viking, and Holland America, take note.

As a corpse, you can indeed, as on last summer's voyage to the Bahamas, veg out. Or, as the narrative reveals, be an integral part of other activities. Why, I didn't realize that being dead could be so lively.

First and foremost, your cadaver could become the prize of body snatchers, and subsequently be sold to a medical school for the instruction and amusement of students. Or perhaps you aspire to become a crash test dummy, fodder for the military's munitions tests, or the subject of experiments in composting, freeze-drying or plastination. If you're unlucky enough to die in an airplane disaster of unknown cause, investigators may scrutinize your body, or its widely scattered pieces, for clues as to where in the aircraft the fuselage cracked open or the bomb exploded. Your dissected brain or heart could fuel arguments over the seat of the soul, while other body parts serve as the raw material for disease remedies. Or maybe just be eaten by cannibals. And, if you're the outdoorsy type, you can recline in a grove on a grassy hillside behind the University of Tennessee Medical Center where the various stages of human decomposition are studied and recorded.

STIFF is one of the most fascinating books I've read recently, even after taking into account the "yuk" factor. (In ancient Rome, the blood of freshly slaughtered gladiators was thought to cure epilepsy, while modern day Web sites have recipes for Placenta Lasagna and Placenta Pizza for those who would consume the delicacy to stave off postpartum depression.) This is largely due to the author's chatty style and marvelous sense of humor, which is dry as a mummy. For example, when declaring the existence of a Central Park statue of a certain Dr. Sims, otherwise notable for describing a suitable patient position for gynecological exam, Roach writes in a footnote:

"If you don't believe me, you can look it up yourself, on page 56 of THE ROMANCE OF PROCTOLOGY. (Sims was apparently something of a dilettante when it came to bodily orifices.) P.S.: I could not, from cursory skimming, ascertain what the romance was."

I highly recommend STIFF for the not too squeamish adult, or as a scary Halloween gift for one who is. Or as a bedtime reader for precocious youngsters - they'll think it gross, but way cool, as children are wont to do.

In case you're wondering, there's no photo section.

One of the Best Books of 2003, May 7, 2003
A book about cadavers (well, it's really about death itself) was the last thing I thought I'd ever pick up. But after reading the first few paragraphs, I knew I was in good hands. Sure, the content is fascinating in its own right, but Mary Roach's gift for writing is just as noteworthy. As has been noted elsewhere, she approaches a grisly subject with, alternately, humor, curiosity, forceful opinion (directed mainly at the quacks from previous centuries and their butchery in the name of science), graphic (but not gratuitous) detail, and unfailing respect for her subjects.

Thanks to "Stiff," I'm not so squeamish about issues surrounding the deceased anymore.

Mary Roach is a great writer. This book is a keeper.

Absolutely,Insanely Fantastic, June 18, 2003
I Saw this book on the shelf and the minute I read the first few sentences I was hooked. I read it at work,on the train and at home. This book was so good. Mary Roach is amazing. She is respectful and yet she adds sarcasm and such great humor on a subject matter that many people avoid. I am an avid reader on
forensic science and true crime. But, Ms.Roach opened up a whole new world to me with this book. As a reader you will discover things that will amaze and suprise you. Stiff gives the reader an insider look to what scientists and doctors do in order to try and improve the lives of the living. These people are the brave and silent ones who do what many cannot.This book is definitely a must read for not just the summer but for the year and the year after that.

A weird little guilty pleasure read, April 23, 2004
Who knew a morbid topic like cadavers could provide such a fertile source for humor? I found myself laughing out loud many times while reading this odd but fascinating book. Early on the author states that Stiff is not about the process of dying or the loss of loved ones which are decidedly unfunny topics. It's all about the curious things that human kind has done with the dead over the centuries. Yes, much of it is rather gruesome but it's written in such a humourous and tasteful way as not to be offensive (strange as that may sound). This is not subject matter that most people would be apt to admit an interest in, however there must be a reason there are so many popular "morgue" shows on TV. While certainly not for everyone, if you've ever been curious about the "lives" of cadavers, this one will not disappoint. 4.5 stars.

Would you be my best friend?, April 4, 2004
I first opened the book to the middle and read something about what happpens to bodies when they are donated to science. It was a little hard to read but fascinating information. Then I turned to another page and read about what happens to a human body even after embalming. By then I didn't feel so good. Was it the book or the Mandarin chicken I had for lunch? I kept reading.

I decided I might not be ready to read this book after all. I meant to put it down put somehow found myself starting from the beginning and reading every word. By the time I got to page 22, "You cut off heads. You cut off heads. You cut off heads." I decided that I wanted the author, Mary Roach to be my best friend. The book reads like an histerical conversation between friends about an absolutely morbid topic. The humor helps you through the information you need to know.

The book made me feel a lot better about donating my body or body parts to science. And, I feel a lot better about being a journalist and writing as well. A fascinating read.

Fun with the Dead, April 24, 2003
I loved this book. It is filled with great history and ever surprising humor. Roach makes the creepiest and most unsettling situations and themes interesting and compelling.The writing is crisp, illuminating and at times screw ball and as I contemplated corpses in their many activites and professions I gained a new respect for them. I don't think I want my body used as a crash test dummy or have a group of medical students slice me up but Roach gives a new respect to people who give their bodies for these uses. A must read for the curious with a sense of humor. ... Read more

Editorial Review

With a new chapter. The phenomenal bestseller—over 1.5 million copies sold—is now a major PBS special.

Winner of the Pulitzer Prize, Guns, Germs, and Steel is a brilliant work answering the question of why the peoples of certain continents succeeded in invading other continents and conquering or displacing their peoples. This edition includes a new chapter on Japan and all-new illustrations drawn from the television series. 32 illustrations. ... Read more

Reviews

I guess some folks don't have the patience, July 13, 1999
I think some of the reviewers here didn't read the book closely enough to understand the context of some of Diamond's arguments. He never says that biogeographical effects are the ONLY causes history. His main purpose is the search for the ultimate, extremely general causes for the broadest of trends in human history and prehistory.

By the time the Mongols roared across Asia, or the Moguls invaded India, many cultures around the world already changed so much that bioregional factors, though seminal in the creation of these broadest trends, weren't nearly as important as the political, religious and economic ones. He is not ignoring religion and so on but, he states plainly several times that isn't his focus. He is looking for ultimate causes--before humans had extremely advanced mental concepts like religion.

He also wanted to point out the devastating influence of disease on history. It was surely the European germs that did most of the conquering of Native Americans. The guns and horses were almost incidental. Later on, once Europeans had established themselves, then we can focus on economic and political systems. But we can't ignore the effects of the diseases unleashed on the Americas. These plagues gave the Europeans a very lucky boost that catapulted them beyond the wealth and power of China, India or the Middle East--long before the Industrial Revolution made this gap obvious.

Another thing that some people seem to be having trouble with is his assertions about the native intelligence of tribal peoples around the world. (If you read the book, you notice that he is not just saying this about the New Guineans.)

He takes pains to point out what he means by this. He not talking about some mysterious genetic superiority of tribal peoples. It's all straight up culture. Tribal culture forces people to be better generalists than they'd have to be in literate civilizations. They can't rely on embedded support structures like books for memory or experts for obscure fields. They have to be pretty good at a lot things. Otherwise they die. They have to be better at memorizing things because they can't count on computers or books to remember things for them. Living in a dangerous, wild environment makes them cautious and aware of all that is going on around them. That was all he meant. The circumstance of tribal peoples force them, only in very broad ways and only on an individual basis, to be smarter and more curious than civilized people.

And in the end it does them no good. Because civilized societies are SMARTER than tribal societies. That is why tribal society has been steadily disappearing over the millenia. They just can't compete.

Finally, of course the book is repetitive. In fact he sums up his argument in the preface of the book. You needn't even read the rest if you don't want to. The rest of the book consists of him reiterating his points from different angles to point out the objections he has managed to answer and the many questions that still remain. He is just following scholarly practice and exposition--just to make things clear that he has thought about this.

He knows that his theory can't explain everything. In the epilog he points out that China, India and the Middle East are good counter examples to his idea. They each had an expansionist rise to great power--a time when they were unafraid to try new ideas and explore new ways of doing things. If the highly complex forces of economics, politics, religion had arrayed themselves differently. We might all be speaking Arabic now. Or Cantonese. Europe was just lucky to be in the right place at the right time for things to come together as they did.

Science in the service of History, October 4, 2000
In one compelling volume, the famous biologist Jared Diamond tackles the most important question of global history: Why did Europeans come to dominate the New World?

This question has been answered by others before; Diamond's idea that Europe's geography is the cause ("geographical determinism") has also been proposed before. Any student of history can drag up a case or two of this thesis. Baron Montaigne, for example, proposed that Europe's primacy stemmed from its superior government, which could be derived directly from the coolness of its climate.

The deep significance of this book is that Diamond's thesis is not simply idle speculation. He proves that the Eurasian land mass had by far the best biological resources with which to develop agricultural societies, and was thus more able to form large, coherent, and powerful social entities.

To support this idea, Diamond introduces thorough set of well-researched data on what kinds of plants and animals are necessary to support a farming society. He investigates the biological resources available to potential farmers in all parts of the world. The people of Eurasia had access to a suite of plants and animals that provided for their needs. Potential farmers in other parts of the world didn't-- and so their fertile soil went untilled.

After establishing this strong foundation, Diamond falls into repeating ideas about the formation of large-scale societies. These ideas, while unoriginal, are still compelling, and Diamond presents them in a very clear and well-written way.

His other major original contribution comes when he discusses the diseases that helped the Old World conquer the New. Building on his earlier chapters dealing with Old-World domesticated animals, he shows that these very animals were the sources of the major plagues (such as smallpox) which virtually annihilated New World populations. The fact that Old Worlders had immunities to these diseases was a direct result of their agricultural head-start.

Along with these monumental contributions to History, this book has its drawbacks. If you're looking for a narrative explaining Great People, Great Events, or Modern Ideas, you will be sadly disappointed. Diamond's thesis offhandedly assumes that it is difficult to believe Shakespeare's plays or Newton's laws could have been written by hunter-gatherers.

If you are looking for reasons why Europe came to dominate the world, rather than, say, China, Diamond presents mixed results. He mentions the 14th century self-isolation of China, but does not analyze it. He also brings up the odd theory about the relationship between the coastline lengths of Europe and China and trade potential; this idea is provably wrong.

If you are looking for a book that explains the world's history of the past 500 years, look elsewhere. Guns, Germs and Steel exhausts itself by effectively, coherently, fundamentally, definitively, and entertainingly explaining the preceeding 15,000.

I do not hesitate to recommend this book to anyone with an interest in world history. The scholarship is first-rate, and the thesis is incredibly significant. The technical details, while complete, are presented in a very easy to understand way, and Diamond's writing style is fun and engaging. It fully deserved the Pulitzer prize.

A strong theory convincingly argued, but marred by bias, January 24, 2001
According to Diamond, four factors are responsible for all historical developments: 1) availability of potential crops and domestic animals, 2) the orientation of continental axis to facilitate the spread of agriculture, 3) transfer of knowledge between continents, and 4) population size.

Diamond states that "those four sets of factors constitute big environmental differences that can be quantified objectively and that are not subject to dispute." Fair enough, but what *is* subject to dispute is that there might be some other factors at work. Thomas Sowell in Race and Culture does a good job of developing the thesis that the exchange of information among European cultures, facilitated by Europe's plentiful navigable rivers, was the key to Europe's technological and economic rise. David Landes in the Wealth and Poverty of Nations attributes China's conscious decision in the 1400's to isolate itself form other nations as the key event (decision) that caused it to lose it's technological advantage and fall behind Europe. (Diamond briefly touches on 15th Century China in the final chapter, but manages to boil this as well down to an accident of geography.)

This is unfortunate, because the book contains a wealth of excellent material which is excellently explained. Many of the core causes which Diamond explores ring very true, and his points are persuasively argued. The connection between the development of agriculture and the subsequent unequal rise of military capability worldwide is very convincing. But convincing though they may be, reading these theories one can't shake the sneaking suspicion that Diamond is selectively presenting evidence which he's has found to support his previously drawn conclusion, and neglecting evidence which runs counter.

Diamond plants these doubts through his sometimes-careless prose. Consider the following statement, which he includes in the introduction to his chapter on the rise of food production:

"My fellow farmhands were, for the most part, tough whites whose normal speech featured strings of curses, and who spent their weekdays working so that they could devote their weekends to squandering their weeks' wages in the local saloon. Among the farmhands, though, was a member of the Blackfoot Indian tribe named Levi, who behaved very differently from the coarse miners - being polite, gentle, responsible, sober, and well spoken"

I thought for a moment that I'd wandered into the script for "Dances With Wolves." Note that had this statement been turned on its head - had he, for example, recounted an unflattering anecdote about Native Americans or Hispanics -my instincts would immediately warn me that the author's biases might be influencing how he chooses to present the evidence. I myself am a Black American, I'm all too painfully aware that we've had to wade through some pretty grim stuff penned by authors clutching at straws to support their racist white supremacist views of the world. In this case Diamond does the reverse by aiming his negative bias towards Caucasians, but if I'm truly interested in unbiased science then my skepticism should remain the same.

That I lead with these criticisms is evidence of my disappointment in what could have been an excellent book, and indeed much of it *is* indeed excellent. This is a book that taught me much and has indeed changed my view of world history in many ways. I do recommend this book - the details are good and many of the theories ring true, but in the same breath I would warn against accepting Diamond's conclusions in their entirety without a bit of skepticism.

In summary, Guns, Germs, and Steel contains an important feature which David Landes's Wealth and Poverty of Nations so conspicuously lacks: a grand unifying theory which links the disparate growth rates of diverse societies worldwide. But Diamond's tidy conclusion that world history is simply a deterministic result of geography and nothing else is not entirely satisfying, especially in that it might cause us to be complacent about the future. I accept that accidents of geography have had a huge effect on mankind, and Diamond convincingly argues this. But culture and human decisions do matter. Diamond argues that human ingenuity is simply the result of the accident of having a larger population from which to draw innovations - but societies that internalize this philosophy do so at their considerable peril.

A new view of where the fertile ground is found..., October 3, 2001
GUNS, GERMS, AND STEEL is a persuasive discourse of competitive plausibility regarding the challenging question why population groups on different continents experienced widely divergent paths of development. Contrary to the voluminous objections cited in the many of the reviews below, Professor Jared Diamond, clearly an enthusiastic proponent of environmental determinism, presents a set of premises consistent with evidence provided from a wide range of disciplines, but he does not attempt to answer the question of genetic diversity, including differentiated intelligence, among racial groups as many reviewers have inferred. If anything, implicitly, the author appears to support promulgations of differentiated intelligences; he sets out to demonstrate intelligence was not the root cause to Eurasian dominance.

On at least two occasions Diamond, without equivocation, stated he found on average the New Guinean to be more intelligent than the average European or American. He was prompted to undertake this investigation as a result of a question posed by a New Guinean friend - Why white people developed so much cargo (material goods) and brought it to New Guinea while the indigenous had so little. Diamond summarized his findings as follows: "History followed different courses for different peoples because of differences among peoples environments, not because of biological differences among people themselves."

Beginning 13,000 years ago, the author illuminated the conditions or circumstances that may have facilitated growth for some groups and inhibited the same for others. Diamond accepts the out of Africa theory for the dispersion of Homosapiens to the other continents (for purposes of his treatise Europe and Asia are indivisible), and like the old axiom of real estate, the importance of location, location, location becomes readily apparent. For Diamond, food production is the ultimate cause of variable rates of development for different peoples. He illustrates how the abundance of wild plants subject to domestication and availability of large mammals served as immediate factors to transition from hunter/gatherer bands and tribes to sedentary agriculturally based chiefdoms and states.

Diamond lists what he proposes as proximate causes to European dominance:

1) Germs - based on close proximity to domesticated animals, immunities were developed infectious strains Europeans would carry to other areas, resulting in the decimation of non-immunized populations. In turn, those groups had few autochthonous diseases that would affect the invaders.
2) Invention of writing- relatively sedentary lifestyles facilitated devotion of more time and effort to the creation of methodologies to control and coordinate commerce. These systems eased transfer of information among society members, and had further implications to the establishment of hierarchical political organization.
3) Axial orientation of the different continents - east/ west orientation was conducive to transmigration of people, products, and technologies. Plants best suited to specific climatic conditions were readily transferable; geographic encumbrances were less severe and population isolation was not as significant.
4) Establishment of hierarchical organizations - food production instigated the growth of artisan classes focused on technological improvement, leisure classes devoted to functions unrelated to subsistence, organization of massive armies comprised of professional soldiers, and religion, which allowed individual groupings to live together under codification without killing one another.
5) Continental Isolation - Landmasses that were separated by geographic or ecological boundaries were under less pressure to develop or adopt new ideas, products or technologies from competing civilizations.

Some of the author's theories were not defended as successfully as others. His explanation why Sub-Saharan Africans were unable to identify species (the water buffalo and Zebra are two prime examples) that may have been used in farming and commerce seemed rather weak. Capture, taming and subsequent selective breeding for temperament seems as viable here as he indicates was the case on the Eurasian plains for other species. Similarly, he does not offer a convincing argument regarding the American Indian's failure to domesticate the Bison, although the inference seems to be the lack of cultivatible plant life was certainly a factor.

Overall, Diamond provides a compelling theory of the differences in development rates among different peoples, linking a wide set of factors that are not generally considered in parallel in the historical record. For anyone with even peripheral interest in the evolution of different societies, this is an enthralling book.

Love it or hate it, you should read this book, September 24, 2002
As an avid reader with absolutely no previous contact with the field of anthropology, I found this book to be mesmerizing. Jared Diamond has achieved great success with "Guns, Germs and Steel" (national best-seller, Pulitzer Prize), but it has also made him the target of strident, often venomous criticism...

Diamond's general thesis is that the West conquered the world rather than vice versa because of a fluke of nature. In short, Eurasia was home to an important number of crops and animals that readily lent themselves to successful domestication. This domestication resulted in mass food production, which the author claims is the "ultimate" cause of Western dominance. Food production, in turn, led to a number of "proximate" causes related to the rise of the West: farms and animal herds led to stationary populations and excess food to support a specialized class of bureaucrats and soldiers; it also increased population density, which, along with close contact with animals, led to germs and the subsequent genetic resistance of Westerners to those diseases. Finally, Diamond concludes, the unique East-West axis of Eurasia and the absence of any impenetrable geographic barriers fostered the spread of new crops, technologies, etc., which gave rise to many competing communities, whose competition further increased the western lead over the rest of the world.

Diamond's arguments are persuasive on the surface, and even the biggest skeptic will have reason for pause after reading his book. However, the final chapter reveals that he can't really resolve a fundamental question: why did Europe, rather than the Middle East, India or China come to conquer the world? Almost the entire book is dedicated to explaining why the Eurasian landmass was blessed with the prerequisites for large civilizations rather than the Americas, Africa and Australia. His terse explanation for why Europe in particular dominated leaves much to be desired and explained.

In this reviewer's opinion, the recent book by classicist Victor Davis Hanson ("Carnage and Culture") provides a plausible epilogue for Diamond's piece. Hanson completely and explicitly rejects Diamond's geographic determinism, but I don't think the two theses are incompatible or in any way mutually exclusive. In fact, it seems to me that Diamond and Hanson support one another, as the latter's assertion that the war-making efficiency of liberal democracies beginning in the Hellenistic period explains Europe's ultimate triumph.

In closing, as an introduction to anthropology and a cogent depiction of one school of thought on the rise of the West this book is marvelous. Approach it with an open-mind, reflect on the thesis and the supporting evidence, and then draw your own conclusions. Love it or hate it, you owe it to yourself to read this book.

An overrated book, November 9, 2003
Jared Diamond is a thoroughgoing geographical determinist. His book highlights both the strengths and the weaknesses of this approach.

Diamond's major topic is the Neolithic Revolution. His intention is to demonstrate that environmental conditions were not equally suitable to the development of agriculture on different continents. Eurasia, he contends, was the most appropriate place. It had the largest number of domesticable plants and animals, an east-west axis favoring the diffusion of inventions, offered good possibilities for inter-continental communication, and was the largest and most populous continent. So the Eurasians were first in developing agriculture, gaining thus a headstart in history. Agriculture led to rising polulations and created a dynamic that prompted the evolution of states, writing and a sophisticated technology (guns and steel). These social and technological advantages, plus immunity to the most dangerous infectious diseases (germs), allowed Eurasians to easily subdue the natives of the Americas, Australia and Southeast Asia.

On the whole this argument, which takes up the first 410 pages of the book, is convincing. Diamond is also right to insist on adopting a long time-frame. As early as 8000 years ago Eurasians had a substantial edge over their rivals on other continents, making it unlikely for those peoples and civilizations to catch up.

Had Diamond stopped writing at this point, he would have published a good work.

However, he was not content to treat only the Neolithic Revolution, but wanted to cover all major turns in world history. Hence the last 15 (!) pages of the book are devoted to a completely different subject. Having explained the rise of Eurasia, Diamond now wants to explain the rise of the West. Quickly the question becomes: Why Europe, not China? Borrowing an idea from Eric Jones ('The European Miracle'; but beware: Jones' approach is much more sophisticated than Diamond's, avoiding any kind of monocausal determinism) Diamond provides a simple answer: Europe was geographically more diverse than China. Therefore it did not become politically unified. Political fragmentation led to openness and openness to progress - ideas and inventions that were rejected at one place could succeed at another.

This speculation is not plausible at all.

First, there is no geographical NECESSITY for European fragmentation and Chinese unity. Europe has many features favoring political unity. Its long coastline and a great number of navigable rivers allow for easy transportation by water, offering an important asset to any would-be imperial power. The Romans took advantage of this to the utmost, and if they were able to conquer a great part of the continent, there can surely have been no compelling GEOGRAPHICAL reason for later powers to fail. Diamond himself seems to realize this, when he admits that India had even more agricultural core areas than Europe. Yet India was ruled as a unified empire for most of its history.

Second, Diamond's explanation - even if assumed to be correct - accounts only for INNOVATION. It tells us why certain inventions made by Chinese craftsmen were never introduced into the production-process of China's economy. A more important question to ask would have been why many significant inventions were not made in China in the first place. A prime example coming to mind is modern natural science, which was never developed in the Middle Kingdom.

Third, it is easy to see that Diamond's argument is undermined by his own evidence. As he tells us, China was scientifically and technologically ahead of Europe (and the rest of the world) for more than 1000 years. If China could achieve this superiority despite its supposed geographical disadvantages, we cannot escape the conclusion that those disadvantages either did not exist or were of minor importance. Europe, on the other hand, remained a cultural backwater for most of its history despite its supposed geographical advantages. Again, we cannot but conclude that these advantages either did not exist or were of minor importance.

Thus Diamond's environmentalism is completely refuted by Chinese and European history before 1500 a.d. Moreover, no other version of geographical determinism is likely to fare better. Since China's geography did not change within the last 2000 years, every purely geographical interpretation of its history must be wrong. It will either fail to account for the period of Chinese superiority or for the period of Chinese backwardness.

