Customer Reviews

The Age of Science: What Scientists Learned in the Twentieth Century

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Written from the vantage point of a journalist of science, this book tells the panoramic story of human progress (and no, that's not an oxymoron) toward understanding what constitutes the universe and how it works. Piel's role as publisher of Scientific American seems to have given him access to a multitude of excellent anecdotes and incisive explanatory metaphors that I hadn't previously encountered. There are 70 to 100 paragraphs that explain breakthroughs in scientific understanding in ways that were, for me, breakthroughs.
The book suffered fom illustrations that were insufficiently legible, and which demanded more explanation. Also, Piel needs a stronger editor who can weed out the sometimes clumsy phrasings and pontifications.
All in all, though, this is a terrific contribution. I put it on a par with the popular works of John Gribbin, James Treffil, Jared Diamond and David Quammen.

We have taken notice of the points scored by George Nagashima in his reader-review of The Age of Science by Gerard Piel, a Cornelia and Michael Bessie Book, published by Basic Books. Mr. Nagashima's helpul perceptions will be reflected in the next printing of the book.
Thus, his finding of a "mistake...of 50 MILLION percent" may and will be set aright by restatement of a metaphorical explanation of the familiar equation E=mc^2; thus: "...one may attempt to picture 9x10^8 tons accelerated..." instead of "one may attempt to picture the acceleration of 9x10^8 tons."
To the general reader, The Age of Science has had recommenation by every scientist who has had the pleasure of reading it. Philip Morrison, the MIT astrophysicist, has this to say: "Gerard Piel describes science and scientists as he - no scientist but a clear and happy writer and attentive expositor - judges the work. Chapter by chapter, he summarizes...space and time in four dimensions, particles, quantum theory, the living cell, geology and the rise and evolution of our own sapient species. This work is both personal enough to engage anyone and precise enough to carry the work of science at a worthy level."
In the international weekly Nature, the sociologist Zaheer Baber of the University of Saskatchewan, writes: "The fact that Piel consistently connects the growth of scientific knowledge to the social and political milieu of its genesis, while simultaneously alluding to the changes in the social context induced by these discoveries makes The Age of Science...the most intelligent, lucid and sociologically sensitive discussion of the broad trajectory of scientific knowledge yet available."
As the publisher who urged the author to undertake this book, I am gratified and proud of its reception by the scientific community and thus able to commend it to the wide audience to which it is addressed.

Gerard Piel's "The Age of Science" is an excellent historical overview of some of the major advances in the biological and physical sciences during the 20th century with their roots in the 19th century and earlier. The book does not claim to cover all areas and it doesn't. On the other hand, the section on earth history and the evolution of life, and tools and human evolution yield interesting and valuable perspectives. The major weakness is the book's diagrams which are sometimes hard to read, othertimes difficult to interpret.

The 20th century was certainly a century of amazing accomplishment in so many fields. How could the human mind make such discoveries and advancements in a few generations?

As with so many science overviews, physics rules, with Einstein and the quantum physics revolution. Much of the book is taken up with a scan of scientific history leading up to 1900, so we are deep into the text before we arrive at the dawn of the 20th. From the table-setting, we get considerable detail on physics and some related chemistry. After that, we learn about biology and the climax with the seminal work on genetics and DNA. Good topics, all of it.

I actually wanted less detail and more subjects, expecting more of an overview than extended essays on subatomic particles, cell division, and so on. So many potential topics didn't even get a whiff of recognition, or barely that. Think about medicine, psychology and other social sciences, electronics, flight, telecommunications, meteorology and many more. I was hoping for a summary of how more scientific fields advanced in the last 100 years.

The style chosen for illustrations was unusual and largely ineffective for me.

The book closes with ill-fitting non-scientific comments about the UN's initiative to deal with poverty.

This book has so many mistakes and misconceptions, I could only force my way through the first three chapters. Many of my complaints would certainly be considered nit-picking, but a mistake of 500,000 (i.e. FIFTY MILLION percent) goes well beyond mere quibbling, in my humble opinion (IMHO). But more on that later.

Gerard Piel's breadth of knowledge, as well as his honors and accomplishments , are all quite impressive. Unfortunately (IMHO), The Age of Science falls well short of impressive. Unquestionably, not all the blame should be heaped on Mr. Piel. Many of the mistakes most likely could have been avoided with better editing, proofing, and attention to detail. Moreover, his mistakes typify the misunderstanding and lack of scientific knowledge of the general populace. However, along with repeated errors, inconsistencies and willy-nilly mixing of concepts, there seems to be a deliberate use of obscure wording and double talk in an attempt to disguise his lack of understanding.

An example of this can be found on page 80 while he discusses Weber and Kohlrausch's experiment to establish the ratio of the the electrostatic unit(esu) to electromagnetic unit (emu). First he quotes Maxwell who states that the number will be a velocity, but two sentences later he has the mistaken idea that the ratio yields a force (dyne), which in the very next sentence is "taken as a velocity", then on page 99 it mysteriously becomes energy (erg) of which Faraday's fields and lines force "have the substance of". (note: the base units for esu are dyne^½ cm = g^½ cm^3/2 s^-1 and for emu are cm^½ g^½).