Diamond's errors are grounded in his method. Geographical determinism can explain the Neolitic Revolution, because this transformation was brought about by small bands of hunter-gatherers extremely dependant on their environment. Even so, Diamond needs FOUR causal factors to account for its different outcome on each continent (1. The wild plant and animal species available; 2. Orientation of the major continental axis; 3. Possibilities for inter-continental communication, 4. Size of area and population of a given continent). When we look at the great Eurasian civilizations, we have to deal with a type of society vastly more complex and far less dependant on its environment than are bands of hunter-gatherers. Yet Diamond wants to explain the history of these civilizations with reference to just ONE causal factor (the impact of geography on political unity). Instead of becoming more sophisticated in accordance with its subject, Diamond's approach turns brutally simplistic just as it is applied to the most difficult problem of world history.

It is unlikely that the rise of the West can ever be explained geographically. Any serious attempt to write global history for periods after the Neolithic Revolution will have to be sensitive to the complex interplay between geography, economy, technology, politics and culture that shapes the development of large societies. The work of Max Weber and Fernand Braudel provides good examples of the kind of scholarship needed for this task. Jared Diamond's book not only fails to rise up to this standard, but is crude, superficial and disappointing even from a geographical point of view.

Clearly Diamond did not know when to put his pen down. His book would have been better if he had refrained from addressing topics unsuited to his method.

A Question for the Ages, February 12, 2000
Many years ago a New Guinea native asked Jared Diamond a simple question: "Why is it that you white people developed so much cargo and brought it to New Guinea, but we black people had little cargo of our own?" Only slightly rephrased, Diamond devotes this book to answering the question why, from the depths of the primeval forests of Africa, mankind emerged at different rates, some achieving the heights of civilization and technology while others remained virtually in the Stone Age? And why did people on some continental landmasses prosper while people on others lagged behind, especially because some locations, like the California Coast, are mild and desirable while others, like Northern Europe are harsh and forbidding?

Diamond's thesis is that some populations got a head start over others in the development of civilization. But the head start resulted from favorable geography and natural resources, not from any innate superiority. Given the same location and advantages, any group of people over time would have reached the same result. The first beneficiary of geography happened to be the Fertile Crescent. The "cradle of civilization" not only had all five major large mammals (sheep, goats, cattle, pigs, and horses) available for domestication, but they also possessed the major wild seed groups that would become domesticated grain and cereals. Not all areas are so favorably endowed.

Once hunting and gathering gave way to food production, population density took hold, which in turn made possible civic development and technology. The head start then spread roughly along the same parallel east to Asia and west to Europe. Diamond contrasts Eurasia's wide girth and similar climates with America's and Africa's narrow waist and elongated longitude. Technology and culture can shuttle back and forth vast distances between east and west, but climatic zone differences as well as mountain ranges and deserts inhibit flows north and south.

I have two criticisms of the book. One, it has no footnotes so that one can source out the author's materials. For example, on page 108 Diamond asserts that early man, because of his ego, would rather hunt giraffes than gather nuts. Is that theory his, or someone else's? The very nature of a book such as "Guns, Germs, and Steel" requires that it pile theory upon theory to make a picture puzzle of a distant and hidden past. If key pieces don't fit, the picture may take a decidedly Cubist theme. A few footnotes would help the reader who wants to delve deeper into a topic.

The second criticism is the author's failure to address the role of human intelligence in the development of civilization. Considering the grief Charles Murray took into for writing "The Bell Curve," which held that certain populations have actually raised their intelligence level through centuries of using their brains to solve problems, one understands why Diamond steers clear of the topic - no academic can afford to be tinged with even a hint of racism or euro centrism. Plenty of professors on the leftist fringe stand ready to point the accusing finger any anybody who deviates from the acceptable norm. But surely scholars can deal with the role human intelligence in a non-racist way; after all, the physiology of the human brain is the same in all Homo sapiens. Diamond owes it to his readers to complete the mosaic he has created.

Diamond has an excellent hammer that he uses too often, January 3, 2003
As the saying goes, when you have a hammer, everything looks like nails. I found Diamond's basic hypothesis that the march to civilization is accelerated (if not determined) by availability of useful, domesticable plants and animals and a geography suited for the transmission of the plants and animals (and later ideas) over a large distance very compelling.

The two places he fails in what would otherwise be one of the best books I've read is he seems to be working toward a personal agenda, and he applies his theories to inappropriate situations. His personal agenda is not hidden, with his discussion of New Guinea's tribesmen fairly glowing. I guess it's better to have it out in the open than hidden, but it makes the work seem like a justification for his preconceptions rather than an unbiased research into the broad strokes of history.

His very compelling basic point is that when numerous small groups (tribes, etc) compete, the rate of adoption, modification, and usage of available resources will be fairly constant across any group of people. The rate is only modified by the quality of those resources and the number of people with access to them, because if one society fails to use its resources at the best rate of human invention, a competing society will force the adoption either through competition or conquest.

The problem is, and he acknowledges it in one sentence and ignores it in another, is that when societies (especially dictatorial ones) no longer feel competitive pressure, they can behave in largely unpredictable ways governed only by happenstance and psychology. He tries to explain the failures of the Aztecs and (especially) the Incas to use the wheel by describing them as "Island Cultures" since they did not have competing societies nearby. He later uses the same argument about China.

The problem is that there is a range between small tribes and enormous islands where his theory only partially applies, and where much of written history has occurred. His arguments to explain why Europe was not one big island (meaning politically unified) were not very compelling, but given the fact that Europe wasn't unified his theory does explain why the West outpaced China in the past 600 years. His troubling assertion that the fertile crescent couldn't compete with Europe in modern times merely due to resource depletion (since it had been civilized for so long) was only in passing and lacked much backing in statistics or research.

Unlike some other reviewers, I don't feel he was too hard on the West's modern conquest of the native peoples of the Pacific, the Americas, and Africa. He points out that disease made the lands empty, and that much of the pushing out of the natives was inadvertent due to the actions of people behaving just as our prehistoric ancestors did (and every other continent's ancestors did) for thousands of years. And when he chooses the words "exterminated" (in modern colonization) over "displaced" (in prehistoric colonization) he does it because he has the historical facts to back him up in one case, and only conjecture in the other, and he acknowledges the difference at least a few times.

I definitely recommend this book if you are unfamiliar with the geographical element of the prehistoric move to civilization. Just keep in mind this is a theory that by nature no longer applies, and stopped applying somewhere between 100-600 years ago as modern communication destroyed geographic separation.

interesting theory - difficult to read, February 28, 2002
In July 1972, Author Jared Diamond, was walking along
a beach on a tropic island of New Guinea, where as a
biologist he studied bird evolution. By chance, he
ran into a local politician, named Yali, who was
working to liberate what was then Papa New Guinea from
the Australia government. After hours of
conversation, Yali posed the question, "Why is it that
you white people developed so much cargo (technology)
and brought it to New Guinea, but we black people had
little cargo of our own?" Why did wealth and power
become distributed as they are now, rather than in
some other way? Diamond was troubled that he did not
have an adequate response to Yali's Question. Fast
forward 25 years -- Diamond writes a 425 page answer.

The most common explanation to this question involves
implicit or explicit assumptions based on biological
inequalities. Usually these racial explanations are
cast in some sort of Darwinian argument where
causality is often left in question. Diamond thesis
attempts to refute these theories with an alternate
theory. Relying on a combination of history,
archeology, and microbiology, and genetics, Diamond
suggests that the most striking differences between
the long-term histories of different cultures have
been due not to innate differences in peoples
themselves but to differences in their environments.
These environmental factors include: continental
differences in the wild plant and animal species
available as starting materials for domestication;
environmental factors affecting rates of diffusion and
migration; and continental differences in area or
total population sizes. Diamond believes that these
geographical inequalities set different civilizations
on pre-determined trajectories to develop political
organization, technological advancements, and immunity
to disease that allowed them to encounter and conquer
other civilizations.
A cultural historian in a past life, I get all excited
about this sort of thing.

As one can imagine, trying to explain the history of
civilization in one volume is an arduous task.
Diamond chooses to explain his theory in broad strokes
then uses natural experiments at distinct points in
history to demonstrate how his ideas play out. This
is a general problem with all meta-histories.
Historical methods teach us that it is virtually
impossible to forge a bulletproof argument without
delving into the minutia. But when focusing on the

"big picture" issues, there is just too much
information to cover. Diamond does a very good job
managing this balance. He begins by outlining his
methods and follows through on his explanation with
dedication and accomplishment. He goes into just
about the right amount of detail on every subject and
infuses the traditional historical approach with a
healthy dose of scientific discovery. The chapters
concerning the domestication of plants and large
animals are a joy to read. While speaking on the
familiar new world conquest, Diamond is balanced in
the application of his detailed examples to forward
his theories. Notably, Diamond uses Australia and the
south pacific to demonstrate the dissemination of
technology and China to discuss the application of
unified language and political entities. In fact,
with my American History background, I was more
partial to the Euro centric examples.

So what's bad about the book? One of my pet peeves
involves arguing by anecdotal evidence and I cringed
every time Diamond brought up some story about a
bushman to illustrate his point. But this was a minor
annoyance. Another problem is Diamond's paucity of
footnotes. There were several portions of prose that
I felt should have been annotated with further
discussion and evidence. I should also warn you that
this book is a little dense. Be prepared for a 20
page discussion about the cross pollination of
language. It's a good idea to remember that I've got
a degree in this stuff. Back when I was younger,
smarter, and more exciting, I used to pour through
thousands of pages of this garbage every week. Beaten
into submission by a desk job and dearth of ...
pitchers of beer, I found the last 100 pages of Guns,
Germs, and Steel difficult to get through

So if you are up for the challenge, "Guns, Germs, and
Steel" is a insightful and rewarding book. For me, it
was probably a good substitute for chasing women and
the cultural/political theories almost kept me warm at
night. All joking aside, I guarantee that this book
will change the way you think about European conquest.

Captivating, Flawed Scientific Review of Human Prehistory, July 6, 2000
Once in a while a book comes along compelling enough to bring mind altering new perspectives, spark extended contemplation, and arouse fresh interest in overlooked fields of study. This is one of those books. In Guns, Germs, and Steel Diamond investigates human prehistory from a scientific perspective drawing on numerous disciplines to develop a hypothesis that the globally unbalanced rise of civilization and technology was primarily a function of advantageous environmental conditions and resources available to those societies where civilization arose. Though the present landscape may suggest that early societies were on a relatively equal environmental playing field, Diamond's scientific review of the evidence indicates convincingly otherwise. A particularly persuasive point in the book argues that environmental conditions amenable to agriculture (mild climate, indigenous protein-rich plants, and large indigenous domestication-ready animals) facilitated a food surplus and consequently denser populations with surplus time for some members of the society to take on trades, invent, engineer, lead, develop government, heal, build, paint, etc. Innovations then fuelled more surplus time perpetuating a tornado of advancement, sparked in large part by the proverbial flapping butterfly wings of agriculture.

Diamond's book challenged my fractured knowledge of human prehistory leaving worldview shattering ideas in its wake. His book also sparked my renewed interest in geography, anthropology, archaeology, weather, and geology among others. The book's fusion of the scientific method with the study of history was quite potent and refreshing, though at times overly reductionist. As such, less scientifically reducible elements like culture and religion are not considered within his hypothesis.

At times the book did seem to forgo scientific rigor for political correctness. For example, though Diamond relies on numerous examples of relatively recent non-human elements of natural selection and genetics to build his case, he is unwilling to discuss the potential role of human biological variation created by our settling contrasting environments. Considering modern humans resided and/or began migrating to new and varied lands over 100,000 years ago, there seems sufficient time for some physiological variations to develop that may be relevant to Diamond's case. Unfortunately for this reader, anticipating a compelling argument either way, Diamond just states that environment-induced genetic variations are irrelevant to societal development (and "loathsome" to even think about) as if it were a self-evident axiom. Curiously, he challenges this axiom himself by postulating that the people of New Guinea are likely smarter than the average human considering the mental acuity necessary to survive in their harsh environment.

Overall, besides some minor disappointments, this was a spectacular book and I highly recommend it. ... Read more

Editorial Review

In this groundbreaking union of art and science, rocker-turned-neuroscientist Daniel J. Levitin explores the connection between music—its performance, its composition, how we listen to it, why we enjoy it—and the human brain. Drawing on the latest research and on musical examples ranging from Mozart to Duke Ellington to Van Halen, Levitin reveals:
• How composers produce some of the most pleasurable effects of listening to music by exploiting the way our brains make sense of the world
• Why we are so emotionally attached to the music we listened to as teenagers, whether it was Fleetwood Mac, U2, or Dr. Dre
• That practice, rather than talent, is the driving force behind musical expertise
• How those insidious little jingles (called earworms) get stuck in our heads

And, taking on prominent thinkers who argue that music is nothing more than an evolutionary accident, Levitin argues that music is fundamental to our species, perhaps even more so than language. This Is Your Brain on Music is an unprecedented, eye-opening investigation into an obsession at the heart of human nature. ... Read more

Reviews

New Appreciation of Music and of Brains, August 7, 2006
There are questions that are too big for science; are there gods, for instance, or what is love? And maybe we will never fully find out scientifically why music does what it does and why we care about it so. But for many reasons, music ought to be a profitable subject for scientific enquiry. It is, as Pythagoras knew, an activity strongly rooted in mathematics, and the physics of music is fairly well understood. It is as universal as language; all human cultures have some sort of music, indicating it does something indispensable. And we are increasingly able to figure out, with our sophisticated brain imaging gadgets, what brains do when they hear or think about music. The neuroscience of music is the area of expertise of Daniel J. Levitin, and he writes of it in _This Is Your Brain on Music: The Science of a Human Obsession_ (Dutton), a fascinating account of current music psychology. Levitin has produced a book wonderfully accessible to lay readers, since although he is an academic (he runs the Laboratory for Musical Perception, Cognition, and Expertise at McGill University), before he became a scientist, he had been a performing musician, sound engineer, and record producer, working with names like Steely Dan and Blue Oyster Cult. He does pull examples from Bach and Beethoven, but he is obviously more comfortable citing universally-known tunes like "Happy Birthday to You", "Somewhere Over the Rainbow", or "Stairway to Heaven". (Readers whose tastes range in previous epochs will possibly be surprised at the sophistication modern popular musicians have displayed.) Levitin has a good sense of humor and is a genial explainer.

He starts out with a forty page first chapter "What is Music?", which is as good a short explanation of key concepts as tone, scale, fifths, and timbre as anyone could want, and is a fine foundation for all that comes after, a collection of scientific lore and tidbits from all over. For instance, even if you are not a musician, you have a huge store of tunes in your memory. You may not have perfect pitch, the ability to know that an A flat is an A flat as soon as you hear it, but Levitin's own research has provided surprising evidence that your sense of pitch, even if you are not a musician, is really quite good. Subjects who were asked to sing a song from memory got the absolute pitch just right, or very close; they did the same with the song's tempo. There are differences in the brains of musicians and nonmusicians. The corpus callosum, the mass of fibers that connects the right brain hemisphere to the left, is larger in musicians, and is especially larger in those that started music training early. The overall lesson here, though, is that we are all musical, even if we are not musicians, and so non-expert musical brains are really very similar to expert ones. There are descriptions here of surprising research that makes clear how truly ready our brains are to incorporate musical experience. Fetuses in the last three months of gestation, for instance, can hear music within the womb, along with other outside and inside noises. Experiments have shown that if you repeatedly play a song into the womb, and then make sure the child does not hear it again after birth until it is one year old, and then play the music again, the infant will prefer hearing the womb-music rather than completely novel music. This was true whether the experimental music was Vivaldi or the Backstreet Boys.

Levitin certainly has connections; he tells of discussions with Francis Crick about themes in this book, as well as with Joni Mitchell. The final chapter, "The Music Instinct", is a response to cognitive scientist Steven Pinker, who spoke at a 1997 convention of researchers in music perception and cognition. Pinker took the dismissive stance that music was "auditory cheesecake", tickling the parts of the brain that were really for the important functions of language and (unlike language) useless as a force in human evolution. It is not surprising that Levitin and his fellow researchers disagree. Darwin himself felt that musical tones were used in conveying emotion and that those who were able to expend energy in singing or playing were demonstrating biological and sexual fitness. Musical success does make for high numbers of opportunities for spreading one's genes (just ask Mick Jagger). Interest in music peaks in adolescence, indicating a role in sexual selection. Music has been around longer than agriculture, and there is no evidence that language actually preceded music in our species. It may have promoted the cognitive development that was harnessed for speech. Only in the past few hundred years did music become a spectator activity, but in the eons when it could have shaped our social evolution, it was a group activity that may have promoted group togetherness and synchrony. It is an engaging final argument that serves to emphasize the importance of all that the book has presented before, a demonstration that looking at an important human activity in a scientific way only increases our wonder and delight in the activity itself.

Extended Wikipedia article meets self-serving autobiography, December 28, 2007
I'm a musician who's been thinking about reading this book since seeing it favorably reviewed. I read it after receiving it as a gift this Christmas, and unfortunately found it to read like an extended Wikipedia entry. Opinions and speculation are stated as facts, claims are not justified with evidence, the author frequently oversteps his expertise, and the writing is otherwise amateurish, lacking direction and leaving loose ends. It seems as though the author wrote it off the top of his head without researching his points or his examples, and a number of statements are false. Other reviewers have listed their pet gripes (some of which have been fixed in the paperback copy), here are a few of mine that haven't been mentioned (and that still exist in the paperback):

-The detailed discussion of the Haydn's Surprise Symphony theme (p92-93) is flawed at every turn: He uses the term parallelism (a term reserved for describing a particular harmonic device) incorrectly to refer to the melody. He describes the melody as going up "just a little" when what we have at that point is the *largest interval leap* anywhere in the theme. Then, "the highest note we've encountered so far" in the melody is incorrectly identified as the fifth. We have already (just two notes ago) heard the C above the G he is referring to. (The highest note is the tonic, not the fifth). Finally, the "surprise" in the Surprise symphony, is identified in the wrong place--eight measures too soon. Why so much detail about something the author hasn't researched? Not only that, but the misunderstandings lead him to bad analysis.

-In one of the book's stupidest sentences, the author claims that "A schema for Dixieland includes foot-tapping, up-tempo music, and unless the band was trying to be ironic, we would not expect there to be overlap between their repertoire and that of a funeral procession" (p117). Dixieland bands playing funeral processions is, of course, an important and well-known New Orleans tradition.

-Beethoven's Ode to Joy theme from his 9th symphony is used as an example of violating expectations (p 119). He describes that we expect the first phrase to end on "do" and we are surprised to hear it end on "re." In the second phrase we are surprised to hear it end on "do" after hearing the first phrase end on "re." Most musicians would disagree with this analysis. This phrase structure is so common, in fact, that there are terms for paired phrases such as this. (The first phrase, typically ending on a member of the dominant chord as happens here, is called the antecedent. The second phrase ending on the tonic is called the consequent. Together the pairing is called a period, or informally a call-and-response.) What is described here as Beethoven's clever violation of expectation is a very good example of the very most common phrase structure in all of music.

-Later, in describing how jazz musicians play over AABA song form (p238-239), Dr. Levitin explains that the "B" section is the "chorus." I think you'll find that by far the most common term for the B section is the *bridge,* the term "chorus" being reserved for one entire iteration of the form. He goes on to describe this as a point of confusion, but it's not if you use the usual terms. Confused himself, he also says "Some songs have a C section, called the bridge." One of his own examples, "All of Me" is ABAC. However, most musicians would say that this song has no bridge, and certainly the C section of "All of Me" cannot be considered the bridge.

I don't have the time or the space for a line-by-line critique of the entire book, but suffice it to say that my examples are not cherry-picked (rather the positive aspects in some reviews seem to be cherry picked, and some of the positive reviews are not so positive). The writing throughout the book is imprecise, inaccurate, misleading, and interspersed with nonsense. The anecdotes make up a conspicuously large portion of the book, and are conspicuously self-serving (dropping the names of rock stars and famous scientists). He has an entire chapter on meeting Crick (of the DNA-discovering pair Watson and Crick). According to the author's account, he was nervous, and had a past memory that kept him from introducing himself. What a relief to find that after finally meeting, Crick enjoyed his company and found his research fascinating! ("Crick's eyes lit up. He sat up straight in his chair. 'Music,' he said. He brushed away his lepton colleague.") On reflection, the topic of music and the brain seems less the main point of the book, and more a jumping off point for a superficial, glowing autobiography. I was disappointed.

Fascinating information on how our brain is involved in our perceptions of music, September 21, 2006
The first thing is that this is a book expressing ideas about how the human mind processes music and how the brain is involved with that processing (not HOW the brain processes it, which no one knows), rather than a book on music. While I am not obsessed by the topic, I find the exploration of the mind and brain function fascinating. My interest was piqued when my father was taken by a brain tumor and I tried to find material on the subject. I read "Phantoms in the Brain" by V. S. Ramachandran and then some articles by others in the field who claimed the mind is simply an illusion created by brain function, that our sense of consciousness and choosing is simply false.

This has always seemed wrong to me, no matter how much of our brain function occurs without our "mind" or "consciousness" being involved in any way. Being a pianist, it has seemed to me that there is no biological necessity to play Chopin. And when I sit down at the piano, I choose what to play, how to play it, and whether to learn the piece in the first place. I was amused when I read articles by Pinker and others struggling in trying to come to terms with some evolutionary reason for music. Some simply dismiss it (I think because it is so inconvenient to their models), others try and find it a way to attract mates (as this author does), others find it an accidental use of some other evolutionarily advantageous trait even though they can't quite identify what it is or was.

So, I was glad to read this book because of my interest in the brain and mind along with my passion for music. It is indeed a very interesting book that I could not put down. Daniel Levitin is a scientist whose work involves trying to understand how the mind perceives music and how that maps into the brain. It helps that he is also a musician. He worked in a commercial rock and roll band and as a record producer. Now, I am a classical musician and have a degree in music theory, so it is unsurprising that he and I view some aspects of music differently. In fact, I found some of his descriptions a bit sloppy and more simplistic than the simplification required in communicating to the general non-musician reading public. But then again, I know nothing about the technical terminology of brain function.

Just a few examples that stopped me cold. On page 31 Levitin asserts that the way we use sharps and flats is artificially complicated. He says, "there is no reason for the system to be so complicated, but it is what we are stuck with." Well, actually, there are several great reasons that have to do with the way our music system has evolved over the past eight centuries and more. There weren't keys or chords or even scales in the beginning. As soon as things would become settled in one generation a new generation would come along and stir things up because they wanted something a bit more this or a lot more that. So, the musical system adapted to accommodate the new music.

The idea of those keys and chords Levitin refers to as features of all music are really only a few hundred years old while the notions of modulation or "changing keys" is younger yet. And as he notes, non-Western music is organized more along "melodic" and "motivic" principles than our notions of functional harmony.

Some experimental music systems have been proposed over the past couple of hundred years and they have caught on about as well as Esperanto replaced English, French, or the hundreds and thousands of other natural languages and dialects. And for similar reasons. A complicated "natural" system, even with their inconvenient irregularities, will outlast a regular and tidy "artificial" system every time.

When he was discussing "keys" around page 36, he asserts that tonal prominence is given to the stated "key" through assertion by repetition. Actually, no. It is not a simple subject, but the tonal center of a major key is asserted by the combination of perfect fifths versus the one diminished fifth on the note a half step main keynote, plus the combination of major and minor thirds plus the combination of whole and half steps. When evaluated, there are a number of places in the scale that are ambiguous, but there are unique combinations that become pointers to the key center. And this is why the minor key, which the author asserts has purely cultural status (wrong), is used by composers to connote affects with more ambiguity.

C-major and a-minor (in its natural form) use exactly the same notes. When you play a-minor in its natural form you will eventually want to get to C-major (and that is why most classical piece in the minor mode modulate first to the relative major key rather than the dominant as is done in major keys). In order to make a-minor sound like a tonal center the harmonic form has a "raised" seventh scale degree (one of those pesky accidentals Levitin dislikes) so that it is a half-step below the key center (g-sharp in a-minor instead of the g-natural the key signature would call for) in order to provide a cadence as satisfying as the normal defining cadence in the major key. But this is getting too technical, and may be why the author avoided these discussions. After all, this is a book for the general reader and one must simplify things that are sometimes difficult to simplify.

Another time he uses the argot of commercial rock music in a way that would be confusing to people trained in traditional musical grammar (what is usually called music theory). At one point, he is writing fondly of the music of Joni Mitchell and her difficulty in finding a bass player who is sympathetic to and compatible with her approach to the sound of her music. Levitin recounts a conversation with Mitchell when they talked about most bass player wanting to play the roots of the chords of her music when she didn't want them to play roots, just play something that sounds good. OK. But bass lines don't always play the root note of every chord. That would be idiotic and boring. So, they do add passing tones and other "non-harmonic" tones. The problem wasn't that the bass players were so dim as to want to play only the fundamental notes of the chord (which would be boring indeed), but that they wanted defined harmonies at each moment in the piece, but Joni views her music more linearly. She can let harmonies from one chord linger into the sound of the next chord. Mitchell hears the music going from here to there and the stuff in between is a path between the departure and arrival points, but might not be a traditional triad. OK. That is fine. It is called voice leading or counterpoint. But pop musicians usually don't study that aspect of music.

It is important to note that much of music is not really analyzable without understanding voice leading. Not everything is just chord-chord-chord outside of the freshman four part chorale writing exercises. Believe me, there is no harmonic structure that Joni Mitchell is going to create that hasn't been done before, no matter how unique or personal her "sound" or timbre as Levitin likes to call it.

Anyway, it is clear that Levitin approaches music from the point of view of pleasure and the joy of sound rather than the idea of meaning because that is much harder to define let alone map in the brain. When the author is talking about the parts of the brain that are activated when listening to music, it is all quite interesting and I enjoyed it very much. He is very enamored of the idea of schema and taps into the Chomsky model of generative grammar, a model that has had tremendous descriptive power, but has been quite lacking in explanatory power.

The author uses the idea of the subtle rhythmic and pitch changes that a Frank Sinatra or other master musician uses as creating their effects because they violate some sort of schema built into our brains. It is true that we do try to impose order on anything. We want things to fit together and will stick purposes in where there isn't one. However, the kind of subtle changes Levitin describes are called expression by musicians for a reason. Just as we emphasize words and meanings in our speech or movement by stressing something by making it earlier or later than its peers, or louder or softer, or part of a pattern that is somehow different than what one would normally expect, we also do that in music. But it is noticing a difference in relation to what is around it rather than something universal. We don't feel that a piece that is 60 beats a minute is somehow fast or slow because of our brains, we hear what is IN the piece and decide if the tempo is appropriate, too fast (dense) or too slow (not much happening). We want a certain amount of activity based on our human experience of reality. If there is a lot happening in the piece we perceive it as we would perceive an activity in real life with a lot of things happening and would feel similar emotions. But again, this is too technical.

I was also fascinated when he discussed the redundant structures in the nerves going from our ears to our brain. He talks about it having a part to play in our startle reflex. However, I also wonder if loud sounds don't cause strong enough pressure waves on our skin to cause those nerves to become involved as well and from there to the spinal column. But I don't know anything about this except from my own experience at being startled.

Just one of the many interesting observations the author makes concerns the role of talent in success. He describes a study done in which young people are rated by experts as to their talent in a given field. A longitudinal study is done and an analysis of who ended up successful shows that there is a factor much more powerful than native talent. The author points out that the most important factor in success is 10,000 hours of work in that field. This corresponds deeply to my own experience.

When young people ask me what they can do to learn to play the piano, I tell them to play five million notes. I don't care which ones. After the first million they will get bored of playing with their fists, knees, nose, or whatever and by the third million they will be taking it seriously. And I suppose it would take about 10,000 hours to play that many notes. I have also taught my children that talent is a multiplier of work. So a talent of 10 that multiplies a work effort of 1 loses out to a talent of 5 that multiplies a work effort of 100 and loses by a lot.

In any case, this is a fascinating book regardless of my slight disagreements and likely misunderstandings of what the author is saying. I am sure you will find a lot to enjoy and I recommend it with enthusiasm.

How did this book get published?, June 14, 2007
pp. 28-29: "One of the several notes we call A has a frequency of 55 Hz and all other notes called A have frequencies that are two, three, four, five (or a half) times this frequency." This is simply wrong. The other notes called A are 110 Hz, 220 Hz, 440 Hz, 880 Hz - that is, you double (or halve) frequencies to produce octaves. The author claims to know music and science and yet gets this basic fact of musical science wrong?

p. 60: "Think of 'Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star,' written by Mozart when he was six years old." It was not written by Mozart, it is a French song called "Ah! vous dirai-je, Maman." Later in life (not in childhood), Mozart composed some variations on the song, as did many other composers.

I read a book to learn something new. But if I see mistakes about things I already know, how can I trust the author about things I don't know? Mistakes this elementary, moreover, raise the question of editing. Did no one with a basic competency in music read this book before it was published? Did Keith Lockhart, who surely knows the relationship between frequencies, read the book before he wrote - or signed - a blurb for it?

The Big Bang Big Band Harmonic Convergence, December 19, 2006

Half-whispered in the background, it's hard to get too far away from suspicion. The question remains: Does analyzing music scientifically take away from the aesthetic appreciation?

I had once thought of music as the ultimate proof of the glorious irrelevancy of science. But it's really no different than any other pleasure. Does learning cosmology detract from the beauty of a star filled night? Can a couple of physics lessons dull the gaping excitement of seeing a massive rainbow absorb the sky? I conquered this ambivalence personally, while lying in the sun, on a hot day, at altitude, following a final in a physics class. Everything clicked together in my head, the nuclear reaction I watch sizzling eight minutes and eighteen seconds ago, the light as waves, the heat as energy, the energy as mass, the waves as particles. It all clicked, and it was fine. We were all vibrating together in the same rich meaninglessness, and a good feeling felt good whether I purposefully conquered every little detail or it blindsided me and left my head spinning.

That's the day I got it. That science is not a static pool of knowledge. It is not a religion. It is not a method. It is a process, and a spiritual one at that. That was the day, lying there, absorbing photons and resonating passively in the hum, the Ohmmmmm. Science is as much a quest as any other system of belief. And nothing is off limits. Nothing is reduced by knowing that another layer of explanation can be sought out.

And what better subject to tackle scientifically than the beauty of music. Like consciousness, like science, music too is an arbitrary punctuation around organically transmitted, unconsciously determined, preferred patterns of influenced interactions.

So, how's the book?

Not bad. He does a nice job of illustrating the importance of music in our lives and the emotional impact music can convey. He has a nice introductory section where he defines the basic terms of music such as pitch, rhythm, tempo. It's the kind of stuff you get the first week in a music appreciation class, and Levitin does a nice job with it. He never takes his eye off the bigger questions though, for example, he opens his definition of pitch with the disclaimer: "Pitch is a purely psychological construct." He then needs an introduction to neuroscience before he can connect the two streams, discussing the hotter than ever topics of mind, brain, and consciousness. Of course, he has to throw in a little introduction to evolutionary theory as well.

The mistake armchair Anthropologists frequently fall into is taking a complicated concept, music in this case, or intelligence in other infamous cases, and reify it as if it were a single discrete thing. So let's come up with theories of selection for musicality as if it were the scientific equivalent of Mendel's wrinkled garden peas. But Levitin does a nice job of showing how different parts of the brain process different aspects of music. He gives a nice sense of the complexity involved and the parallel processing necessary between different realms of music. If you think about it, this should come as no surprise to anyone who has listened to a one-year old discover language. They can babble with the rhythms, intonations, and prosody of fluent speech well before they have the actual words. It should come as no surprise to any musician, anyone who has experienced that moment when the execution shifts from working memory to procedural memory. My favorite part of playing the piano is reaching the point where my cerebellum and basal ganglia are doing the heavy lifting. Then I can sit back and enjoy the music, like some kind of twisted grandiose self-sycophantic fan, without thinking about what I'm doing.

So formulating the question as "What evolutionary advantages were conferred on individuals who exhibit musical behaviors?" is a mental exercise. A fun and pleasantly meaningless one. Musical sensibility is much more likely an offshoot of multiple smaller functions of the brain, such as language processing, mother-infant interactions, the novelty seeking and cognitive flexibility behind creativity, or empathy, all of which individually may respond over time to certain selective forces. This does not mean, as Steven Pinker and the Blank Slaters would assert, that music is a meaningless accident. It is a part of all the systems that contribute to it, an echo of numerous other functions that comprise our humanity.

When a music lover hypothesizes that musical instincts may have been the prime factor in promoting the cognitive development of the species, it is no more a sophisticated argument than when a drug enthusiast, such as Terrance McKenna, proposes that psychedelics were the primary force behind the expansion of the human cranium. Isn't it funny? No matter how far we come, we're still story tellers creating creation myths in our own image. So my personal hypothesis: The primary force behind the evolution of human intelligence is the drive to drink Tanqueray and play backgammon while listening to Gabby La La. You heard it hear first. Evidence pending.

It is an ambitious book in its scope, especially when the conversation also needs to be liberally peppered with references to Philip Glass and John Cage, Bernstein and Bach, Sinatra and Parker. Well, you know musicians love showing off their chops. Anyway, thumbs up for a solid, thought-provoking read. You've just got to appreciate anyone who uses "mirror neurons" and "iPods" in the same sentence.

Overrated and overstuffed, January 22, 2007
This book is divided into 3 sections. Nearly half the book deals with the technical basics of what defines and characterizes music, a tedious block of chapters that could have been reduced to an enlarged glossary. The second section is the more interesting, since neuroscience and cognition is at last treated, and here Levitin discusses some new experimental information on the mysterious processes that make music a unique and emotionally powerful form of language and communication. However, it is too short and rather sketchy, and we are left thirsty for more and more detailed information. The final quarter of the book is taken up in a hodge-podge of topics, from the predilections toward certain musical tastes, to the qualities of musicianship, to evolutionary origins of music, all of which could be a book in themselves. Indeed, the several books of Joachim-Ernst Berendt are far more worthy in dealing with these various subjects. Thus, only about 1/4 of the book actually approaches the specific subject of the title, with only a couple of pages mentioning how music triggers the pleasure pathways and regions involved in addiction and obsession, aspects that bring a philosophic attribute into biochemistry. Scattered throughout the book are references to popular Western music, jazz, and classic compositions, in order to provide some reference points for the readership. World music, which has a wider spectrum of timbre, so important in his discussion, is barely scratched. In short, I was disappointed with the book as being insufficiently focused.

Could have left out 95% of the book, February 7, 2007
As a professional musician and an amateur scientist (that is, I studied science in college before pursuing music as a career), I found this book to be condescending and packed with needless and uninformative drivel. I had hoped for a detailed and fascinating book that would shed light on such curious questions as to why humans developed music, why some people are more musical than others, and why we get songs stuck in our heads so easily. I was extremely disappointed that instead of a discussion of these subjects written for an intelligent reader with a basis in either music or science, the author seemed to believe that his audience would be people who had a background in neither field--something I would think would be highly unlikely in a person taking the time to read a book with such a focus. There were far too many dull anecdotes about all the famous musicians the author had had the pleasure of meeting (perhaps he was trying to impress his non-musician readers?), and wading through the name-dropping to find the very few facts and scientific theories in the book was not terribly rewarding. I can recall approximately three interesting facts that I learned from the book, which would explain all the filler--if all he'd written were the three discoveries he'd made, the book would have been only seven pages long.

If you're interested in this book and its ideas, I suggest you find a copy that some college student was required to read and hope they underlined the three important facts for you. It will save you a lot of time.

Triviality masquerading as science, April 5, 2008
Think about earworms, you know, those tunes that you can't stop playing back in your head.

Now we'll play a little game. We'll take some ordinary English sentences but dress them up in smartypants neuroscience language. So instead of saying "in your head" you say "in your brain". And instead of saying "idea" you say "neural pathways representing a concept". You can probably make up your own rules for converting English to Neurospeak. "I have a headache" might become "a neural excitiation in my brain is causing the my pain sensors to represent pain in my cerebral area" or "I remember that book" might become "signals from my optic nerve are analysed and compared with prior stored representations of books until a match is found" and so on. Anyone can play, it's easy.

Dan Levitin knows how to play. Here's what he has to say on earworms: "Our best explanation is that the neural circuits representing a song get stuck in `playback mode'". Cute eh? But here's the weird thing. He doesn't realise this is just a game you can play with language. He thinks these are actually scientific explanations. In fact he spends 300 pages writing trivial things about music in Neurospeak, presenting it as science. It's like Moliere's joke about explaining how opium works by saying it has "soporific virtue".

It's not completely content-free however. For example he has a quote from Newton pointing out that you can't see the colour of light waves, rather that light waves are what you use to see things in colour. Bizarrely Newton made no such claim because he believed light was made of particles, not waves. The point still stands, but how did a completely fictional quote like that get through? Is it acceptable to make up quotes from scientists to make your point?

At one point Levitin tells us all about the mistake of Cartesianism - the idea that the things we sense in the world are just encoded in a new representation that some inner self can view, as if the external world is presented on an inner screen in our brains. That, of course, leads to an infinite regress. Who watches the inner screen? This is all well and good, but throughout the book Levitin describes a model of the brain that is 100% Cartesian. For example, he says that when we hear a sound, the end of the journey is a mental image of that sound. He seems to have missed the point that the philosphers he quotes, Wittgenstein and Dennett, devoted much of their lives to demolishing such a silly picture.

I did find the discussion of the roots of Joni Mitchell's chords quite interesting however, not that I like Joni Mitchell. But that saves the book from one star.

Oh, and Levitin does know a lot of famous people, if you're impressed by that sort of thing.

Words have rarely done as much for music, August 4, 2006
A good writer with a unique background, Levitin presents facts and ideas useful for musicians, ordinary music lovers, and everyone who cares about brains. His interview on NPR (Diane Rehm, Aug. 3) includes musical examples. The first chapters may be scanned by trained musicians and by those who have little interest in music theory to get to the unique material in the book.
--EJL (psychiatrist and amateur cellist)

Some Fascinating Parts, December 29, 2006
Parts of this book really blew me away. I loved reading about the reasons why certain music appeals to me, the connections that are being made in my brain and the evolutionary development of a love for music. I gained a greater appreciation for musicians in general and especially those who take risks in their composition.

I found some of the technical information hard to follow, though. I am neither a professional musician nor a professional scientist, so I found myself sometimes lost in the details of science and music contained in this book.

My other major problem with this book was that Levitin referenced so many songs, using them as examples in his writing with the assumption that the average reader would immediately be able to bring to his or her mind the song and the part to which he referred. I know most, but not all, of the songs mentioned in this book, but I often had trouble "listening" in my mind to specific musical phenomena. I found myself stopping for long periods of time in my reading, desperately trying to think of a certain tune. This book should have come with a CD of all of the music Levitin mentions; I would have found it very helpful. ... Read more

Editorial Review

The best-selling author of The Big Switch returns with an explosive look at technology’s effect on the mind.“Is Google making us stupid?” When Nicholas Carr posed that question, in a celebrated Atlantic Monthly cover story, he tapped into a well of anxiety about how the Internet is changing us. He also crystallized one of the most important debates of our time: As we enjoy the Net’s bounties, are we sacrificing our ability to read and think deeply?

Now, Carr expands his argument into the most compelling exploration of the Internet’s intellectual and cultural consequences yet published. As he describes how human thought has been shaped through the centuries by “tools of the mind”—from the alphabet to maps, to the printing press, the clock, and the computer—Carr interweaves a fascinating account of recent discoveries in neuroscience by such pioneers as Michael Merzenich and Eric Kandel. Our brains, the historical and scientific evidence reveals, change in response to our experiences. The technologies we use to find, store, and share information can literally reroute our neural pathways.

Building on the insights of thinkers from Plato to McLuhan, Carr makes a convincing case that every information technology carries an intellectual ethic—a set of assumptions about the nature of knowledge and intelligence. He explains how the printed book served to focus our attention, promoting deep and creative thought. In stark contrast, the Internet encourages the rapid, distracted sampling of small bits of information from many sources. Its ethic is that of the industrialist, an ethic of speed and efficiency, of optimized production and consumption—and now the Net is remaking us in its own image. We are becoming ever more adept at scanning and skimming, but what we are losing is our capacity for concentration, contemplation, and reflection.

Part intellectual history, part popular science, and part cultural criticism, The Shallows sparkles with memorable vignettes—Friedrich Nietzsche wrestling with a typewriter, Sigmund Freud dissecting the brains of sea creatures, Nathaniel Hawthorne contemplating the thunderous approach of a steam locomotive—even as it plumbs profound questions about the state of our modern psyche. This is a book that will forever alter the way we think about media and our minds. ... Read more

Reviews

Death by a thousand distracting cuts, June 8, 2010
In this short but informative, thought-provoking book, Nicholas Carr presents an argument I've long felt to be true on a humanist level, but supports it with considerable scientific research. In fact, he speaks as a longtime computer enthusiast, one who's come to question what he once wholeheartedly embraced ... and even now, he takes care to distinguish between the beneficial & detrimental aspects of the Internet.

The argument in question?

- Greater access to knowledge is not the same as greater knowledge.

- An ever-increasing plethora of facts & data is not the same as wisdom.

- Breadth of knowledge is not the same as depth of knowledge.

- Multitasking is not the same as complexity.

The studies that Carr presents are troubling, to say the least. From what has been gleaned to date, it's clear that the brain retains a certain amount of plasticity throughout life -- that is, it can be reshaped, and the way that we think can be reshaped, for good or for ill. Thus, if the brain is trained to respond to & take pleasure in the faster pace of the digital world, it is reshaped to favor that approach to experiencing the world as a whole. More, it comes to crave that experience, as the body increasingly craves more of anything it's trained to respond to pleasurably & positively. The more you use a drug, the more you need to sustain even the basic rush.

And where does that leave the mind shaped by deep reading? The mind that immerses itself in the universe of a book, rather than simply looking for a few key phrases & paragraphs? The mind that develops through slow, quiet contemplation, mulling over ideas in their entirety, and growing as a result? The mature mind that ponders possibilities & consequences, rather than simply going with the bright, dazzling, digital flow?

Nowhere, it seems.

Carr makes it clear that the digital world, like any other technology that undeniably makes parts of life so much easier, is here to stay. All the more reason, then, to approach it warily, suspiciously, and limit its use whenever possible, since it is so ubiquitous. "Yes, but," many will say, "everything is moving so fast that we've got to adapt to it, keep up with it!" Not unlike the Red Queen commenting that it takes all of one's energy & speed to simply remain in one place while running. But what sort of life is that? How much depth does it really have?

Because some aspects of life -- often the most meaningful & rewarding aspects -- require time & depth. Yet the digital world constantly makes us break it into discrete, interchangeable bits that hurtle us forward so rapidly & inexorably that we simply don't have time to stop & think. And before we know it, we're unwilling & even unable to think. Not in any way that allows true self-awareness in any real context.

Emerson once said (as aptly quoted by Carr), "Things are in the saddle / And ride mankind." The danger is that we'll not only willingly, even eagerly, wear those saddles, but that we'll come to desire them & buckle them on ever more tightly, until we feel naked without them. And we'll gladly pay anything to keep them there, even as we lose the capacity to wonder why we ever put them on in the first place.

Most highly recommended!

A work which merits deep reading, June 6, 2010
The Internet has made the information- universes of all of us much larger. At the same time it has altered the way we read, and the way we pay attention. The major thesis of this work is that it has made us shallower creatures. In Carr's words," We want to be interrupted, because each interruption brings us a valuable piece of information... And so we ask the Internet to keep interrupting us, in ever more and different ways. We willingly accept the loss of concentration and focus, the division of our attention and the fragmentation of our thoughts, in return for the wealth of compelling or at least diverting information we receive. Tuning out is not an option many of us would consider. (p. 133-4)" This means in effect that our powers of concentration and contemplation, if not diminished all at once, are nonetheless put less to use. It means that we do not really take in much of what we read and see, but rather let it pass by as something new comes to attract and distract us. It too means according to Carr transformations in actual brain- structure. And he uses the results of cognitive brain studies to point out how excessive use of the Internet reshapes our brain- structure.

Carr argues that with the advent of reading humanity developed a different kind of neural structure. Reading which was an extension of story- telling enabled us to begin to speak to ourselves, to contemplate reality in deeper ways. The bookman mind is a deeper mind than the electronic - mind , despite MacLuhan's contrary take.

Still one might argue that we need not be the slaves of the predominant technology. It all depends upon the will, decision, determination of the individual. The horde may decide to operate in a certain way, but one has the power to shut the machine off. Or one has the power to turn away from the Net, and focus only on one text one wants to work with. Many of us are engaged in making these decisions all the time.
Still I would say that my own experience substantiates Carr's main thesis. I have wasted in the past few years far too much time, jumping from one thing to another.
Nonetheless there is no turning back from the Revolution which Carr considers to be certainly the greatest since the introduction of the Printing press, and perhaps greatest since the introduction of the Alphabet and the Number System.

Perhaps what is truly required is a 'proper mix of both ways of 'reading and seeing' of both 'modes of being' i.e. the short- term internet attention mode, and the longer book- concentration mode. And this as I sense that when many begin to feel an exhaustion from the jumping around, come to understand it does not really help them in pursuit of their main goal, there will be some reaction in the other direction.

An important read for our current net-obsessed age, June 1, 2010
I familiarized myself with the work of Mr. Carr after I read his Does IT Matter? article for one of my graduate business classes. Since 2007, I am a regular reader of his blog, and I eagerly anticipated his previous book The Big Switch.

His latest effort is another worthwhile read with important insights into what is happening to our minds in the age of the Internet. I, myself, have struggled with the same ideas and issues described in The Shallows and found it very relevant. The book provides great examples and scientific explanations about memory, brain plasticity, and recent advances in cognitive science. Maybe some of the examples and topics from the book would be familiar to followers of his blog, but now they are laid out in such a way, that larger implication emerge from the text.