Another instance were his misconceptions appear are in his discussions of Planck's constant. On page 85 he makes a circular argument were he multiplies energy (erg) by time (s) and yields energy (erg) for Planck's constant (should be erg s), then multiplies by frequency (s^-1) to yield back energy (erg). Then on page 99 he states, "the 6.77 * 10^-27 erg carried by each photon of electromagnetic radiation.", which has three mistakes: the value (should be 6.67 * 10^-27), the units (again, should be erg s), and the implication that all photons, regardless of frequency, carry the same amount of energy. Again on page 128 he gives Planck's constant with the wrong units.

On page 99, I believe (IMHO) that he is assuming more than is implied by E = mc^2 when he states such things as striking a match, light from a lamp, and every chemical reaction are its consequence. The arrow of time has no consequence in the space-time of QED. In other words, QED makes no distinction whether a photon is absorbed or emitted by an electron.

Other mistakes include (but unfortunately, not limited to):
Page 51 Gravitational constant as a constant force (dyne), then on page 104 as dyne per gram (closer but still wrong).
Page 116 while discussing helium at 2 degrees Kelvin he uses "speed of sound" as if a universal constant.
Page 96 mass is equal to a ratio without dimension (v^2 / c^2).

Finally, for the error of FIFTY MILLION percent. In his example on pages 98 and 99, Mr. Piel states that the energy from converting 1 gram of matter (E = mc^2) could accelerate "five times the weight of the population of the United States" (9 * 10^8 tons) to 10 kilometers per second. 9 * 10^8 tons is about 1.98 TRILLION pounds and 10 kilometers per second about mach 29. With the current population of the United States at approximately 280 million, each individual would have to weigh 1400 pounds. Furthermore, using E = ½ mv^2, by my calculations the energy to accelerate 9 * 10^8 tons to 10 kilometers per second (from rest) is 4.5 * 10^26 erg or 500,000 times 9 * 10^20 erg. Again he has confounded energy and force stating, "...an erg is the unit of energy that accelerates 1 gram to a velocity of 1 centimeter per second in one second..." which is the definition he uses for a dyne on page 79 (which he again references as an erg on page 85).

The concepts of velocity, force, and energy are interrelated but not interchangeable. To quote a quote from the book (page 23), Jacques Monod on the ethics of knowledge states, "It is an ethic of personal and political liberty, because to contest, to criticize, to constantly put in question is not only a right therein but a duty." Or as Richard P. Feynman put it, "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." It is essential that we question anything that is presented to us as scientific fact, not only as a means to gain understanding, but to insure the correctness of those facts.

Gerard Piel makes a huge effort trying to synthesize 100 years of science (and by that I mean a really extensive part of it) in one book. The book is written in a very understandable language and is addressed to the lay person, so don't expect deep explanations, but an overall overview. Too much has been said in other reviews about errors in the book. To tell the truth that is the only reason I gave this book four stars, but still is a pretty darn good synthesis and shouldn't be neglected. For anyone interested in a concise review of science in the twentieth century this is a great place to start.

While some may disagree with this statement, I believe the twentieth century will go down in history as the first in which science and technology played the penultimate role in the lives of those living in it. Not only were the practical details of daily life transformed by the application of scientific discoveries, but our very sense of self, how our minds work, how our world came to be, how it works and our proper role in it, our ultimate origins, and our ultimate fate were all influenced by scientific thinking as never before in human history. And both good and ill has resulted from this new relationship. It has brought both cures for deadly diseases and weapons of mass destruction. The awesome and awful nature of science and technology in the century just past is the subject of this once- over-lightly book.

While no field of study is handled in a completely satisfying manner, this book is adequate as a broad overview. Unfortunately, and this is largely because the subject is so large and complex, Piel cannot supply more than a cursory overview of any individual topic. Many subjects deserving of attention are given short shrift, including spaceflight.

The long and thoughtful comment below may, in fact, be accurate. Mistakes do creep into the publishing process, unfortunately. But as someone who has been involved in the professional science community for many years, I feel these small errors should be overlooked in the interest of the greater whole. This is a major, highly readable work by one of the most important scientists and journalists of our time. Beautifully illustrated, each of the chapters is compelling in its own right and can be read by anyone with a keen sense of curiosity about the scientific discovery process. To see it as anything less is quibbling indeed. Fans of "Uncle Tungsten" by my neighbor Dr Oliver Sacks and the current popular hit "Tuxedo Park" will love this beautifully packaged book and find it every bit as accessible and riveting.

Gerard Piel's Age Of Science provides a fine overview to scientific knowledge gained in the 20th century. This review of achievements considers insights on the subatomic world, cosmology, biology, geology and evolution. Over 100 illustrations pack this easily-absorbed extensive survey.

In his review below, A reader suggests we overlook the "small errors" in this book "in the interest of the greater whole."

First, if an error of 50 MILLION percent is small, I'm curious to know what he would consider a significant error.

Second, I challenge his notion that it is in the interest of the greater good to ignore these errors. It is my understanding that the primary purpose of science is to dismantle misconceptions, not to dispense them... too better our understanding of the world not to worsen it. If we value science, we must value the social necessity of challenging what is presented as scientific fact. We must shine a light on these errors as errors, not turn a blind eye to them. (By the way, no one has challenged the accuracy of my initial review below.)

Personnally, I feel the value of this book can only be enhanced by correcting these errors and eagerly await the next edition.