Do the costs (of the Net) really outweigh the benefits?, June 3, 2010
Rich with historical anecdotes and replete with scientific surveys and evidence, "The Shallows" is a book that demands your respect whether you are comfortable giving it or not. And many people won't be. After all, Carr is a bit of a skunk at the cyber-garden party. I mean, how dare he suggest that all is not wine and roses with our glorious new world of instantaneous connectivity, abundant information flows, and cheap (often free) media content! Obviously, most of us want to believe that all adds up to a more well-rounded worldview and greater wisdom about the world around us. Carr is skeptical of those claims and "The Shallows" is his latest effort to poke a hole in the cyber-utopian claims that sometimes pervade discussions about Internet. Although, ultimately, he doesn't quite convinced me that "The Web is a technology of forgetfulness," he has made a powerful case that its effects may not be as salubrious as many of us have assumed.

But the ultimate question is: Do the costs really outweigh the benefits? Is it the case that these technologies "turn numb the most intimate, the most human, of our natural capacities -- those for reason, perception, memory, emotion"? I think that goes a bit too far, however. Importantly, Carr doesn't really ever answer the crucial question here: Were we really better off in the decades prior to the rise of the Net? Did we really read more and engage in the more contemplative deep-reading and thinking he Carr fears we are losing because of the Net? Count me among those who think that -- whatever most of us are doing in front our our computers most nights, and no matter how distracting it is -- it has to be better than much of the crap we wasted our spare time on in the past!

It would have also been nice to have seen Carr offer up some personal suggestions for how we each might better manage cognitive overload, which can be a real problem. In a brief "digression" chapter entitled "On the Writing of This Book," Carr does mention some of the steps he took personally to make sure he could complete "The Shallows" without being driven to distraction by the Web and digital technologies. But he doesn't dwell on that much, which is a shame. A bit of a self-help can go a long way toward alleviating the worst forms of cognitive overload, although it will continue to be a struggle for many of us.

Despite the reservations I've raised here, Nick Carr's "The Shallows" is beautifully written and is my early favorite for the most important info-tech book of the year. It will be required reading in this field for many years to come. [You can find my complete review of Carr's "The Shallows" over at the Technology Liberation Front blog.]

Only the very shallow could give this book a low rating, June 9, 2010
If you truly want to know how technology (the Web in particular) is literally altering the functionality of our brains, buy this book. If not, go back to skimming webpages and pretend like nothing is happening.

Some great quotes from the book (if you still have the ability to concentrate long enough to comprehend them):

"Imagine filling a bathtub with a thimble; that's the challenge involved in transferring information from working memory into long-term memory. By regulating the velocity and intensity of information flow, media exert a strong influence on this process. When we read a book, the information faucet provides a steady drip, which we can control by the pace of our reading. Through our single-minded concentration on the text, we can transfer all or most of the information, thimbleful by thimbleful, into long-term memory and forge the rich associations essential to the creation of schemas. With the Net, we face many information faucets, all going full blast. Our little thimble overflows as we rush from one faucet to the next. We're able to transfer only a small portion of the information to long-term memory, and what we do transfer is a jumble of drops from different faucets, not a continuous, coherent stream from one source."- The Shallows (page 125)

"We can assume that the neural circuits devoted to scanning, skimming, and multitasking are expanding and strengthening while those used for reading and thinking deeply, with sustained concentration, are weakening or eroding. In 2009, researchers from Stanford University found signs that this shift may already be well underway. They gave a battery of cognitive tests to a group of heavy media multitaskers as well as a group of relatively light multitaskers. They found that heavy multitaskers were much more easily distracted by irrelevant environmental stimuli," had significantly less control over the contents of their working memory, and we in general much less able to maintain their concentration on a particular task. Whereas the infrequent multitaskers exhibited relatively strong "top-down attentional control," the habitual multitaskers showed "a greater tendency for bottom-up attentional control, " suggesting that "they are sacrificing performance on the primary task to let in other sources of information." Intensive multitaskers are suckers for irrelevancy," commented Clifford Nass, the Stanford professor who led the research. "Everything distracts them."- The Shallows (page 142)

"Considering how much easier it is to search digital text than printed text, the common assumption has been that making journals available on the net would significantly broaden the scope of scholarly research, leading to a much more diverse set of citations. But that's not at all what Evans [Sociologist of the University of Chicago] discovered. As more journals moved online, scholars actually cited fewer articles that they had before. And as old issues of printed journals were digitized and uploaded to the Web, scholars cited more recent articles with increasing frequency. A broadening of available information led as Evans described it to a "narrowing of science and scholarship." In explaining the counter intuitive findings in a 2008 `Science' article, Evans noted that automated information-filtering tools, such as search engines, tend to serve as amplifiers of popularity, quickly establishing and then continually reinforcing a consensus about what information is important and what isn't. "The ease of following hyperlinks, moreover, leads online researchers to "bypass many of the marginally related articles that print researchers" would routinely skim as they flip through the pages of a journal or book. The quicker that scholars are able to "find prevailing opinion," wrote Evans, the more likely they are "to follow it, leading to more citations referencing fewer articles." Though much less efficient than searching the Web, old-fashioned library research probably served to widen scholars horizons: "By drawing researchers through unrelated articles, print browsing and perusal may have facilitated broader comparisons and led researchers into the past." - The Shallows (page 217)

"Spending time in the park, the researchers found, "significantly improved" people's performance on the cognitive tests, indicating a substantial increase in attentiveness. Walking in the city, by contrast, led to no improvement in test results."- The Shallows (page 219)

"In sum," concluded the researches, "simple and brief interactions with nature can produce marked increases in cognitive control." Spending time in the natural world seems to be of "vital importance" to "effective cognitive functioning."- The Shallows (page 220)

Missed Opportunity, July 2, 2010
The Shallows is an expansion of Carr's 2007 article in The Atlantic, "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" The question with a book of this derivation is always: does it achieve more than the article did, or is it just a puffed up excuse to gain from the notoriety of the original piece, now freely available on the Internet? To that question, I answer that it is indeed more than the original piece. It provides much greater depth of detail for the brain science research that centrally informs the book, and he also expands on the nature and history of deep reading, in a way that I (someone who is doing research in this field) think is quite deft and responsible. In a sense, the earlier magazine article was really a book masquerading as a magazine article, whereas these days most books are magazine articles masquerading as books.

That said, The Shallows is somewhat less than the original Atlantic article in that Carr, as he approaches the end, falls into the most predictable sort of romantic nostalgia. We're becoming machines. The machines are taking our souls away. The Internet is compromising our integrity as humans. Machines are colonizing our minds. Soon they will be more interesting than we are, just like Hal in 2001: A Space Odyssey. I've heard this all before! Certainly, a man as clever and as hard-working as Nicholas Carr could have thought a little harder.

(An aside: Perhaps he's proving his point that we've already lost our ability to think deeply. Or perhaps he's DISproving his point that going to country--Carr had to "get away from it all" to write this book--helps us to be contemplative whereas cities only distract us.)

We need people who care about the things books have done for us and continue to do for us who can *also* think beyond the nineteenth century. We can't leave this to the machine people. So, I end up in the middle on this book: 3 stars. The first 80% is good but it fails to deliver a "where we go from here..." Let the good parts inspire the rest of us to take up where Carr has left off.

Beautifully written reminder that each medium has its tradeoffs, June 21, 2010
When I first came across this book I noticed that a lot of my friends on social media were expressing disgust or boredom with the thesis of "Is the Internet frying our brain?" After all, who but a curmudgeon would claim that the most vital and transformative technology of our time might have a dark side? Especially at a time when leading edge educators are working furiously to bring their field up to date by incorporating the best of the latest technology in a way that improves education. Against this background Carr's book seems reminiscent of those poor backward folks who opposed the printing press. As the brilliant and funny curmudgeon Neil Postman once said about himself, Carr is indeed playing the role of the Luddite in some ways. Still, neither Postman nor Carr were trying to dismantle the Internet or just shriek an alarm with their work. They are trying to help us understand something important. With that in mind, let's take a more careful look at this book.

The Shallows is a thoroughly and broadly researched and beautifully written polemic which I found to represent two different things. First, it is a media analysis and culture critique. Second it is a pessimistic theory about the overall effect of web media on our thinking ability over time.

The first aspect will be a delight for those interested in the evolution of human cognition, those fascinated with media effects per se, the traditionally minded book scholars, and assorted geezers. It is a very satisfying cultural media critique very much in the spirit of Marshall Macluhan and Neil Postman even though it lacks Macluhan's showmanship or Postman's remarkable ever-present humor. It was this aspect made the book a worthwhile reminder for me, introduced me to some fascinating recent cognitive science work supporting the view that different media encourage different ways of thinking, and helped tie together a number of broad ideas for me regarding the evolution of human cognition and the influence of the tools we use.

The second aspect, for the more technically psychologically minded, and the more alarmist and pessimistic part, is a clever argument for competing and mutually destructive habits of attention allocation: (1) the nimble web browsing mind that constantly reserves attention and working memory for making navigational decisions and is exposed to massive amounts of information, and (2) the sustained attention ability that we learn with great effort over time for the purpose of reading and reflective thinking.

The second aspect is the one that most of the articles and marketing have been pushing, a thesis I'll call "Help! The Internet is Frying My Brain!"

Carr argues that the nimble web mind better exploits our more natural "bottom-up" or stimulus driven attention mechanisms, which is why we find it so powerful. He also argues that the undistracted reflective mind is far less natural but has unique advantages for human cognition. So it is worth retaining, he argues, _and_ we need to keep working deliberately at it in order to retain it. That alone would be an important point. Thus far, I think the attention argument is completely consistent with the media critique, and supports it. None of this so far says that our brain is being fried by the Internet.

Now comes the trickier part, and the part of Carr's thesis that to me is most controversial, the two ways of using attention may not only compete but may actually be mutually destructive. Carr offers his own experience and that of several other serious book readers to show that they are having increasing trouble reading for prolonged periods. Carr says that there is neuroscience data showing that this may be the result of web reading rather than just advancing age or other less ominous explanations.

This "fried brain" thesis is the part that is either revolutionary, or becomes the fatal flaw in The Shallows, depending on whether or not it is true. So is it true? Does Carr persuade us that not only are we thinking differently with different media (a very strong case I think) but that the Internet is frying our brains?

Today we remember the iconic wise curmudgeon, Socrates, only through his students. That's because old Soc didn't believe in writing. It seems he was a great proponent of contemplative thought and taught that contemplation depends heavily on memory. He thought it would seriously hurt people's memory to rely too much on writing things down. His criticism seems perverse today, even as we remember Soc fondly for his deep reflection and his provocative teaching methods. That's the historical role into which Nicholas Carr has cast himself, the media critic who invokes wisdom and reflection and plays them against seemingly unstoppable cultural trends towards greater convenience, efficiency, and information distribution.

Carr is the guy who wants to warn us about the hazards of writing on our memory. About the damage that the printing press will do to culture. About how TV will change us for the worse. And now about how the Internet will shift our values, instill bad habits, hurt our reading and thinking skills, and even destroy our powers of sustained concentration.

Socrates wasn't entirely wrong even though he bucked a trend that in retrospect was downright silly to oppose. People who don't specifically practice remembering things and instead devote everything to writing do find that they have weaker memories. That's the reason for all those memory courses, the best of which essentially just teach the same methods socrates would have used. The widespread distribution of news did have negative consequences in terms of reinforcing bias and propaganda on a massive scale.

There are some adverse consequences of all the TV watching we do. However none of these things has had the dire consequences that culture critics predicted, we have adapted in turn in some way to each of them, more or less successfully.

So Carr isn't entirely wrong about the tradeoffs involved in using modern technologies. He is not a "Luddite" and he does make a number of valid points.

Carr is not telling us to dismantle the Internet. He fully recognizes the value of technology. He is rather playing Socrates to the modern students. Most people, desperately trying to keep up with the amazing new technologies and learn new ways of getting better information with them will ignore Carr's message pretty much out of hand. "Carr is the only one affected negatively by the Internet, the rest of us are thriving."

Those folks who ignore culture critics out of hand are taking for granted the skills and expertise that many people have cultivated through sheer effort using sustained concentration. They are buying into the attractive fashionable modern viewpoint that just being exposed to a lot of information via technology will make you smart. The majority of people, the ones who go along with that implicit confusion of information and personal knowledge, will indeed lose some of the things we take for granted today. I think Carr is right about that, and that is the most profound message in this book. LISTEN TO IT. Even if you think, with good reason, that it is silly to imagine that using search engines and hyperlinks will hurt your concentration.

Still, the message that the Internet will make us stupid isn't quite right. Writing didn't entirely destroy our memory, it just shifted the habits we need to cultivate to preserve it. It seems like the wisest among us will recognize the value that culture critics like Carr have always had, they will appreciate the detail and care that good media critics like Carr put into their warnings, and they will remember the real tradeoffs between different kinds of media and take responsibility for the cultivation of their own minds.

Just as wise modern students still practice the methods used by Socrates, they will still learn to read and think deeply using books or the electronic equivalent, the wisest will still turn off the TV and other distractions when sustained concentration is called for, and they will understand the difference between various conditions and different kinds of media in general and will use each to its best advantage.

So long as we aren't stupid enough to stop cultivating our individual minds regardless of technology changes, media itself will not make us stupid. Listen to Carr's message, learn it, and then apply it to your use of technology. It's easy to dismiss the claim that the Internet will somehow fry your brain. It's another matter entirely to dismiss the value of cultivating your mind through personal reflection.

Related background reading:

On the evolution of cognition and symbolic thought (and secondarily, the role of reading):
A Mind So Rare: The Evolution of Human Consciousness
The Symbolic Species: The Co-Evolution of Language and the Brain

On reading and the brain:
Reading in the Brain: The Science and Evolution of a Human Invention
Proust and the Squid: The Story and Science of the Reading Brain

On the role of tools in cognition:
Adaptive Thinking: Rationality in the Real World (Evolution and Cognition Series)

On the role of media technology in culture:
Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man
Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology

On the trend to rising IQ scores in modern times:
What Is Intelligence?: Beyond the Flynn Effect

On the practical limitations of human working memory:
Your Brain at Work: Strategies for Overcoming Distraction, Regaining Focus, and Working Smarter All Day Long
The Overflowing Brain: Information Overload and the Limits of Working Memory

Outstanding - Shallow Reviewers Prove the Point, June 20, 2010
A book whose thesis is deep reading and reflective thought prompts this review by Chance York:

"I'm 50 pages into this book and it is, by far, the WORST book I've ever read."

That someone wrote that review after reading only 50 pages of a book about book reading almost made me fall out of my chair. Chalk one up for Nick Carr and The Shallows as you this reviewer couldn't have made his point any better. As an aside, to claim this extremely well written book is the "WORST", in upper case no less, book Chance has ever read (perhaps he should say "partially read") is obvious hyperbole.

Carr's argument, whether you agree with it or not, deserves serious consideration. The book is interesting and very well written. It goes deep and if you go deep with it, you will be the better off for it. I'm still struggling with what I think about all this, but The Shallows led me into a lot of careful thought about the topic. That's the whole point after all.

Important topic, mostly well written, June 28, 2010
This is an extension of Carr's influential article "Is Google making us stupid?", and is in many ways a fascinating look at the possibility that the medium of the internet changes our ability to process information deeply. Carr is at his absolute best when he brings up the issue, pointing out what is at stake and drawing our intuitions out.

Word for word, this is not as interesting or well-written as his original article. In many places it tends to be stretched a bit thin -- which seems odd for a book on this topic. For example, since he is essentially expanding on an originally limited argument, he feels obliged to include a lot of well-worn history to expand the scope of media. We really don't need to know about Sumerian cuneiform or wax tablets or Greek philosophers (beyond the very obvious point that there is a history of media) for the argument he's making, since they don't fundamentally affect his argument.

Another weak point about the book is the writing on the brain and neuroplasticity. Since Carr is not a scientist himself, he doesn't have the background to write about this in a really authoritative way. What he has done is to work mainly off secondary (and tertiary) sources; basically taking for granted what other people have said. This shows through in a few areas where he relies too heavily on books such as Doidge's "The Brain that Changes Itself", already a pretty diluted look at neuroscience written by a psychoanalyst. If you want to know how reading and writing have changed the organization of the brain, there is a much better book out there called "Reading and the Brain" by Stanislas Dehaene. (a little digression here -- reading/writing have changed our perceptual mechanisms in the brain, while the internet is probably changing something like attentional control and executive function, so there are some important caveats to the phrase that "the medium is the message")

However, the chapter on memory was excellent, and brought me back into his argument. He makes the very important point (and one that won't be as obvious to most readers) that memory doesn't function like a hard drive; that instead it forms a central part of the way that we think. So there is a fundamental error in trying to "offload" our memory onto the web -- by not internalizing information, and instead thinking that we can just look at it later -- and one that we are probably not aware of.

Overall, I can't help but thinking that, despite his argument, it's a better world with the internet. Carr points out that the strategy that he used in writing the book was to rely on the best of both systems -- the fast internet for preliminary thinking and gathering sources, and quiet contemplation away from the internet to gather his thoughts and write the book. To have that option is something that is useful to be aware of.

The Shallows, June 23, 2010
The Shallows expands on the evolutionary notion that the digital age is, for all its advantages and benefits, contributing to a dumbing-down of the generations. The premise behind this idea is that rapid access to facts and new information may actually reduce the depth at which people consider ideas, develop arguments, construct debate, perform analytics, create concepts and engage in learning. The distractive forces of a rapid fire internet stream of data are real according to Carr and the neuro-references he cites.

One of the major challenges is distraction and the risk of training our brains to pay attention to "crap" according to neuroscientists. In addition, the author has concerns that these distractions can undermine empathy, compassion and emotion as we lose track of reality and context. Another concern is that we take on thinking as a more superficial act, and we lose touch with challenging ideas and perhaps innovation as we rely more on conventional lines of thought. This general theme has been bubbling in education circles.

While this points to a rather negative and damning view of intellectual life in the internet age, critics might suggest that digital access and engagement are in fact leading to a new culture of learning, exposure and intellectual life. One could argue the effects, pro and con, of the digital age, including those presented by Carr, as detriments to society. Opponents might argue that these effects are not universal, and in fact, they must be put into balance with the broader exposure afforded to those who have been less educated, less exposed and less engaged in intellectual life.

As with any argument on the origins of stupidity, we have to consider the balance of neurological development, educational practices, individual roles and responsibilities, expectations of society and the power of the human spirit. When we think of mindlessness or mindfulness, we are talking about knowledge and knowledge management. There is more to the equation than simply sourcing data and organizing information. In fact, the whole KM discipline speaks to the acquisition arrangement and application of knowledge, not simply searching for data. This is where "deeper smarts" have a major role.

The bigger story here may be how we guide our people to consider information, knowledge, data, perspectives and the value of content. Carr speaks to a challenge and a risk. He also opens the door for arguments about a society's value for intelligence, learning and consideration. This work touches on philosophy, neuroscience, learning models and the responsibility of a learned society. This is an especially provoking text for those in education, information technology, business analysis, planned innovation and organization development. It has broad applications for leadership and management.


... Read more

Editorial Review

A Brief History of Time, published in 1988, was a landmark volume in science writing and in world-wide acclaim and popularity, with more than 9 million copies in print globally. The original edition was on the cutting edge of what was then known about the origins and nature of the universe. But the ensuing years have seen extraordinary advances in the technology of observing both the micro- and the macrocosmic world--observations that have confirmed many of Hawking's theoretical predictions in the first edition of his book.

Now a decade later, this edition updates the chapters throughout to document those advances, and also includes an entirely new chapter on Wormholes and Time Travel and a new introduction. It make vividly clear why A Brief History of Time has transformed our view of the universe. ... Read more

Reviews

Many Different Angles, February 3, 2000
Most people know that Hawking is a brilliant physicist, but after reading this book, one develops a respect for his other talents as well. Most noticeable is Stephen Hawking's ability to make very complicated ideas seem quite clear through good explanations, clear comparisons to real life events, and a soft humor. The organization of chapers mostly follows a chronological order, which gives a sense of history from Aristotle to present day, yet also establishes concepts in an order that builds on itself. One also realizes that A Brief History of Time was written by a writer, not a scientist who happened to put ideas to paper. This makes a big difference in the enjoyment of a book, since good information in a dry, dull form can be difficult to read (remember trying to keep your eyes open while reading a dull textbook in a subject of interest?). On the other hand, interesting information presented in an interesting manner make A Brief History of Time as much of a 'page-turner' as physics can be.

In summary, a fountain of information from galaxies and black holes to quantum mechanics presented in such a way that is not only as easy to understand as it can be, but is an enjoyable experience to read.

No master of the written word, December 6, 1999
Hawking is no master of the written word. Early on, he warns us not to consult his earlier books for more detail - because they are "quite unreadable". He also admits that, during the production of this book, his editor bombarded him with comments and questions. The impact of this editorial input is plain. The book wallows from unnecessarily long complex sentences written in the passive sense to snappy anecdotes from Hawking's life.

I found the early chapters very useful as overviews of the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics. The middle chapters - on black holes and the origin of the Universe - were clearly written with enthusiasm.

However, that enthusiasm seemed to fade towards the end of the book. The chapter on the arrows of time seems to have been lifted from an old speech. Here's what I'm about to tell you: this is what I'm saying: this is what I've just told you.

Also, the explanation of the cosmological arrow of time left a lot of questions hanging. Question: What will happen when the Universe starts to contract - will people start to experience time running backwards? Answer: Intelligent life could not exist because, by then, all the stars will have burned out. Well, OK - but does that answer whether time is in reverse or not?

Chapter 10 introduces string theory. Clearly this is an incredibly complicated subject and not capable of being explained in a book entitled "Brief History". However, the way the subject is introduced and then dropped is tantalising. Apparently, string theories are only consistent if space-time has either ten or twenty-six dimensions. All these extra dimensions are curled up into space of a very small size. I, for one, would have liked more explanation of what that means.

In summary, a useful but frustrating book that varies in tone as the pages turn. I feel a better populist book would have resulted if Hawking had used a ghost writer to interpret his ideas, rather than simply submitting his own words to the scrutiny of an editor.

It's not THAT good, nor is it THAT easy to read., January 30, 2003
I don't care what anyone says, that book was not easy to get through. I have a degree in Math, and he does not give this stuff in layman's terms. Most of it, will eventually make sense if you can wrap your head around the hard to grasp principles, but he keeps adding more, and more to the theories and he will definitely lose you at some point.

Now don't get me wrong, it's obvious that we are dealing with complicated stuff, and he needs to discuss these things, but I just don't want you to think that this is an easy read. It's a necessary read, and I DO recommend you buy it, but don't think it will be easy.

Interesting but uneven and frustrating, April 4, 2003
Are the praises for this book really recognition of Hawking's accomplishments or that he achieved them despite his physical infirmities? I approached this book years ago and was swiftly and completely lost. Years passed and I found a wonderful (if dated) primer, Knowledge and Wonder by Weisskopf. My success in understanding K&W (I get quantum physics now and can easily explain it to others) convinced me to reapproach `Brief History.'

The book remains for informed insiders; perhaps not the inner circle, but definitely `you gotta know it to get it.' Hawking consistently gives very short descriptions of theories that he then refers to throughout the text, but in ways that have little to do with the aspects he defined and in fact require more complete information. For example, I was frustrated trying to use his explanation of the theory of general relativity (p 30) in re: subsequent references. Luckily, in the years between my earlier attempt and this reading, the web has burgeoned and I was able to find a more complete and yet still brief but comprehensible explanation of this theory. And oh my goodness, Hawking now made sense. Obviously the connection is clear in Hawking's mind, but it never made the transition to words on the page.

Despite all, I *did* get it. But unfortunately, rather than finishing with a desire to learn more I am just tired and glad to be done with it. I feel like I subjected myself to a badly presented lecture series.

Hawking's writing is poor. Ideas ramble, tangential information occasionally takes over so the actual subject at had gets lost, recapitulation is erratic. Some of the self-references are conspicuously self-serving. True, for a scientist it's decent, but the book's writing should not be judged by a different standard than any other writing. That's what editors are for, and apparently this book's editor was so overawed by Hawking that he forgot to do his job.

This book should not be iconized. Nor should it be touted as accessible to the layperson. The information is interesting, but you have to want it and work for it. And when you're done, what you get may not have been worth the effort you put in. It was for me, but just barely.

Now It Can Be Told: It's Overrated, January 25, 2003
Stephen Hawking became a celebrity because the image of a wheelchair-bound genius whose mind roamed free was so compelling. As the stir over him dies down, I think it will come out that this reputation-making work of his is not actually so great.

I am a smart and semi-numerate layman who loves popular science books, but I barely made it through this one. Although I have lost my copy, I recall that Hawking uses at least one important term without defining it, and at other times leaves you to connect the dots on your own in a frustrating, rather than stimulating, way.

Hawking's area is cosmology. I'm not sure who else to recommend to cover the same territory, although Kip Thorne has a good reputation (and a bet with Hawking over some cosmological hypothesis--probably decided by now--with the wager a subscription to Penthouse). If you enjoy physics books in general, I recommend Brian Greene's The Elegant Universe, and if you enjoy popular science in general, I recommend my all-time favorite popular science book, Steven Pinker's How The Mind Works.

Hawking is an Overrated Physicist/Writer, March 24, 2005
Hawking's story makes him a media favorite. The press (who know minimal physics if any) have for years given him the title "Greatest Physicist Since Einstein". He is an excellent physicist and a decent teacher but he is nowhere near being in the same league as Einstein, Newton or Maxwell. Paul Dirac and Richard Feynman are arguably the two most distinguished 20th Century physicists after Einstein. Ed Witten may be the most distinguished living physicist.

Richard Feynman (through his lectures transcribed on audiocassette/text formats and books) is perhaps physics's greatest teacher for the layperson and expert alike. Feynman had an unmatched knack for explaining high level physics in an original way. His "Lectures on Physics" is a classic and should be on the bookshelves of all physicists. Feynman's QED is the best non-mathematical description of quantum mechanics ever (QED stands for quantum electrodynamics, for which Feynman shared the Nobel Prize). His book, The Character of Physical Law, covers much of the same material as Brief History but is much clearer and more insightful. You won't have to unlearn anything from Feynman's books even if you decide to pursue a PhD in physics. I cannot say the same for Hawking's books. Read reviews on these and Feynman's other works. Also, Feynman lived an inspirational and incredibly rich life. He had the brains of Einstein, the showmanship of a performer (which made him a great teacher) and just a great love and wonder for life in general. Read reviews on "Surely You're Joking, Mr Feynman" and "Genius: The Life and Science of Richard Feynman" for more details. You won't regret it.

For those who want to read about what many physicists view as the best candidate for a "theory of everything", read The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene. Hyperspace by Michio Kaku is another great book of the same vane. For those interested in a complete description of physical law, read the Road To Reality by Roger Penrose.

Reading physics makes me go something something..., October 20, 2001
This book brings physics to the understanding of the average women and man. It's basically a survey's course on Einstein's relativity and quantum physics with a little black hole and big bang here and there. The real magic of this book is the author himself--reading from a man of his scientific stature, the enigmatic genus in the wheelchair feels more life-like rather than a caricature on a Simpson's episode. I really dug the part how we can speculate that the universe is presently expanding and not contracting. I liked how it made me muse on time and the life that we see today would differ if the universe was headed back to its origin. The book does leave me with a sense of wanting to more, which was good because I went on to read Brian Greene's "The Elegant Universe" afterwards. "The Elegant Universe" proved to be more elucidating in explaining Einstein's relativity and quantum physics, and goes into a bit of a breadth in black holes and big bangs (in the frame work of string theory). It is true that the book is the successor to "A Brief History of Time", but I feel Brian Greene's book lacks the charm that Hawking has put into his (or the charm that we put into it). At any rate, both very good books for the novice at mind.

Pithy, packed with info, December 11, 2000
I am the quintessential sophmore in high school. I even live up to the greek meaning: "wise-fool"; I am the kid who lacks the intelligence to be a "nerd" but wishes he had the capacity to be one. I eagerly pick up books that are far over my head, but this book was different. A Brief history of Time presents an intricate topic generally for the simplistic, non astro-rocket scientist type. Hawking didn't gorge his book with alien equations and twenty letter words. Hawking didn't intend this book to be read by Ph.D's in physics, intending instead to write it for laymen, sophmores, like me. The book isn't intended to enable the reader to write disquisitions on wormholes after reading it; however, it is a primer. It acquaints the reader with the subject It is written succiently and the only reason I am giving it four stars is because I am still skeptical that for some readers it may be superficial. But heck for us sophmores it is enough information to at least appear smart... So what do you think about the Space-Time Continuim?

Excellent Popular Work on Complex Subject .. But Uninspiring, January 17, 1999
I must be the only person who finds Stephen Hawking uninspiring. I give the man credit for his ability to reach out across the science boundary and touch the mind of the average person. And he no doubt is qualified to discuss the subject of the book. Perhaps I expected too much given all the praise that people have showered upon Hawking's popular books. Whatever the reason, I found the book to be adequate at best. There was nothing truly inspiring or enlightening that energized my scientific curiosity. However, I'm willing to give Hawking credit for his ability to speak the language of the common man in order to convey complex scientific concepts. There are few scientists that can do this and even fewer who write popular works. For this reason, I give Hawking 4 stars, whereas I would have only given him 3 from my own personal impressions.

A great theoretical physicist shows that he is also a great writer, January 11, 2007
Universally hailed as the greatest theoretical physicist since Einstein, Dr. Hawking serves as both an intellectual and physical inspiration. His disability - Lou Gehrig's disease- serves to make his every endeavor a slow and tedious affair, and yet his professional output remains very high, both in quality and quantity. This book is no exception.
Written at the level of the layperson, it is clear, concise, and through. As the title suggests, he begins with the origin of the universe and progresses through the theoretical foundation for, and the evidence in favor of, the existence of black holes. Of particular interest is his thermodynamic analysis of black holes, showing that they too, obey the second law of thermodynamics. Combining the ideas of general relatively and quantum mechanics, he was able to show that a black hole is really not totally black; it does leak radiation at a rate inversely proportional to its mass. This debunking of the supposed "final fate of matter" once again shows that the universe "is stranger than we can possibly imagine."
The only sad note occurs in the acknowledgements when Dr. Hawking explains the lack of equations by stating that every equation that appears in a book will cut its sales in half. This is an unfortunate comment on the degree of intellectual sophistication of the reading public.

Published in School Science and Mathematics, reprinted with permission.
... Read more

Editorial Review

The bestselling author of Zero shows how mathematical misinformation pervades-and shapes-our daily lives.

According to MSNBC, having a child makes you stupid. You actually lose IQ points. Good Morning America has announced that natural blondes will be extinct within two hundred years. Pundits estimated that there were more than a million demonstrators at a tea party rally in Washington, D.C., even though roughly sixty thousand were there. Numbers have peculiar powers-they can disarm skeptics, befuddle journalists, and hoodwink the public into believing almost anything.

"Proofiness," as Charles Seife explains in this eye-opening book, is the art of using pure mathematics for impure ends, and he reminds readers that bad mathematics has a dark side. It is used to bring down beloved government officials and to appoint undeserving ones (both Democratic and Republican), to convict the innocent and acquit the guilty, to ruin our economy, and to fix the outcomes of future elections. This penetrating look at the intersection of math and society will appeal to readers of Freakonomics and the books of Malcolm Gladwell. ... Read more

Editorial Review

"A glorious book . . . A spirited defense of science . . . From the first page to the last, this book is a manifesto for clear thought."

�*Los Angeles Times

"POWERFUL . . . A stirring defense of informed rationality. . . Rich in surprising information and beautiful writing."

�*The Washington Post Book World

How can we make intelligent decisions about our increasingly technology-driven lives if we don't understand the difference between the myths of pseudoscience and the testable hypotheses of science? Pulitzer Prize-winning author and distinguished astronomer Carl Sagan argues that scientific thinking is critical not only to the pursuit of truth but to the very well-being of our democratic institutions.

Casting a wide net through history and culture, Sagan examines and authoritatively debunks such celebrated fallacies of the past as witchcraft, faith healing, demons, and UFOs. And yet, disturbingly, in today's so-called information age, pseudoscience is burgeoning with stories of alien abduction, channeling past lives, and communal hallucinations commanding growing attention and respect. As Sagan demonstrates with lucid eloquence, the siren song of unreason is not just a cultural wrong turn but a dangerous plunge into darkness that threatens our most basic freedoms.

"COMPELLING."

�*USA Today

"A clear vision of what good science means and why it makes a difference. . . . A testimonial to the power of science and a warning of the dangers of unrestrained credulity."

�*The Sciences

"PASSIONATE."

�*San Francisco Examiner-Chronicle

... Read more

Reviews

A Candle in the Dark, July 2, 2004
Demons, UFO's, the Loch Ness Monster, Big Foot, fairies and the like are all investigated in this incredible non-fiction book by the late Carl Sagan. Pseudoscience, and those who perpetuate it, find their place in today's society among those who want to believe in the impossible. In fact, Sagan too admits that he would love to find life on other planets, among other things (he was, after all, an advocate of SETI, the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence). However, science today has not been able to prove that such things exist. As the book states, "the siren song of unreason is not just a cultural wrong but a dangerous plunge into darkness that threatens our most basic freedoms."

This book challenges the reader to critically scrutinize information professed by supposed experts, and be more of a skeptic. Sagan states early on in the book that "some 95 percent of Americans are scientifically illiterate." By using the scientific method combined with a little bit of logic and common sense, one should find that it is much more difficult to be mentally taken advantage of by pseudoscience "experts." Intelligent inquiry and analysis of information presented, and those presenting it, proves to be an invaluable tool.

Nonetheless, stories regarding crop circles, area 51, and other such nonsense still abound. Sagan runs through various examples and places them under the hypothetical microscope. Once examined more closely, most of these theories and fallacious postulations crumble quite easily. What some people don't realize, and what Sagan points out, is that things just as mysterious and awe-inspiring can be found all around us, and they are indeed factual and are being investigated by those in science fields. We need not look elsewhere to find mysticism and intrigue. People are still trying to completely understand viruses and the molecular building blocks in gas in space, and if people were equally as drawn to understand real phenomena as they are fallacious theories, then more people would be working to unravel the true mysteries that are much more worthy of our efforts.

I truly feel that this is a book everyone should read. Not only does Sagan do an excellent job of attempting to popularize science, but he also tries to teach people how to think for themselves rather than to be force-fed information from less-than-trustworthy sources. The demons in this demon haunted world are both those who perpetuate such celebrated fallacies, as well as those who believe them without question. Sagan attempts to teach, in this book, how to distinguish "real science from the cheap imitation." Indeed, he does just that.

Sagan took the road less travelled......, April 1, 2000
One word: OUTSTANDING.

I read this book over two nights, couldn't put it down, and afterwards was eagerly searching for more of the same. Science at it's best-accurate, timely, well-argued, emotionally and mentally invigorating, spiritually uplifting; and filled with boundless enthusiasm and hope. Like the author, Carl Sagan himself.

This book describes the 'scientific journey'. Alternately curious, cautious, inquiring, uplifting, compassionate, humane, warning, discovering and fulfilling. Topics include UFOs, alien abductions, witches, religion-both good and bad, Roswell, frauds, scientific genuises, skeptical thinking, wishful thinking, deceptive thinking, balanced thinking, belief, superstition, astrology, ESP, myth, and the like; and the role and place of science and scientific inquiry in all of this. For those who think science "destroys" spirituality-does not scientific inquiry with its' abundant curiosity and courageous endeavour accurately describe a spiritual journey to find the truth? Sagan contends, with great clarity and enthusiasm, that it assuredly does. It's just that this scientific journey is not an easy one, neither for the individual, nor humanity, by any means. But when has the attempt to find "truth" and "light" in this complex world of ours, ever been easy? Sagan argues that science and the scientific method is a noble and enlightening endeavour, an unquenchable candle, lit by the human yearning for truth, and able to steer humanity towards truth and goodwill in a world of mists, shadowy truths, and darkness.

For those who wish to open their minds to science and what it has to say about much that goes in this beautiful, yet sometimes dark world of ours, this is the book for you.

This great book (Sagan's last) is a fitting testament to a great man of science. Sagan, who passed away recently, was one of the great communicators of science, and this book is considered by many to be his best.

Reading it was something I'll always cherish.

I wish I could give it Billions Upon Billions of stars!, September 26, 2005
I realize it doesn't make me a cool guy to gush over a scientist, but I can't help it. I love Carl Sagan! I love Carl Sagan's writings. He has that unique combination of both a brilliant mind and the ability to communicate complicated ideas in a simple, straightforward manner. He can write about complicated scientific topics in a way that conveys the beauty and wonder, but doesn't overwhelm or confuse. He can also write about more humanistic topics, such as abortion, politics, and facing his own death.

In Demon Haunted World, he writes about science, about what science is and what science isn't. Whenever you get in debates with religious types, or with those self-appointed geniuses, the philosophy majors, they will always hit you with the fact that science is just another belief system, just like any religion or philosophy. They will tell you science can't answer all the questions and is often wrong. Of course that is true, if you look at science strictly as a body of knowledge. But that is not what science really is. Science is a process. It is a way of approaching the world, a way of formulating and testing hypotheses. If it is just another belief system, then it is a belief system that grows by virtue of challenging its adherents to challenge and disprove the current state of knowledge. It's the only belief system where you have to be a skeptic to be a zealot.

Debunking myths is part of the fun of this book, but an even important aspect to it is investigating how the human mind works and why we are drawn to myths and magical explanations for things in the first place. After all, I get the thrill of pseudoscience, it's fun stuff to believe. But if presented correctly, the truth can be just as thrilling.

Demon Haunted World should be required reading for any first year college student. It is astonishing how many people get through four or five years of higher education without having developed the ability to think critically.

The lack of critical thinking in this country has real consequences. It is the reason that the anchormen on the national news can't convey a story about a scientific or medical topic in a meaningful way. It's the reason that you meet well-educated parents these days who are more concerned about side effects from vaccinations than about the lethal diseases being vaccinated against. It's the reason that parents believe treating their children's depression is more likely to lead to suicide than leaving it untreated. It's the reason the majority of voters in this country voted to elect a President who openly confesses to having a concrete interpretation of the world. Think about that for a second. We have come to the point where adults fail to recognize that seeing things in black and white, all good versus all evil, is a sign of stunted emotional and intellectual development, not a skill to be bragged about. We live in a time when the media tells us that being balanced means presenting peoples opinions from both sides of the political spectrum, as opposed to challenging the statements from an evidence-based, rational perspective.

I love Carl Sagan, I highly recommend this book, and I highly recommend all of his writings.

The final statement of a great man, December 29, 1999
In an age where we are surrounded by psychic hotlines and alien abduction stories, the vast majority of the population is consistently fooled into believing the most absurd of notions. As Sagan beautifully demonstrates, this is not because of our collective intelligence, but a part of human nature. _The Demon-Haunted World_ is easily one of the most important books of this century. High school students should read this book to graduate, at least a little exposure to sense will be advantageous to our growing society. Faces on Mars, aliens, faith healers, and various other practitioners of pseudoscience swirl around us in a pool of credulism and blind faith in the most absurd of Golden Calves. Sagan brings the razor of reason to the face of fallacy and superstition and cuts off delusion and myopic belief. There is perhaps no other person who could have exposed this seldom seen part of the human being. Carl Sagan, the man who loved science so much that he felt in his heart the desire to sing it to the rest of the world, deserves the highest recognition for his accomplishments. I can think of no better than to have _The Demon-Haunted World_ shown to the whole of the world.

Skeptic's Bible, November 16, 2001
Surely no semi-aware person in this unfortunate age of television dumbing down, condescending school textbooks, and widespread ignorance and gullibility fails to note the danger that is inherent in society due to a lack of rational thinking, healthy skepticism, and application of the scientific method among the common folk. This book is a plea to those people, and a "how-to" educate guide to those who do realize and want to do something about it. Perhaps the most interesting chapter in this well-rounded book is "The Fine Art of Baloney Detection" in which Sagan demonstrates a "Baloney Detection Kit" listing the checklist for determining whether or not a particular assertion (whether scientific or not) is Gospel. Conversely, he also wisely offers the companion kit, what NOT to do. Among the other interesting things in this book are convincingly argued debunkings of such annoying to rationalist topics as UFO abductions, astrology, faith healing, chanelling, and their indiscernable ilk. Sagan consistently brings up parallel cases from olden times, i.e. witchcraft mania and demo xenophobia, that show that such fears and paranoia have always been around in different forms. This goes a long way towards exposing them for being fraudelent. Sagan also expounds here his views on such subjects as religion (a very rational argument on their scientific insignifigance, while also pointing out its virtues: a balanced view that should open many eyes, without, perhaps, offending the faithful), public education (corollaried with an abundance of letters Sagan has received from readers on the subject, many of them eye-opening), and politics; many of which I agree with, all of which I can respect. This is a very enlightening and useful book, and an elegant manifesto for the useful application of the scientific method and skeptical and rational thinking in our modern world. It's a shame that Sagan is no longer around to parlay such truth to our all-too-ignorant public. Still, the incredible works that he left behind, including this indispensable book, can still enligten us and perhaps make our world that much better for whatever dose of rationality it can inject into our "demon-haunted", close-minded society: science as a "candle in the dark" indeed.

Life changing book, January 24, 2000
Many are turned off by science since they find it to be cold, desenchanting or even a bit nihilistic. With a clever sense of humor and easy-to read writting style, Sagan proves that science can be an awe-inspiring spiritual experience, when we are confronted with the immense complexity of nature and our universe. He reminds us how to be a good skeptic: one who is open minded to new information, but will only believe after receiving proof. (Which consists of much more than anecdotal evidence )As Sagan states "I believe that the extraordinary should be pursued. But extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." He urges everyone to think skeptically and to express our opinions while being respectfull of others' beliefs. Unfortunately those who would benefit from more skepticism are the ones less likely to pick up this book. It takes courage to abandon the comforts of an "all-loving" ever present god, immortality, and belief in psychic powers in exchange for the truth. However, Sagan shows us how science has greatly improved the quality of life throughout history, and how the systematic search for truth can be more rewarding than blinded-faith. We should be open minded("Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence") without being gullible. And we must remember how "wishfull thinking" does not make something true.

The Best Spent $14.95 In My Life, February 14, 2005
Ok. To keep this as short and simple as I can:
My buddy kept ranting and raving about this book almost in the same way that I am about to convey in this brief recommendation. For months he told me I should pick it up. He's been pedaling it to everyone he considereds close to him, or merely to those who have even a vague interest in science or comprehension of the world around them.
I'm 20 years old. A sophmore in college. In a reflection to how much I THINK I know, or knew rather, I have come to discover just how insignificant my "knowledge" is.

To be blunt: This book is as much an exceptionally incredible gift as it is a curse to self reflection, rational thought, and sketicism.
I've been tortured by the countless internal monologues, views, and arguments spawning from numerous points the author presents in this text. You can't help but think about how it pertains to YOU. What do you think? What do I think?
I think where I am now, or where I was more specifically, is nowhere near where I want to be.

I'm not even into science. I'm a history major. It doesn't matter.You cannot read this book from cover to cover, without getting caught up in Sagan's passion. It's not just about science. It's not just about philosophy. Or knowledge. Or history.

His opinion may vary from yours. In fact, it probably will. He may present views or arguments you choose not to acknowledge or agree with. Once again, it doesn't matter. It is precisely these elements that continually compell me to learn more about who I am and what I think of the world around me.

If I had to choose one book for any of my friends to read from start to finish, this would be the one. So I guess now it's my turn to start pedaling this book to others who might want to enlighten themselves.
And I guess this is my way of doing it.
You're already here. What more do you need to know?

Required Reading for School Boards, March 28, 2002
This was one of the late Carl Sagan's last books, and it is certainly one his most important. We live in a credulous society, a culture that seems to be incapable of critical thinking. That's an extremely dangerous situation. When a majority of U.S. citizens believe in astrology; when a voter can read a newspaper expose' on dial up fortune-telling scams and then dial a 900 number in order to decide what to do; well, it doesn't bode well for our country.

To some extent, Sagan oversold himself in the late 1980's and early 1990's. His eager sincerity was even parodied - "billyuns and billyuns - but he was an engaging science writer and popularizer. In this book he stepped a bit outside of that usual role, and made some critical and important points about our culture. No thoughtful citizen can read this book, look around and fail to be concerned.

I'd make this book required reading, not for students, but for school board members and teachers. If the average citizen is credulous to the point of embarrassment - and that's pretty clearly the case - the solution has to involve the educational system, and especially those in charge. We are not teaching our citizens and future citizens to think critically. In Sagan's phrase, "Extravagant claims require extravagant evidence." For better or worse, the life of the world is logic, and the ability to reason is as important as the ability to read and the ability to do arithmetic. And if you think it's not a problem, you need to read this book, or just attend the public comments portion of a school board meeting, or read the letters to the editor in your newspaper.

You should read this book. You should act on the message of this book. Not just because it is a thoughtful, entertaining treatment of an important issue. But because that issue hasn't gone away; and it seems to be getting worse.

Sagan Sounds a Warning, November 27, 2001
The underlying message of Carl Sagan's "The Demon Haunted World" is twofold. First, that we are becoming an increasingly scientifically illeterate society, and second, that our ignorance of science is a threat not only to the security of our future, but to the freedoms we all enjoy. Sagan spends much of the book debunking so-called psuedo-science (alien abductions, psycotherapy, astrology, etc). He also makes the point that America is doing a very poor job educating its young about the wonders of science. Sagan also castigates the media for not exercising more scepticism in scientific reporting, and, indeed, mostly ignoring hard science altogether.

The book itself is a bit disjointed, with several chapters deriving from expanded magazine articles. Additionally, Sagan pontificates about political issues, and reveals a leftist political bent. He also has a tendancy at times to overemphasize his point. Nevertheless, he has some important points to make, and as a society we would be better off if we paid close attention to many of the issues he raises.

A MUST READ, January 1, 2004
As a science student at university I bought this book expecting it to confirm and perhaps broaden my understanding of sceptical thinking, and how too many people do not employ it. Something that I have found frustrating on many an occasion. I was delighted to find that this book was gave me a terrific insight into why sceptical thinking and science should be employed in every possible way. And how failing to do so can result in the direst consequences.

Sagan devotes much of the first part of the book to the current fad of alien abduction. This is something that becomes a bit drawn out and boring and in my opinion the only flaw of this book. He does so comparing the many similarities to the role of demons in centuries past. He describes one example of how when scepticism is not used people will devise the most wild and unjust thinking which leads such ordeals as witch hunts.

He makes the case that in today's increasingly scientifically dependant western society, people, especially Americans, are abandoning scepticism. Few politicians understand science, and the applicability of it's philosophies. Furthermore the general public is becoming increasingly scientifically illiterate. If this trend continues we could easily slip into another `dark age' of witch hunts.

This book is one of those rare books that I would insist that everyone reads. Far too few people understand that to abandon scepticism, relying upon blind faith and assertions, is to close ones eyes, and abandon all hope of understanding the truth. Demon haunted world is truly a masterpiece. I found it completely engaging, and full of most valuable insights. Demon Haunted world will light the darkness for anyone that reads it. ... Read more

Editorial Review

The Age of Wonder is a colorful and utterly absorbing history of the men and women whose discoveries and inventions at the end of the eighteenth century gave birth to the Romantic Age of Science. 

When young Joseph Banks stepped onto a Tahitian beach in 1769, he hoped to discover Paradise. Inspired by the scientific ferment sweeping through Britain, the botanist had sailed with Captain Cook in search of new worlds. Other voyages of discovery—astronomical, chemical, poetical, philosophical—swiftly follow in Richard Holmes's thrilling evocation of the second scientific revolution. Through the lives of William Herschel and his sister Caroline, who forever changed the public conception of the solar system; of Humphry Davy, whose near-suicidal gas experiments revolutionized chemistry; and of the great Romantic writers, from Mary Shelley to Coleridge and Keats, who were inspired by the scientific breakthroughs of their day, Holmes brings to life the era in which we first realized both the awe-inspiring and the frightening possibilities of science—an era whose consequences are with us still. ... Read more

Reviews

Just Before the Golden Age of Victorian Science, September 8, 2009
I have found the history of British science to be one of the best ways to study the intellectual history of the 19th century. This book, which focuses upon the period between Captain Cook's first voyage in 1768 and Darwin's Beagle journey in 1831,takes the story of British science back a bit earlier, and explains some of the important precursor developments to the later dazzling Victorian period. If that was all it did, that would be plenty for the author has written a fine scientific history. But the book is far richer than even this accomplishment for it seeks to establish ties between science and the British Romantics, surprisingly demonstrating that not only did Romantic poets and painters not run away from science, some of them embraced and even engaged in it. Along the way, the profession of scientific researcher emerged as well as some of our basic ideas about scientific progress.

The narrative is built around a series of significant individuals, for whom the author creates scientific biographies. The first is Joseph Banks (1743-1820) who became the godfather of British science during this period from his post as President of the Royal Society. One of the major sciences that underwent development during this period was astronomy; several chapters are devoted to the pathbreaking work of William Herschel (who discovered Uranus) and his sister Carolyn who pioneered new developments and telescopic designs. In the process their work turned the attention of artists to the skies and the evolutin of universe. A chapter catches the excitement of early balloonists and the Romantic wake they left behind as they explored the skies. Exploration was anordsother feature of the period, and was encouraged by Banks who had been on Cook's first voyage to the South Pacific. Mungo Park (1771-1806) anchors a chapter on this, and his tragic disappearance (as well as many other African explorers) reminds us how overwhelming a challenge African exploration presented during this period. Chemistry was another of the major sciences that took off during this period, as demonstrated in the fascinating activities of Humphry Davy (1778-1829), who pioneered in studying gases, electro-chemical analysis, agricultural chemistry, and became a great popularizer of scientific developments. The author frequently links up scientific developments with poetry, with Coleridge, Wordsworth, Keats, Byron, and Tennyson all making appearances, some supportive others not, and with painters whose portrayals of balloons and scientific breakthroughs conveyed the excitement of the period. Davy himself wrote poetry which he recorded in his lab books along with experimental data.

Many of these scientific developments seemed to challenge traditional religious views and raised new philosophical issues. I found the discussion of "Dr Frankenstein and the Soul" highly interesting. The "Vitalism debate" of 1816-22 centered on the issue of whether there was a life force at work, despite scientific scepticism. Naturphilosohie, a form of scientific mysticism, arose to challenge materialistic interpretations of life. The author does a fine job in explaining how Mary Shelley's novel pictured scientists as being potentially dangerous and raised fundamental issues about the human soul. By the 1830's the British Association for the Advancement of Science is launched and we are on the cusp of the "golden age of Victorian science."

The author seems equally at home in science or poetry and art, having written extensively on Coleridge. The book includes a large number of breathtaking color plates which help the reader grasp what the narrative is discussing. The research is impeccable, with 27 pages of notes, a 12-page cast list of mini-biographies of anyone mentioned in the text, and an 11-page bibliography broken down by topic. Poetry is not my thing. Nonetheless, i found this book to be incredibly rich in ideas and perceptive analysis. A rare bird to be sure.

Wonderful Age of Wonder, August 5, 2009
This is a marvelous book, depicting an era where scientific work was far different than it is now. One did not need years of training or huge government investment to make a major discovery back then, but rather hard work and ingenuity. As an example, an amateur like William Hershel, a composer and instrument-maker could become the greatest astronomer of his generation. What's more, the discoveries were intelligible to all educated men of the time and could affect the arts, as we see from scientific comments of writers such as Samuel Johnson, Coleridge, Keats, Shelley. Who would ever have known that the author of the RIME OF THE ANCIENT MARINER also coined the word "psychosomatic" and may have coined the word "scientist"? The writer of this book did.

The title is a misnomer, December 27, 2009
I always feel bad when I disagree with those glowing reviews. But in this case, it's warranted.

This is a fine book, well worth reading. It just isn't that groundbreaking, or novel. It does not come close to paying off the elegant title.

Holmes may be an expert on Romantic era poetry, and he has obviously learned a lot about the lives of Banks, Faraday, et al. But he falls short, far short of linking the philosophy of the Romantics to the science of the day. There is no consideration of the "beauty and terror of science." A few pages are given over to Mary W. Shelley's creation of Frankenstein's monster, but no connection is forged between the piece of fiction and the terror of science.

All that being said, I am glad I read it, and would recommend it to anyone who enjoys reading superficial biographies of great minds.

Romantic science?, September 1, 2009
What's Romantic science? Fear not, there's no discussion of the particularity, it's just science.
Richard Holmes is a celebrated biographer of the romantic poets. Here he turns his attention to the scientific geniuses of the age. Beautifully written as ever, it is only when you finish the book that you'll start to have doubts.
Was Astronomer Royal Maskelyne as fluffy a bunny as here he appears? (in Dava Sobel's viewLongitude: The True Story of a Lone Genius Who Solved the Greatest Scientific Problem of His Time he was the very picture of the selfish machiavellian bureaucrat)
Why is there a long chapter on (mostly French) ballooning which even Holmes (nice pun) describes as "something of a scientific cul-de-sac"?
Why is Shelley so prominent? He never met any of the principals of this book (Banks, Herschel, Davy).
Is the selection of scientific geniuses a bit skewed? Nothing about medicine, little about geology, metallurgy, biology - and as for practical progress based on science like manufacturing and engineering, forget about it.
Do Davy's poems merit pages and pages? Might we not appreciate some laboratory notes?
The illustrations are nice, but why so many poets, especially the standard views of them?
This book on reflection seems to be a bit of a grab bag of discards from the author's researches in the romantic age. To be fair, Holmes has mastered the science as it appeared then. He could probably even explain the nuances of the phlogiston / oxygen debate. But he has not written a comprehensive history of Romantic science. He has written well, though. You'll enjoy this book.

A great book by an eloquent biographer, July 27, 2009
The Romantic era is indeed an age of wonder, when science was fun and close to punk rock. Holmes' 500 page account brings all these stories of discovery to life with sweet details. It does not take a historian or a scholar of Romanticism to see the beauty of this book and the message it conveys. Through a series of connected biographical accounts, or what the author calls "a relay race of scientific stories," readers are taken on a kaleidoscope tour of one breakthrough after another. There are more to the era than such household names as Newton and Descartes.

what a wonderful book, August 22, 2009
Brilliant job--a great topic, excellent writing, everything you want in a book. Don't be set off by the length. It is an easy read.

I am fascinated by the history of science and technology. This book is a must for those interested in a broad overview of the time period covered. Davy, those wonderful and crazy fellows with air balloons, the voyages to the Pacific to explore....and so on. A real delight is how the author eemplifies what CP Snow alluded to as two cultures---science and the humanities. In this book they find one another. There's even some hints of sex...scientists and sex--what a tease!

Just as important as its relevancy is the writing. This is a gifted author. His writing flows effortless, it is punctuated with pithy observations (e.g., the author must have had a great time visiting the homes and neighborhoods of many of the main characters--how poignant that most are still there but not even celebrated for what happened there).

The book made me wish that we might still have individual greatness in the sciences, that we had something akin to a singular scientific academy like the one that existed in those days. Perhaps a hundred years from now humans will be able to recognize, like this author, the important social, literary, and scientific currents that flow through today. I hope so.

Chronicling the transition from natural philosophy to science, November 28, 2009
I loved this book. For me it captured some sense of the transition from "natural philosophy" (thinking about and speculating about nature) to science (making careful observations and weaving those observations into theories of nature). I loved how Richard Holmes brought some of the people involved in this transition to life. The role of Joseph Banks, the relationship between William and Caroline and John Herschel and many, many more delightful insights into the people who influenced the transition to scientific thought.

Here's a quote from John Herschel in the book that to me captures some of the sense of the Age of Wonder:

"To the natural philosopher there is no natural object unimportant or trifling...A mind that has once imbibed a taste for scientific enquiry has within itself an inexhaustible source of pure and exciting contemplations. One would think that Shakespeare had such a mind in view when he describes a contemplative man finding:

Tongues in trees - books in the running brooks
Sermons in stones - and good in everything

Where the uninformed and unenquiring eye perceives neither novelty nor beauty, he walks in the midst of wonders."

I know we all have our particular tastes, but this was for me the best book I've read - on any topic.

To read it is to read the opening of the human mind-a must have for any library., August 5, 2009
Like the polymath intellectuals of the times, The Age of Wonder reaches across multiple themes and disciplines, combining biography with the history of science, literature and even social change. Holmes' biographical accounts carry the reader through the book, each figure serving as a new torchbearer in the progression of science in the age--and each figure also bringing new questions as that same science slowly reveals a universe far vaster and stranger than the easily defined world of the old philosophy. The Age of Wonder is a book about discovery, both exciting and frightening--discovery that removes surety as much as it offers hope. To read it is to read the opening of the human mind, and to be called again to look at the world with wonder.

I am Scott C. Waring, author of novels George's Pond & West's Time Machine.
West's Time Machine
George's Pond: Created in the Beloved Tradition of Charlotte's Web

Pick a Richard Holmes, either Richard Holmes, February 3, 2010
It must be tough to be this Richard Homes and at a cocktail party where a guest comes up and says, "Gee, I loved your book `Redcoat: The British Soldier in the Age of Horse and Musket,'" and have to explain that while you appreciate the compliment, that book is by the other Richard Holmes. Yes, History lovers, we are very fortunate that there are two Richard Holmes, one a marvelous biographer, this one, and the other among the finest military historians of the age, the other one, and after reading `The Age of Wonder' by this Richard Holmes, and `Redcoat' by that Richard Holmes, I've come to the conclusion that one can't go wrong in choosing either for one's next read. There are enough excellent five-star reviews of `The Age of Wonder' for me to add only that any book whose frontispiece is one of my favorite paintings, `The Orrery,' by Joseph Wright of Derby, is likely to be a hit with me, and it was. If you're interested in the period, you will be fascinated by the read. Then buy and read `Redcoat' and you'll be prepared if you ever find yourself at that cocktail party.

Wonderful stories of science and art in the Romantic Age, July 8, 2010
This book is a fascinating voyage back to the Romantic Age in Europe when there were still far flung parts of the globe to explore, most of the chemical elements awaited discovery, and time and space were found to be much vaster than anyone had expected. Even more wonderfully, scientists and artists were not naturally at odds--chemist Humphry Davy and poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge were friends, Percy Bysshe Shelley attended science lectures at the Royal Society and a musician, William Herschel, became the leading astronomer of England. Poets looked to the brave new world of science for inspiration, and many scientists--including Davy and Charles Darwin's grandfather Erasmus--wrote poetry. While scientists were perfecting the inductive reasoning of Newton and Francis Bacon they also used poetic devices like analogies to advance their understanding and inspire their research. It was an exciting and unsettling time and that makes for a great reading experience. ... Read more

Editorial Review

Reviews

Science for non-science people, October 13, 2010
Full disclosure: I am an ex-English major who hasn't taken a science class since high school. When I started reading this book (I got my copy when it was released in England), I was scared that I wouldn't be able to follow along. But I was SO WRONG- this book really gets beneath the pseudo-science (and flat out WRONG science claims) and explains everything in such a relaxed, simple, and intuitive way, I never had a problem. I learned so much from this, and I had considered myself pretty well informed BEFORE I read the book! This should be mandatory reading for ANYONE who is anti-vaccination, or pro-homeopathy. Brilliant stuff. (His blog is great too!)

Simply Excellent, October 12, 2010
I read this book several years ago, after ordering it from amazon.co.uk, and am very pleased that it's coming to North America. Although many of the examples used will be UK-specific, and thus perhaps unfamiliar to readers, the content remains very pertinent. Science and skepticism are sorely needed everywhere, but most especially in the field of medicine. In this book Dr. Ben Goldacre provides us with a wonderful primer on evaluating claims made in this most important of areas.

recommended for all skeptics (and even more so for the credulous), November 4, 2010
Bad Science is an excellent entry to the genre of skeptical books that are, in this country, associated with Michael Shermer, James Randi, and Paul Kurtz. It is a pleasure to read, both because Goldacre writes well, and because the books from Shermer, et al, are very similar to each other and this one is in many regards refreshingly different.

Part of this stems from its national origin -- this is a very British book. As a result, it has a lot more about the MMR-vaccine-causes-autism nonsense than would have appeared in an American book, as the media panic in the U.K. was much greater than the one here. It similarly has less on faith healing and other topics that loom larger in the American consciousness.

But the book also differs in approach. In the quintessential American members of the genre, various bits of nonsense are debunked with a combination of common sense and powerful anecdote. American writers are particularly fond of grand gestures, sneaking into the back room and discovering the wizard hiding behind the curtain. That's not Goldacre's style at all. Instead, his favorite tool is the statistical blobbogram. The main targets of his scorn are holistic healers, vendors of pharmaceuticals and vitamins, who lie and abuse statistical techniques to mislead people into buying products that don't work instead of using ones that do. He similarly rails against the journalists who enable these malefactors.

Goldacre is a physician, so he spends most of his time on medical topics, but not all.

I enjoyed and appreciated every chapter of this book, and I hope many other people read it too.

I think everyone should read this book, November 1, 2010
This was one of the faster reads I've had in a long time. The engaging writing does not in any way compromise the very important points that the author makes along the way. I highly recommend it.

A must-read for everyone!, October 20, 2010
Media today can send your head spinning with over-information. Vaccinations are bad! Homeopathy is NATURAL and therefore GOOD! In Bad Science, you can learn the truth behind all of these claims, and learn for yourself what is real and what is hype. The power should be in your own hands to choose what is good for you. Educating yourself about exactly what homeopathy is, and facts about acupuncture, and knowing what chiropractic medicine actually involves is the best way to gaining control over your making your own decisions.

A must read for everyone! Yes, it's that good., November 19, 2010
I never expected any popular technical writer to be able to top the Freakonomics books, but Dr Goldacre does a fantastic job of sucking you in and then engrossing you in what would seem to be the next dullest of subjects - medical statistics. Most of the cases and examples are of British origin but fortunately so is his wit. I am a professional in the field of health science and pay a lot of attention to the "evidence basis" of healthcare policy, but honestly I learned a lot from this book.

He starts out with a frontal assault on homeopathy but turns more catholic in his debunking, including the purported quality of randomized clinical trials, and even the systematic reviews that are the bedrock of contemporary medical practice. Of course the pharmaceutical industry comes off as the villian it is, but more amusing is Goldacre's take on how the media promotes half-truths and outright lies in order to sell itsa product as well. This has been made well known by Dr. Ioannides, whose article on the subject made history of sorts by being the most downloaded article in the past 5 years from any medical journal.

This would be an extremely fun book only for the "Freakonomics" style humor and whimsical approach to a deadly serious subject, but the content makes it an essential read for anyone who has a self-image of being a careful consumer.

An important book that should be widely read, December 1, 2010
Ben Goldacre has done an important public service by providing a science-based criticism of alternative medicine, including megadose vitamins, homeopathy, and so-called "nutritionists". He saves a few arrows for the pharmaceutical companies, and pointedly and entertainingly shows how tenuous is the relationship between claims of the alternative medicine proponents and sound science. I am recommending this book to all of my friends and colleagues.

Most curly haired guys write good books., November 18, 2010
This was a great book that can be applied to nearly everything in life, not just medicine and alternative medicine. Too much of what we hear is nonsense and it is especially irritating because reality is more interesting. I think people who like this book will also like White Coat, Black Hat: Adventures on the Dark Side of Medicine ... Read more

Editorial Review

Dr. Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project, is one of the world's leading scientists. He works at the cutting edge of the study of DNA, the code of life. Yet he is also a man of unshakable faith in God and scripture.

Dr. Collins believes that faith in God and faith in science can coexist within a person and be harmonious. In The Language of God he makes his case for God and for science. He has heard every argument against faith from scientists, and he can refute them. He has also heard the needless rejection of scientific truths by some people of faith, and he can counter that, too. He explains his own journey from atheism to faith, and then takes readers for a stunning tour of modern science to show that physics, chemistry, and biology can all fit together with belief in God and the Bible. The Language of God is essential reading for anyone who wonders about the deepest questions of faith: Why are we here? How did we get here? What does life mean? ... Read more

Reviews

Good as far as it goes..., January 14, 2007
Collins' book is a good introduction to its subject matter but is unlikely to be satisfying to anyone who has spent any time reflecting on the issues discussed. If you are an atheist/agnostic who assumes belief in God is irrational or a Christian who assumes that Darwinism is incompatible with your faith, the book makes some thought-provoking arguments to jog you from your "dogmatic slumbers." But for people in both camps who have already spent some time reflecting on the issues, Collins' superficial treatment is disappointing. One question that both atheists skeptical of Christianity and Christians skeptical of Darwinism might want an answer to -- and the reason I bought the book -- is the question of how a process of evolution fraught with death, suffering, sub-optimal "design" and waste is compatible with the existence of a loving God. Collins doesn't even bring this question up, despite his discussion of Christian objections to Darwinism. Given his scientific stature, I encourage Collins to write a second more scholarly book to flesh out the arguments begun here.

Science and God, August 3, 2007
In this deeply personal book, Francis Collins tackles the "science vs. religion" debate. Since at least Immanuel Kant, we have known that this is a false dichotomy. However, modernity has in effect turned a deaf ear to Kant. In this book, Collins follows in the footsteps of the Kantian tradition, attempting the great synthesis of the empirical and the spiritual, the pure reason and the practical reason. Like Kant before him, Collins is sure to raise the ire of both sides of the aisle. And that is usually a good sign one is doing something right.

Collins reviews in the first part of the book his personal journey from atheism towards a theistic worldview, and the classical objections against it. His answers are mostly based on the apologetics of C.S. Lewis. This debate is much older than C.S. Lewis of course; most of his ideas can be found in St. Augustin, the Stoics, Pascal and Kant. However he does manage to present those arguments from a modern perspective, in an accessible conversational style.

The second part of the book is a popular science exposition, where Collins draws extensively on his considerable scientific background in both physics and biology and, in particular, the leading role he played in the Human Genome project.

The third part of the book is where Collins tries to reach a final conclusion about the issue of "faith in science and faith in God." He reviews his options, from Creationism to Atheism, and settles on the middle -of-the-road worldview he calls BioLogos. He expounds this theistic evolutionary view, according to which orthodox evolution theory is a fact, but also a divine means of creation. Here is where Collins slips a little, by trying to chew too much. While evolution from lower lifeforms seems to be an indisputable fact, the orthodox theory of evolution by natural selection operating on pure chance presupposes a metaphysical naturalist worldview, which is very contrary to a personal God model. From a scientific point of view alone, while evolution is a fact, it is clear that the mechanism of evolution is not yet completely understood (e.g., like Collins himself points out, the evolution of moral behavior has not been satisfactorily explained; but we can also mention the riddle of "junk" DNA, the various observed cases of puzzling "exadaptation," and so on).

One omission that stands out is that Collins never once mentions Martin Gardner, the contemporary philosopher and essayist, also Kantian, who has written extensively on the issues examined in this book.

All in all, I applaud Dr. Collins' courage and clarity in writing such a timely and important book. I have no doubt that it will leave creationists and atheists alike scratching their heads. It is a must read for anyone who wants a balanced and informed opinion on this subject.

Intriguing, July 31, 2006
You have to hand it to Francis Collins, he is no fence-sitter, though some may mistakenly so perceive him. Some may think he is trying to win friends and influence people of all types--those who love science and those who love Scripture. In reality, a book like this is sure to displease more die-hards than please them. Evangelicals are sure to get squeamish about Collins' support for the big bang and evolution and his beliefs in a non-literal interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis. On the other hand, as previous vitriolic reviews clearly indicate the so-called loving left will and have attack Collins for daring to value Scripture and claim that believe in God, the Christian God no less, are not only faith issues, but supportable by science. So, he's attacked if he does and he's attacked if he doesn't.

And what does he do? Using his personal faith in God and his professional expertise as an internationally-known scientist, Collins presents a case for the integration of science and Scripture. Both disciplines require the use of reason and logic, as well as faith and experience. Both must interpret the evidence. In Collins' skillful hands and able prose, "The Language of God" is sure to challenge the intellectually honest reader who will read it with an open mind, rather than a defensive heart.

Reviewer: Bob Kellemen, Ph.D., is the author of "Soul Physicians," "Spiritual Friends," and "Beyond the Suffering: Embracing the Legacy of African American Soul Care and Spiritual Direction."

great science, decent theology, July 16, 2006
I read Dr. Collins' book with great anticipation, because of the his scientific reputation (one of the most respected research scientists in the world and the head of the Human Genome Project). I figured he'd offer a balanced approach to scientific and theological issues. I think that's why many people will read this book.

So, to the text. A large portion of the book is devoted to the basics of science such as the Big Bang, the theory of evolution, etc... In my opinion, this part of the book is probably one of the better overviews of the contentious issues in science today. Dr Collins makes an extremely convincing case for the plausibility and likelihood that the Universe was created through the Big Bang and that life on earth was created through evolution. This is the part of the book I have no qualms with.

The second part of the book is where my quibbles begin. At the beginning of this section Dr Collins lays out the case for the "Anthropic principle", a hypothesis that points to various aspects of the universe and suggests that they may point to God. Many of these points are very interesting and make for some thought-provoking discussions.

The more dubious part, to me, is where Dr Collins points to parts of the human psyche as evidence of Godliness. While initially deploring any explanation that suggests "God's in the Gaps", Dr Collins continues on to suggest that the human altruistic drive along with the collective search for spirituality is evidence of God. With this, Dr. Collins falls prey to the very philosophy he deplores, the "God in the Gaps" theory. It's unclear to me if he realizes that he's fallen prey to it, as he does not address this potential problem in his philosophy. He does point out that some suggest alternate reasons for the humans altruistic drive and search for spirituality, but ultimately rejects them because of the science, not the philosophy, behind them.

After this there are some middling attempts to synthesize parts of the bible with science, but they fall pretty short in my eyes. Dr Collins seems to be in favor of a semi-literal interpretation of most of the bible, but makes halfhearted attempts to convince the reader of his position. This largely continues until the end of the book where Dr Collins discusses some interesting ethical dilemmas.

So to summarize, this is a really great science book and has some decent theological points, but there's nothing too conclusive in it.

Competent, but lightweight and unconvincing, March 12, 2007
Dr. Collins is an accomplished geneticist, and from reading his book I can say that he is also a clear and able writer. But one thing he is not is a theological or intellectual heavyweight. This book will convince no one who has not already given this sort of topic some consideration, one way or the other. He adds little to the discussion but a friendly and civil manner - not that that is a bad thing. The key to the book, and the signpost to its downfall, is the subtitle, "A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief." In the end, we are left asking, "what evidence?"

For more than two thirds of the book, Collins lays out the basic facts of genetics and the human genome, denounces Creationism and rejects Intelligent Design theory, rebukes Richard Dawkins, and sets a tone for reasonableness - the voice of reconciliation between science and belief (and by "belief" he means Christianity). As with the late Steven Gould, whom he quotes, Collins believes that science and religion operate in largely separate spheres, the natural and the supernatural, so that most instances of supposed conflict are actually misunderstandings or misapplications of one or the other. He argues that God and nature cannot ever be in true conflict, since God is the author of nature to begin with. Pretty standard, ho-hum stuff.

More importantly, none of this constitutes "evidence for belief." Instead, he has merely shown us that science does not rule out belief, so long as you are willing to grant science its due dominion in the natural realm. As long as your religious belief can accommodate evolution by natural selection and other well-founded scientific theories, your religious belief is OK. So far, we have no evidence for a Biblical God, only the plausibility of an impersonal philosopher's God who is the author of natural laws.

After two thirds of the book, Collins finally presents his theistic evolutionary point of view. Here's where Collins starts to get in over his head. Collins argues that the widespread human feature of a "moral impulse," along with the near universality of religion as a cultural and personal phenomenon, is evidence for the existence of God (the Christian God, of course). But what happens when science starts to explain the psychology and evolutionary origins of morality and religious belief - as it has already begun to do? What evidence does Collins have left for his belief in God? As much as Collins criticizes the old God of the Gaps, I am afraid he has created a Gap of his own! Other than the human traits of morality and religiosity, what reason does he give to believe in his Christian God? What evidence?

Another problem for Collins is that he is too good a scientist, and he realizes the vast scope and explanatory power that science encompasses. The natural world functions by itself so well that God is reduced (without Collins meaning to do so) to little more than the author of natural laws. The natural laws do all the actual work of making the universe go. This is not the Christian God, so what is it? His faith tells him that miracles are possible, but his training and his experience tell him otherwise. All the evidence, it seems, is on the wrong side.

Finally, and perhaps most devastatingly, if natural selection created human beings, what is the consequence of saying that God set up the natural laws that made natural selection possible? Doesn't that still mean that our origins are based every bit as much on pitiless luck, amoral competition, selfish genes, and eons of blind and wasteful trial-and-error tinkering as the Darwinians have been saying all along? If the human genome is the "Language of God," then what does it mean that it was created by natural selection? I'm afraid I just don't see the appeal of theistic evolution, to either theists or scientists - or to scientists who are also theists.

In the end, it may be intellectually and philosophically possible to reconcile belief in some kind of a God with the findings of modern science, but unfortunately Dr. Collins has not given us much in the way of evidence, least of all from the field of genetics or evolutionary biology.

C. S. Lewis Rehash, April 1, 2007
I bought this book, hoping it would describe, in detail, hard scientific reasons to believe in God. The cover, with its picture of DNA, led me to believe this.

It did not. Instead, it recycled the old arguments of C. S. Lewis. Don't get me wrong, I love Lewis and he largely helped me to remain Christian in college. But I have never been convinced by the particular argument that Collins recycles here.

I can summarize the main argument quite rapidly: We have a sense of morality within us. Therefore, God supposedly exists.

Collins tries to argue against the so-called "God of the gaps" fallacy. What people don't seem to realize is that if the gap is large enough, so that there is simply no way for blind natural forces to jump across it, it is not a fallacy to point this fact out.

There happen to be multiple huge "gaps" that there is simply no way for blind forces of nature to bring into existence without God's help. It is not a "fallacy" to point out these huge gaps. For example, it has recently been calculated that the absolute minimum size of DNA required for the simplest life forms is roughly 180,000 base pairs. And without God, supposedly dead chemicals just happened to randomly arrange themselves into the correct sequence? This is a major huge gap, and it simply points straight to God.

If you are looking for serious, hard science to back up your belief in God, I recommend that you read two books that made lifelong atheist Antony Flew recently convert to Deism. The two books are:

"The Wonder of the World" by Roy Varghese.
"The Hidden Face of God" by Gerald Schroeder.

The above two books are excellent, giving you nothing but hard science and great scientific details. This book by Collins pales in comparison, even if Collins happens to have impeccable scientific credentials.

A must read for seekers of Truth, October 4, 2006
By the leader of the Human Genome Project. A most important book for any curious person, scientist or layman.

Francis Collins is one of the most distinguished scientists in the world. This book is a call to end the wars between science and faith. The author proves that the theory of evolution is not an impediment to faith in God (theism). On the contrary, evolution is the language by which God spoke life into being.

Science will never be able to explain the big truths that humans are most concerned of: Why was the universe created? What is the meaning of life? In the first place because that is not the purpose of science, but to study empirical data.

The author claims that "Theistic Evolution" is the best option to stand by in this world of clashes between atheists, agnostics, creationists, proponents of ID, etc. He also intends to rename this synthesis of creation/evolution as BioLogos. Beautiful name, if may say.

Here are the premises on which he and many other scientists (at [...]) rest their proposal:
1. The universe came into being out of nothingness, approximately 14 billion years ago.
2. Despite massive improbabilities, the properties of the universe appear to have been precisely tuned for life.
3. The mechanism of the origin of life remains unknown. Development of biological diversity and complexity through evolution and natural selection.
4. Once evolution got under way, no special supernatural intervention was required. (Evolution was part of God's plan).
5. Humans are part of this process, sharing a common ancestor with the great apes.
6. But humans are also unique in ways that defy evolutionary explanation and point to our spiritual nature. This includes the existence of the Moral Law (the knowledge of the right and wrong) and the search for God that characterizes all human cultures throughout history.

This book is a very easy read for anyone. Science exalts God's creation; it does not dimish His work.

This book is also, partly, a testimony of a man who found his personal relationship with God after being an atheist, later agnostic and, finally, accepting Jesus Christ.

Does not meet expectations..., September 6, 2006
I will try to be brief. Being a scientist myself I was looking forward to reading this book by a well known scientist. Overall, written well. I would not call it " a scientist presents evidence for belief" though, but " a believer presents evidence for science". The book feels more like a desperate search of a believer, with a strong need to believe, rather than the writing of a scientist reaching a realization.
In the book the author constantly quotes writings of C.S. Lewis as proof to satisfy his own questions. That is not proof and an author should present their own arguments on a matter.
The author bases his belief on God on the existence of the "Moral Law" and man's search for God. i.e. since man distinguishes right from wrong and since man has always searched for God, then God must exist. No, that is not enough "proof".
The author accepts evolution and accepts the big bang as the beginning of everything. So he argues that God knew all that would happen, made the big bang happen knowing that evolution will take place and all that we have today and will have in the future were known to God...This needs to be accepted, of course, as there is no proof. That is an easy way out to accept evolution as a fact, but also to accept God.
On human suffering he says: "hard though it is to accept, a complete abscence of suffering may not be in the best interest of our spiritual growth"...Once again, an easy way out to "explain" what cannot be explained.
Regarding Jesus Christ and whether he existed and whether he was God, the author claims that while hiking one day he saw a frozen waterfall that was so beautiful that "the search was over" for him and "he surrendered to Jesus Christ" -- that is completely against any scientific attitude.
This book was an interesting read, but if you are a scientist with questions about God, I doubt the answers are here.

Interesting, but not compelling, August 1, 2006
Francis Collins, the former head of the Human Genome Project, has written a book presenting his case for belief in theism. Having read the pre-reviews, I was looking forward to reading a fellow biologist's viewpoint on the evidence supporting the existence of God. Although Collins presents much of the evidence supporting a Christian worldview, he discounts nearly all of it in his discussions. For example, although Collins fully accepts the anthropic principle (and devotes an entire chapter to it in "The Language of God"), he rejects the origin of life as requiring any input from God. Collins present the standard high school textbook version for the naturalistic origin of life and seems unaware of the wealth of evidence that contradicts all naturalistic scenarios, saying "this is not the place for a thoughtful person to wager his faith." Collins goes on to reject creationism (but seems to restrict the term primarily to the young earth variety), relegating virtually all of Genesis (other than Genesis 1:1) to being "poetic" and "allegorical." Another chapter is devoted to criticizing intelligent design, indicating that it is a "God of the gaps" approach "ironically on a path toward doing considerable damage to faith." Ultimately, the entirety of Collins's appeal for faith falls upon the design of the universe (which is covered rather superficially) and the existence of "moral law" among human beings. Collins rejects the idea that moral law is not universal, although he does not mention that things such as human sacrifice were once widely practiced among different societies.

Collins proposes that God designed the universe with such precision that humans would be the end result. Thus, although Collins believes in "theistic evolution," the only part he accepts as being theistic was the original design of the universe. All subsequent events were the result of naturalistic processes (although the end result was guaranteed to result in the evolution of humans because of God's specific initial design). At some point in the process (Collins identifies it as occurring ~100,000 years ago) God put a soul into a group of hominids, creating modern humans. This kind of creation would be indistinguishable from naturalism and, therefore, would provide no evidence for God's existence. Also, it could never be falsified. Collins calls it "BioLogos" ("bios" through "Logos"). Accordingly, "BioLogos is not intended as a scientific theory. Its truth can be tested only by the spiritual logic of the heart, the mind and the soul." Although Collins calls it "spiritually satisfying" and "intellectually rigorous", I think most believers would find it biblically troublesome and scientifically irrelevant.

Collins experience in coming to faith was interesting and is detailed in the beginning and end of the book. He grew up in an agnostic family, and knew at an early age that he wanted to be a scientist. At first, he was interested in the physical sciences, since "biology was rather like existential philosophy: it just didn't make sense." However, nearing the end of a Ph.D. program, Collins took a biochemistry course and was hooked. He applied for and was admitted to medical school, from which he graduated and began genetic research and a clinical practice. During one clinic, Collins was confronted by a Christian patient who asked him about his spiritual beliefs. He didn't really have an answer, but determined that he should confirm his atheism by studying the best arguments for faith. A pastor directed him to Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis. Collins found the arguments compelling, and cites C. S. Lewis as the principle basis for his conversion. Why did Collins choose Christianity over all the other monotheistic religions of the world? Although he came to faith on the basis of evidence that is generally agreed upon by deists, Collins rejected deism because of the presence of the moral law, which seemed to represent God's personal involvement with His creatures. He recognized that the presence of moral law meant that God was holy and righteous, but was extremely concerned about his inability to live up to the demands of moral law on the basis of his best efforts. The answer that seemed best to him was Christianity, which is the only religion that claims to have a solution to the problem of sin that makes one absolutely righteous and justified before God.

Although the "The Language of God" is an interesting book to read, I don't think it will be satisfying to believers or convincing to non-believers.

Eloquent science, worn apologetics, June 17, 2007
Francis Collins, a devout Christian who is director of the Human Genome Project, is surely one of the most distinguished proponents of theistic evolution (the idea that God created life by means of evolution) in recent years. His outstandingly clear and compelling prose will, no doubt, be a great comfort to many Christians who are having difficulty reconciling their faith with the revelations of modern biological science.

What's in this book for nonbelievers? Collins claims to have been an atheist who, through his personal experiences and study, eventually became a believer. With some 85% of the National Academy of Sciences rejecting the notion of a personal God, that places him in a minority. Neil deGrasse Tyson, director of the Hayden Planetarium, recently remarked that, rather than asking why so many scientists reject the notion of a god, we should be asking why 15% don't [1]. Beyond Collins' very readable and concise refutations of creationism and intelligent design, and beneath the largely reused Christian apologetics, lies a highly personal and emotional account of the events that ultimately shaped his worldview.

The dialog between believers and nonbelievers so often focuses on elaborate reasoning that ultimate personal motivations remain undiscussed. This is not surprising, since few individuals are courageous enough to expose their most guarded life stories to the scrutiny of skeptics, indeed, the Bible warns against doing just this: (Matt 7:6). An honest meeting of minds, however, demands courage. Collins' efforts, with his life story laid out before the reader, are highly commendable in this regard.

Readers looking for novel Christian apologetics will be somewhat dissapoined by this book, though there are certainly a few nuances to be considered. Collins relies heavily on "no less an intellect than C. S. Lewis" (p208), quoting Lewis liberally throughout the book. Readers may want to simply skip Collins and go directly to C. S. Lewis for more complete versions of the theological arguments. In the acknowledgments, Collins readily admits that "few if any original theological concepts are portrayed within these pages."

His main evidence for belief, following Lewis, is the existence of common or universal moral principles, though Collins stays clear of making any claims of Christian moral superiority. Citing a biomedical ethics text, the appendix of the book actually lists four central ethical principles "common to virtually all cultures and societies" (p243). Some time is spent addressing the new field of sociobiology, which claims that behavior is a natural product of evolution. Here Collins faces off against no less an intellect than E. O. Wilson. To Collins "selfless altruism presents a major challenge for the evolutionist. It is quite frankly a scandal to reductionist reasoning" (p27). He is not talking about simple reciprocity, but rather pure altruism in which there are absolutely no secondary motives. Oskar Schindler and Mother Teresa are pulled out as two presumably inexplicable examples of pure altruism, but it seems that the argument is not that there are no motives, but rather that the motives are somehow divine in origin because they are not subject to evolutionary pressure. Humans may well have compulsions that sometimes run counter to their own long-term survival (think about the Shakers failure to reproduce). Evolution simply dictates that there can't be very many such persons in a population ... and there certainly aren't. That benevolent persons are highly valued by society is no surprise at all, nor is it surprising that persons want to be valued by others, including gods. While group selection remains a controversial subject in biology to be sure, it seems that the reader is still left with an argument from ignorance.

Collins similarly argues against the notion of religion as wish fulfillment originally posited by Sigmund Freud. Citing Armand Nicholi, a professor of clinical psychology at Harvard and author of a book contrasting Freud and Lewis (also a PBS series), Collins dismisses the notion that God might arise out of our ability and need to relate to parents. Nicholi, by the way, was a founding member of the Family Research Council, a controversial Christian right wing think tank and lobbying organization formed by James Dobson. It seems dated to focus on historical figures while the rich body of contemporary thinking in the psychology of religion, sociology, and anthropology seem not to be discussed at all this book. Skeptical readers may seem absolutely puzzled as to why Collins thinks the compulsion to seek a favorable relationship with a god is difficult to explain on natural grounds when the world is full of people who worship, fall in love with, and cozy up to powerful leaders, sports heros, and famous personalities. On the surface, this book rejects "God of the gaps" arguments, yet it seems to rely heavily upon the inability of current science to fully explain human behavior.

One may wonder why moral behavior counts as evidence of the divine, while immoral behavior does not count as evidence against the divine. This, of course, is the famous problem of evil which Collins attacks early in his book. The Universe appears, to the objective observer, to be unsupervised. The innocent, the pure, the devout, and those deeply loved, all occasionally suffer the same terrible, tragic, and unjust events as everyone else. Following C. S. Lewis once again, Collins mainly appeals to free will, claiming that too much divine intervention would result in chaos, that suffering builds character, and that God sometimes teaches us something through severe misfortune. Despite its simple appearance, the problem of evil is a complex topic of debate with a long history. Simple arguments such as those offered by Lewis have already been addressed many times over in philosophy. At least a reference or two to the modern lines of argument would have been helpful [2]. Logic is little consolation though, for those suffering. Collins tells the tragic story of his daughter's violent rape and his personal search for meaning in that event. Skeptical readers should at least appreciate in this story the magnitude to which humans depend upon their interpretation of reality to ease pain and restore wellness. It is no wonder that religious ideas are zealously defended when so much is at stake.

Collins argues that the paradoxical findings of modern physics should convince people that materialism is not simpler or more intuitive than theism. "Today, Occam's Razor appears to have been relegated to the Dumpster by the bizarre models of quantum physics" he proclaims (p 61). This is a peculiar statement coming from a scientist, though he admits that the principle is still evident in the mathematical descriptions of the phenomena. Occam's Razor, the philosophical principle that the simplest answer is more likely to be the right one, does not demand that the simplest answer must itself be simple or intuitive. It is simply a statement that unnecessary and unjustified complexity should be trimmed from any explanation. It may seem simple and intuitive to say "God did it", but a great deal of complexity has been swept under the rug in doing so. While Collins' razor is headed for the dumpster, it does get a good slice out of William Dembski's Intelligent Design theory before the end of the book (p194). "In addressing philosophical issues, I speak mainly as a lay person" Collins reminds readers (p34).

The more interesting parts of this book, in my opinion, are the more personal ones. Collin's voyage of spiritual discovery seems to have begun in graduate school. Within sight of obtaining a Ph.D. in quantum mechanics, he became discouraged with his career path, even doubting his ability to do independent research. Collins does not give details as to exactly what turn of events led to this situation. Many former graduate students will relate (myself included), having considered alternative service-oriented careers at some low point in their education. For Collins it was a switch to medical school. There, his apparently atheistic worldview was put to the test in unexpected ways. When cornered into giving a statement of his own belief by a seriously ill, but very devout Christian, he recounts a dramatic sense of relief as he admitted "I'm not really sure." Evidently, this event caused him to feel that he had never really given fair consideration to theism and that perhaps he had been "willfully blind" or even "arrogant." Who wouldn't have an ethical crisis telling a very sick individual that you do not share in the beliefs that help them to find meaning, assurance, and comfort in their suffering? It would be very difficult not to be humbled in that situation and to wonder whether or not one's own worldview would do so well in the same circumstances. One wonders, however, if the experience would have been different had he been cornered by a critically ill Buddhist or Hindu. This would not be the last time in his career in which Collins was both humbled and deeply touched by the generosity and equanimity of a critically ill, but devoutly religious person. His poignant encounter with a poor Nigerian farmer near death with little hope of long-term survival was the most potent experience he describes. As a discouraged doctor in emotional turmoil, he experiences a dramatic transformation of heart and sense of relief by the calm insightful words of the Bible-toting farmer who, in a profound moment, switches the role of healer and patient. Though Collins doesn't explicitly draw the parallel (and may not even be aware of it) , astute Christians will immediately identify the farmer's behavior as "Christ-like." It is precisely this reaction to altruism that lies at the heart of how many Christians develop a relationship with the perceived divine being of Christ.

Collins makes brief mention of another key experience in which, hiking in the Cascades, he is now wrestling with his newfound belief in God and the claims of Christian scripture. Citing the famous "trilemma" of C.S. Lewis (Jesus must be either lord, lunatic, or liar), Collins finds himself forced to make a choice. Primed for a moment of synchronicity, he happens upon a breathtaking three-tiered waterfall which, for him, becomes a much-needed sign. It may seem odd to readers that seeing a waterfall, however beautiful, could be a major turning point in someone's life. His account of this experience is an abbreviated version of a more complete testimony that appears elsewhere in print [3]. There, it is revealed that the three-in-one waterfall reminded him of the Christian concept of the trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost) and so must have helped confirm the divinity Jesus and the veracity of scripture in his mind.

Skeptics familiar with the apologetics of Lewis believe, of course, that the trilemma is really a false trichotomy. The fourth possibility, is that the accounts of Jesus, collected years later by gospel writers, are mostly "legend", faithful exaggeration, and midrashic retelling of the best Old Testament stories with Jesus as the hero. Collins sites a few popular apologetic authors such as Strobel, Habermas, and Bruce, but never any critical biblical scholarship [4-6]. This is, of course, a book of "evidence for belief", so one can hardly expect a balanced treatment. In all fairness, this is also a book about science and belief in God, not specifically Christian doctrine or scriptures.

Collins apparently does not believe in intercessory prayer, but rather prayer as a way of "seeking fellowship with God, learning about Him, and attempting to perceive His perspective on the many issues around us that cause us puzzlement, wonder, or distress" (p220). It is in this sense that Collins sees God acting in the natural world rather than through miracles. He does not altogether dismiss miracles, but sees them more as rare revelations to humanity. He also views the Genesis creation accounts as alegory. While his views may seem theologically liberal at times (he even cites Paul Tillich), he has strong words for "many churches of a spiritually dead, secular faith, which strips out all of the numinous aspects of traditional belief, presenting a version of spiritual life that is all about social events and/or tradition, and nothing about the search for God" (p41). Such churches are "insidious and widespread", in his words, but, diplomatically, he doesn't name names.

No book that addresses atheism these days is without mention of Marxism or Mao's China. Of these regimes Collins says "In fact, by denying the existence of any higher authority, atheism has the now-realized potential to free humans completely from any responsibility not to oppress one another." Collins stops short of directly blaming the violence and oppression of secular regimes on godlessness, but urges readers of overlook the violence and oppression of religious regimes as merely a case of "pure water in rusty containers" (p42). So much for the Fruits of the Spirit.

The appendix, in my opinion, is the best part of the book, and well worth reading. Collins covers a short but fascinating list of current and future bioethical dilemmas, including DNA testing, cloning, and genetic enhancement. He takes a firm stance against human cloning ( "making human copies in this unnatural way") but never makes clear the details of his moral and theological objections beyond pointing out that the current techniques result in a high level of miscarriage and abnormality. Since some 20% of recognized natural pregnancies end in miscarriage and possibly as many as 50% of natural human conceptions end in spontaneous abortion [7], the ethical bar may not be as high as we think. What if cloning becomes safe in the future? What are the real moral objections, if any? Collins is too brief here. He says, "I hesitate, however, to advocate very strongly for faith-based bioethics. The obvious danger is the historical record that believers can and will sometimes utilize their faith in a way never intended by God, ..." The appendix seems almost out of character for Collins. While he sees God as a being with which one may establish a relationship, that relationship is admittedly rather one-sided. With the occasional rare sign of assurance, and with prayer being only an attempt to perceive God's perspective, Collins is reluctant to let faith be a guiding principle in major life-and-death bioethical decisions. Evidently, faith can be mistaken.


[1] Beyond Belief 2006 symposium
[2] Nicholas Everitt, "The Non-existence of God"
[3] Collins interview with Salon.com
[4] Bart D. Ehrman, "Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why"
[5] David Friedrich Strauss (1892) "The Life of Jesus Critically Examined" (ed. Peter C. Hodgson, 2002)
[6] "The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave" (ed Robert M. Price & Jeffery Jay Lowder 2005)
[7] Sam Harris, "Letter to a Christian Nation" p 38 ... Read more

Editorial Review

“A triumph.”—Steve Weinberg, Boston GlobeThis is “must-have” information for all presidents—and citizens—of the twenty-first century: Is Iran’s nascent nuclear capability a genuine threat to the West? Are biochemical weapons likely to be developed by terrorists? Are there viable alternatives to fossil fuels that should be nurtured and supported by the government? Should nuclear power be encouraged? Can global warming be stopped? 73 figures and illustrations ... Read more

Reviews

A Level-Headed Scientific Approach to Important Issues, September 2, 2008
What drew me to this book was not so much its title, although it is quite intriguing, but its author. I had read a couple of Professor Muller's books in the past and found them to be very engaging as well as models of clarity. This book is no exception. Using logical scientific reasoning, the author addresses various topics that a future president would likely need to deal with. The topics are: terrorism, energy, nuclear matters, outer space and global warming. Removing any mythology and misinformation that may be associated with these issues, the author carefully analyzes them from a physics perspective; this is to help any future presidents in making solid well-informed decisions. The contentious matter of global warming is dealt with particularly well; in fact, it is one of the fairest and most level-headed discussions of this matter that I have read thus far. A set of notes at the end of the book contain a few simple calculations that complement some of the statements in the main text. However, a reader who is math-phobic need to not worry since the notes are not essential to fully appreciate the book's content. The writing style is very clear, accessible, authoritative, friendly and quite engaging. This informative book can be enjoyed by anyone, especially those interested in the use of a logical scientific approach to address important world issues.

Oval office science, July 26, 2008
We don't expect our presidents to be literal rocket scientists (though it would be nice if one of them every so often was at least a metaphorical one), but we ought to expect them to know enough about science to surround themselves with the very best advisors. The troubling truth of the matter is that presidents, like most Americans, know little about science, even though public policy is increasingly dependent on scientific expertise. So author Richard Muller, who teaches science to nonscience majors at UC-Berkeley, has written his Physics for Future Presidents not only for future presidents but also current citizens.

The book isn't an easy read, and there are enough graphs and equations to set aflutter the hearts of even the most intrepid of nonscientists. But Muller recognizes this possibility, and recommends that nonscientific readers go for the big picture, not allowing themselves to get bogged down with details that might be too complicated on a first run-through. And the big picture--or rather big pictures--he wants us to understand are the science behind bombs and biological weapons likely to be used by terrorists (chapters 1-4), the fossil fuel crisis (chapters 5-7), nuclear energy and nuclear weapons (chapters 8-14), space technology, including space weapons (chapters 15-19), and global warming (chapters 19-25). Especially helpful are the "Presidential Summaries" in which Muller offers convenient wrap-ups of each of the five topics he discusses and some quick public policy recommendations.

My guess is that many readers will find his section on global warming the most interesting and contentious. Muller concludes that global warming is a reality, but one which has been exaggerated in certain ways. Other conclusions that will doubtlessly be contested by some include his claim that disposal of nuclear waste from power plants isn't really a problem (pp. 173-77) and that there's no viable alternative to fossil fuels in sight (in this regard, by the way, Muller agrees with James Howard Kunstler's conclusion in the latter's brilliant The Long Emergency).

It's in the arena of public policy recommendations that Muller, I think, falls short. His answers are too often quick and easy. (Quick example: when it comes to public policy, we (meaning the US but presumably any other country too) "have no right" to insist that China (or presumably any other country) cut back on pollution creation. The implication of this is that the international community has no moral authority--a scary conclusion. And even though Muller claims to be letting science speak for itself in every chapter but one (p. 173), science, performed as it is by opinionated humans, rarely speaks in neutral terms, especially in a book like this. Perceptive readers will pick up on Muller's interpretation of what he considers to be basic data, especially when it comes to global warming trends.

Still, a very helpful, very good book. Even if presidential candidates don't actually read it, it's good that voters do.

Clear and Objective, November 19, 2008
This book is not for the casual reader, but it is a must-read for those who pride themselves on being well informed in any one of the five important issues discussed in this book: Terrorism, Energy, Nukes, Space, and Global Warming. The author has ordered the subject matter according to what he believes are the most pressing issues that will confront the new President. While passionate about the subject material, the author is refreshingly detached in reaching his conclusions, as a physicist should be.

When I recommend this book to my better-informed friends, the most frequent question I get back is, "What does he say about Global Warming?" Those who are looking for pithy sound bites will be disappointed. Those who fear a boring professorial-type lecture will be pleasantly surprised. Dr. Muller presents well thought-out rationales for each section, and his delivery has been refined in the classroom by teaching non-physics students at the University of California, Berkley.

I appreciate Dr. Muller's respect for his readers (and future Presidents.) He does not try to impose a hidden agenda upon us. Dr. Muller clearly states his premises and the physics of his findings flows nicely from them

Here is a sketch of my views, as a physicist, on what the reader can expect.

Terrorism: Dr. Muller discusses the high energy content in the jet fuel carried by each hijacked airplane that hit the towers of the World Trade Center on 9/11. He later describes the likely limitations of a terrorist's dirty bomb. He reminds us that Jose Padilla, an American with extensive al-Qaeda training, proposed to build a dirty bomb. Padilla was directed instead to blow up two apartment buildings using natural gas.

Energy: Dr. Muller hits us with a number of "surprises," such as, gasoline delivers 15 times the energy of an equal weight of TNT; coal is 20 times cheaper than gasoline for the same energy; a square mile of sunlight at midday receives a gigawatt of power. He points out that gasoline holds 100 times more energy, pound for pound, than the high quality expensive batteries in cell phones. (Hence, although he owns a hybrid car himself, he is skeptical about the future of all-electric cars until batteries or fuel cells can be greatly improved.)

Nukes: Here he includes both nuclear weapons and nuclear power. After explaining how to estimate the dangers of exposing many people to radioactivity, he discusses the difficulty of building nuclear weapons. He describes how to build safe nuclear reactors, such as Pebble Bed reactors.

Space: Dr. Muller's believes that science should be the central goal of government space programs. Consequently, he advocates robotics rather than manned space travel. He uses a number of examples to illustrate rocket propulsion, orbits, spy satellites, stealth bombers, meteorite impacts, etc.

Global Warming: This is the most balanced and competent treatment of climate change that I have found. After a chapter on climate history, Dr. Muller discusses the Greenhouse Effect. The evidence brings him to the conclusion that most of the buildup of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere is manmade. He then classifies the various kinds of distortions and exaggerations that have plagued this subject over the last decade. Next, he focuses on what he sees as the real task: reducing carbon dioxide. After a discussion of "Non-solutions," he addresses solutions. The centerpiece is a concept that he calls "Comfortable Conservation," by which he means better ways to accomplish a task that is less polluting and often cheaper. Florescent light bulbs are an example.

One of the Most Important Books of the Twenty First Century, July 22, 2008
Buy this book! Read it, and understand it. Then buy one for your Senators and Congressman, and insist they read and understand it. Richard Muller, a physics professor at Cal Berkeley and researcher at Laurence Berkeley Labs, has written a highly accessible book that treats some of the most important, yet misunderstood, topics of our time. He treats, in understandable language, the physics and some of the economics of terrorism, energy, nukes, space, and global warming. You will get no politics. In fact, you probably will have no idea who he might vote for. But you will learn the key facts, questions, and alternatives on the vital issues. You will be amazed at what you didn't know, what you knew that actually isn't true, and what the real alternatives for solutions likely are. You will be outraged at the ignorance of our politicians, policymakers, television news anchors and commentators, as well as newspaper editors and columnists. But you will not be bored.

Professor Muller reveals the real story, the promise and the limitations of solutions to topics such as these: Nine-Eleven, terrorist nukes, the next terrorist attack, and biological terrorism; key energy surprises, solar power, and the end of oil; radioactivity; nuclear weapons, nuclear power, nuclear waste, and controlled fusion; space and satellites, humans in space, and spy satellites; history of climate change, the greenhouse effect, evidence and false evidence, non-solutions, real solutions, and new technologies.

My personal biases: I have a background in both physics and management, and practiced both during a 35-year career with NASA. I do not know Professor Muller, but have admired his work since I discovered his "Physics for Future Presidents" podcasts on iTunesU. I highly recommend this book.

Not meant to be a science text book, November 14, 2009
Large numbers of us out here in the real world did not major in (or even take much beyond required) science in college. We are the humanities majors who prefered English or Psychology to Physics or Chemistry. This also means that often a scientist isn't what the rest of us might call a "clear" writer. Meet Richard Muller. He writes with clarity all of us can understand. We, as citizens, are more able to take a stand on public policy for having read this book. He covers the science of terrorism, energy, nuclear matters, outer space and global warming. Some of the reviewers who give him fewer than 5 stars on this book do so because he sometimes over simplifies, but I guarantee you will be better informed after reading the book.

There are a few things left out. For instance, using solar cells to make energy he covers, but not using evacuated tubes to heat your water. He talks about geothermal energy but not ground source heat. And I felt he could have given more emphasis to the incremental results from all of us doing a little something. But these are small things in a book that is important for informed citizens.

Excellent book, dispells endless common misconceptions, flawless logic, October 2, 2009
I, a civilian, read this book at the recommendation of a certain naval ensign. It is by far the most informative piece of literature I have ever had grace my eyes with it's print. Time is of the essence for me at the moment, so I will be brief. If you have any desire to be able to be an informed citizen who does not participate in useless urban legends about science, or if you want to know the truth behind all the political fluff that obscures most modern scientific truth, I highly recommend you read this book cover to cover.

Very basic physics plus logic and conversions = Clarity, July 27, 2008
Although there are a few graphs and diagrams and a lot of numbers and units, I think this book is accessible to any reader with a citizen's interest in energy, terrorism, nuclear weapons and nuclear power (not the same!), and climate change. You don't have to consider yourself a future president to want and really need to understand this stuff - all elected officials and voters should have this level of familiarity with the science (and often engineering) behind these important issues. And it's really not that hard to follow - it's very readable.

There are no equations here (OK, a few in the notes if you're interested), and the "physics" comes mainly in the approach, breaking problems down into essentials to which basic concepts like energy conservation and efficiency can be applied. A lot can be accomplished simply by converting energy and other quantities in different situations into common units (Muller uses mainly common US units rather than metric units that physicists use in their real work).

It is true that Muller does not completely remove his own opinions in favor of "pure science" - but this is a book for general readers, not a text book (he also has a text book version for his course at UC Berkeley). And the issues are real-world issues, not abstract physics problems. But for the most part he is combining basic science with logic and common sense, and if you learn to do this yourself, and remember some of the conversions and rules of thumb he discusses, you will be better able judge for yourself whether some claim about energy or terrorism really makes sense, and have a better calibration of risks and opportunities in this complex world.

P.S. I was a physics major and have a masters in optics, but I also do educational outreach programs, so I'm really viewing this more from the perspective of an educator and citizen than as a science-educated person. And I personally learned a lot. Also note that one review from 2007 really applies to Dr. Muller's textbook, not this new general interest book.

Overcoming Distortion, Exaggeration, & Cherry-Picking of Evidence, November 1, 2009
While cleverly titled as a book for future presidents, "Physics for Future Presidents: The Science Behind the Headlines" is an excellent resource for all, particularly for those who have been confused and/or dismayed by conflicting opinions and data on important science-based global issues of the day - terrorism, energy, nukes, space, and global warming. Physics Professor (UC Berkeley), "MacArthur Fellowship" winner, and now author, Richard Muller, does an excellent job in setting the record straight for a global public victimized by "experts" and politicians who have been distorting, exaggerating, and cherry-picking the evidence to advance personal agendas as well as by the fourth estate, the mainstream media, who has been complicit with news bias and an intellectual laziness in ferreting out the facts.

This very well written and easy to read book has been written for the lay audience. Those who take the time to read "Physics for Future Presidents" will be well informed and well prepared to discuss these issues from a position of knowledge rather than opinion drawn from the lay press. You will learn about the difference between uranium and plutonium bombs, the difficulty of enriching uranium (Iran), the most probable future terrorist attacks, the truth about solar power and all other alternative energy sources, the realities of human space travel, the science behind low to high orbit satellites, the probability of cancer resulting from radiation exposure, the future of oil, the real cost of energy, and the importance of energy conservation.

"Physics for Future Presidents" covers the most essential facts and ideas enabling readers to understand the science behind the headlines, to discern distortions and personal agendas, and to participate fully in any discussion with friends, families, and associates. I have found this, despite my technical and science background, to be one of the most useful books I have read over the past four years. Muller does an excellent job in entertaining while laying out scientific principles critical to understanding today's world simply.

A good read. Enjoy the science but question the policy conclusions, March 24, 2009
The 5 star and 1 star reviews are both credible. It's easy, interesting science reading, but his policy conclusions sometimes steamed me. If you can read it with an open mind and healthy skepticism, then it's 5 stars--enjoy it! If you will gullibly swallow everything he says, then it's a toxic 1 star for you. I give it 3.5.

On the positive side, it's fascinating to learn that a chocolate chip cookie has half the energy of the equivalent weight of gasoline and much more energy than the equivalent weight of either TNT or bullets. Nor did I know that Bush's "nukular" pronunciation is common at some of our weapons labs nor that global warming is likely to increase, not decrease, antarctic ice.

Learn how stealth technology avoids radar, how infrared is used to spot marijuana growing in an attic, or how x-ray backscatter spots illegal immigrants in a truckload of bananas. Such unusual facts abound, and make this eminently worthy of reading--albeit with some skepticism.

On the negative side, it sometimes seems that he segues between science and politics such that policy recommendations falsely appear to have been proven by hard science. It sometimes (not always) smells a bit like conservative politics masquerading as pure science--exactly what I hoped this book intended to expose.

His discussion of nuclear waste is an example. Even if you buy his calculations (I don't), he begins with the premise that we already have it and must put it somewhere, argues for the benefits of putting it in Yucca Mountain, and then subtly leaves the reader with the impression that he has therefore dismissed valid objections to this aspect of nuclear power. He evades the real questions, such as whether we should generate MORE nuclear waste, how the corporations who profit from the nukes can possibly be charged and trusted to pay for the $100 Billion dollar disposal facility and the cost to maintain it for centuries to come, and whether the prevailing powers (government, regulators, corporations) can be trusted to actually follow the prescribed practices. Remember that we dumped 22,000 barrels of atomic waste into the ocean just 20 miles beyond the Golden Gate (San Francisco) into the 1970's--long after we knew better. The nuclear industry, like most large corporations, has demonstrated that they are simply driven by short term profit and are not above evading regulations, colluding with regulators, buying politicians, and otherwise putting profits above public welfare. (That might almost be a definition of a modern corporation.) Granted, these points are NOT PHYSICS, but HE deviates from physics whenever it suits his agenda.

I also felt that he failed to do justice to the horrors of depleted uranium munitions. Our soldiers with Gulf War Syndrome and Iraqi parents of malformed children are likely to have a different viewpoint, which you can get from the documentary Beyond Treason.

He does make some good points about nuclear--for instance pebble bed reactors in place of China's dirty coal power--and I find myself concurring that further consideration may be warranted. But if even the U.S. can't use radioactivity responsibly then how can we expect China or other developing nations to follow all the protocols and safety requirements? (I had some experiences with the Three Mile Island Citizen's Monitoring Network that left a deep distrust of the industry.)

9/11 theorists will be disappointed that he accepts the standard explanations and has not addressed any of the unanswered questions. For example, he barely addresses the third building that fell that day, nor the rate at which it fell (nearly free fall). (At least he could provide a calculation for the time of fall where the falling mass accretes stationary floors as it accelerates.) Nor does he examine the physics of the total "vaporization" of the titanium engine parts of the jet that struck the pentagon nor how it is that the engines and vertical stabilizer left no imprint on the building facade.

He acknowleges the Hubbert's Peak of oil but dismisses it, saying that we can simply convert coal to gasoline whenever oil stays above $50/bbl. This might be true, but it leaves the reader complacent about peak oil, and it's not until later, in other contexts, where he discusses the environmental costs of coal. See The Party's Over by Heinberg and The Long Emergency by Kunstler for a widely divergent viewpoint.

He explains why solar-powered cars are impractical but should have explicitly make it clear that he's referring only to photovoltaics upon the vehicles themselves and not to broader strategies of solar powered transportation (e.g. solar charging of batteries or fuel cells). I often had the sense that he wanted me to unconsciously draw broad conclusions from narrowly specific examples. Later, he returns to autos in much better detail.

He is dismissive of photovoltaic power as not yet economically viable today (economics, not physics). (Isn't there some sort of Moore's Law for photovoltaics???) But his economics don't include the macroeconomic principal of externalities, like the environmental, human, and military costs of fossil-power electricity that are borne by societies, nations, or the whole planet rather than the individual. One of the functions of govenment policy is to provide incentives to bring the individual's actions into concert with a globally wholistic highest benefit (e.g. tax incentives for solar).

His later chapters do discuss photovoltaic advances and slightly touch on externalites by explaining carbon credits. He even mentions the "tragedy of the commons" in passing. Likewise, I find many of my criticisms at least partially addressed when he revisits a subject in later chapters, so that by the end of the book it felt more complete. Topics are scattered and much is repeated.

I'm appalled by his shameful treatment of recycling, which he categorizes as a "nonsolution." He says, "...you don't want to recycle newspapers or use biodegradable plastics--at least not as far as global warming is concerned." Granted, a pile of newspapers kept in your basement will sequester carbon, but the inattentive reader may interpret this as a license to discard those papers, where they will burn or rot, releasing their carbon, while more trees are cut down to replace them.

Worse is his treatment of plastics, which he considers to be merely an asthetic nuisance. While it's true that plastic waste sequesters carbon, plastics break into microscopic particles which still retain their hydrocarbon chains, and these are working their way up the ocean's food chain, killing both by lining stomachs with indigestible particles and by leaching phthalates and other deadly chemicals that have made their way up the chain to humans. Regions of the ocean now contain 46 times more plastic than plankton, and the plastic-induced diminishment of ocean life is NOT carbon neutral. For a primer, see the plastics campaign at greensangha.org.

Further, he completely ignores recycling of other substances. For example, recycling of aluminum saves vast amounts of energy. His dismissal of recycling isn't physics and isn't truthful. One wonders whether he has an ulterior motive or is simply lazy. Like much of this book, take it as one man's opinions and not as peer-reviewed science.

Nor can I forgive his cavalier dismissal of population pressure and derisive laughter at Malthus.

I was more impressed with his treatment of global warming, where I thought he was balanced and had an agenda for uncovering the whole truth, for better or worse. He debunks some evidence, supports others, acknowledges uncertainties, warns against propaganda in either direction, and agrees that we should error on the side of caution.

As a believer in anthropogenic climate change, I was dismayed but educated by his treatment of the widely publicized graphs of CO2 & temperature for the past 600,000 years. We've seen that CO2 concentration and temperature are tightly correlated, and I had been led to believe that evidence was stronger for causality in the direction of CO2 forcing temperature (greenhouse effect). He gives a mechanism for reverse causality: that warmer oceanic waters release their stores of CO2 while cooler waters absorb more, and this is substantiated by an 800 year lag. Further, he points out that the most salient feature, the large swings every 100,000 years, are indisputably caused by a wobble in the Earth's orbit. So the largest feature of this "smoking gun" evidence is in fact proven to be causality in the opposite direction from that implied by the likes of Al Gore. I humbly concede the point.

In defense of his balanced perspective on global warming, he says, "The real danger in shouting that the sky is falling is that it might not fall right away and people will lose interest."

In regards to energy & climate, he wisely says, "emphasis must be on technologies that the developing world can afford," by which he may mean we must develop carbon sequestration technology for developing nations to scrub their coal emissions.

Overall, many of the facts are interesting, and I can agree with his political policy conclusions half the time. Most irritating is his pro-nuclear position, which he failed to substantiate in any meaningful detail.

In conclusion, I highly recommend reading this but strongly caution against forming belief systems or policy positions based solely upon it. Read it warily, and take it to be yet one more source of data for open-minded appraisal.

EASY TO READ-SUPER INFORMATIVE, November 16, 2009
I enjoyed this book immensely. In a smooth writing style, mostly devoid of technical mumbo jumbo, the author explains the basic physics behind the key scientific issues facing the world today. Things like nuclear waste, and global warming, terrorists and dirty bombs, the energy crisis and the whole truth about coal, space travel and airport security, solar power and the end of oil and, of course, the all time biggie: the green house effect and global warming. There's also a whole section devoted to spy satellites and GPS. Can a spy satellite really see you sunbathing in the privacy of your back yard? The answer to that questions might amaze you. What's the difference between LEO satellites, MEO satellites and GEO satellites? Do you know anything about GPS? Do you even care about GPS? If spy satellites and GPS are something you'd like to know more about then this book is definitely the place to get the straight skinny. And the list goes on and on. This thing is packed with juicy information. If you think you know it all, don't bother. But if you're open to the unbiased, nonpolitical truth from someone who really knows his stuff, then you should read this short, but highly informative book. I promise, it's easy to read.

The author, Richard A. Muller, professor of physics at UC Berkeley and past winner of the "Genius Award," takes the position that his book was written for future presidents. Maybe even you. So, if you were the president, what would you do if you heard that a dirty bomb had just gone off in the local park? Panic? Evacuate the citizens? Head for the presidential bomb shelter? Undecided? Or, take calm, cool action because you read Physics for Future Presidents, and you are especially familiar with the section called "The Terrorist Dirty Bomb." No problem. You know the secret truth about dirty bombs and, therefore, you know enough to take the appropriate action. And, like I said in the first paragraph, dirty bombs are only one section. For any of you who follow the debate about Global Warming, maybe you think Al Gore fudged his numbers just a tad in his movie, "An Inconvenient Truth." Well, there's a very informative section on this subject too. That's not surprising. The current political arena in replete with heated debate over this hot topic. But the author makes it emphatically clear that in order to make informed policy decisions you must have all the facts. To quote, "It is important not to be misled by the pervasive misinformation that pollutes this field." You decide.

The bottom line is that this book covers about everything scientific a president should be aware of in order to talk intelligently with his or her advisors, the American people, and world leaders. In my opinion, reading this book should not just be recommended. It should be required. I give it five stars.


... Read more