44 of 53 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Flung Mightily Away, March 11, 2010
This review is from: The Big Questions: Tackling the Problems of Philosophy with Ideas from Mathematics, Economics, and Physics (Hardcover)
This book was a purchase based on an interview with the author on NPR, which, sadly, was terribly misleading. There are very few instances where I've felt the need to literally throw a book violently to one side, but this was one such time.
Though Landsburg does attempt to "tackle the problems of philosophy", he only succeeds in creating a patchwork chain of unreason as support of his views. This is immediately evident from the start in a discussion of physics, where the wonderful language of mathematics is mistakenly put in the role of being Prescriptive rather than Descriptive. Basic reasoning goes merrily along, until Landsburg suddenly and inexplicably makes a huge leap of causation where none exists. Worse, when even that won't do the trick, he simply redefines terms from their standard use to suit his conclusions.
"If your brain can conjure colors into existence, why can't it conjure physicality?"
"Indeed arithmetic must be more complex than life, because all the complexity of life derives from the complexity of arithmetic -- in particular, the combinatorial patterns that manifest themselves in DNA and protein synthesis."
The list goes on and on. Horribly flawed logic, redefining terms, and declarations by fiat is not valid reasoning and should not be used as "proof" for anything.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
48 of 59 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Review of "The Big Questions", January 15, 2010
This review is from: The Big Questions: Tackling the Problems of Philosophy with Ideas from Mathematics, Economics, and Physics (Hardcover)
After reading this book, I am somewhat surprised by all of the five star reviews of it. It is one of the most incoherent books I have read in a long time. It is full of such tortured logic that I feel that some abstract equivalent of the Geneva Conventions has been breached. To add insult to injury, the prose is just as tortured as the logic.
Allow me to give a few examples to illustrate. First, his "demonstration" by "pure logic" alone that there is too much pollution in the world merely demonstrates that he can prove an allegation by assuming it to begin with. IF you assume particular curves for marginal cost (MC) and marginal benefit (MB) for an individual, AND you assume particular curves for MC and MB for society, then you can say something about the relationship of those curves you've already assumed. Wow, heavy, dude. If you assume 5 < 3, then you can "prove" that 5 < 3. BFD, er, I mean QED.
Then there is the "headache problem." People may or may not be willing to pay a dollar to insure that they won't die due to some unmentioned, random cause, particularly if the probability of it is only one in a billion. I have a feeling the reaction would be a little different if you told them you were going to randomly select one of those billion people and murder them. They might not give you your "protection" money, but they might call the cops. In his moral philosophizing, there is apparently no difference at all between an accidental death and a murder. After all, "we all agree to kill random people all the time." Of course! Society treats an accidental death of someone slipping in the tub while taking a shower in EXACTLY the same way it treats an intentional murder of someone by a sociopath/psychopath. Why did I not see that before? Clearly, engaging in risky activities like driving or taking a shower (because the perceived benefits outway the perceived
risks) indicates that we agree to murder people all the time. Right? Therefore, it follows logically that society should approve a completely avoidable murder to cure headaches. Yeah.... And what if that person you murder is the only person who has an idea about saving the Earth from an impending asteroid impact in the near future? You've just killed all life on the planet. Thank you so much. (This does actually bring out an issue with "consequentialist" moral theories, in a half-joking way. How far do you carry the consequences?) God, I'm getting a headache. NO, NO, NOT REALLY! Don't come knocking on my door!
Yet more sloppy prose: "People have died so that other people can drive to the opera." Really? I just knew there had to be something wrong with people who like opera! What kind of car do these people drive anyway, such that it's necessary for people to die in order for it to run? I assume he's talking about deaths from auto accidents, so are these accidents logically or physically necessary?
Even his jokes are cringe-inducing. But because I'm a physicist and not an economist, I am far more comically gifted.* As a matter of fact, amongst nuclear physicists, I'm known as the half-life of the party**. By way of example, I'm going to go out on a limb and hazard a guess that even economists take a shower or bath from time to time -- maybe as much as a couple of times a year. Clearly, they don't melt from this risky behavior, and neither do rubber ducks. Therefore, it follows logically that economists weigh the same as a rubber duck. And therefore....
*[Lest you take this sentence seriously, this is a joke! I'm paraphrasing his preposterously arrogant statement (or is it an attempt at a joke?), "But because I'm an economist and not a philosopher, I prefer to think about the argument a little more deeply."]
**[Okay, I stole that joke from an episode of Frasier....]
Next, His discussion of free will completely misses the point. His view of free will implies that ultimately we have free will to the exact extent that a thermostat does. But no matter, "You still have free will, and you know it." Most people would agree that they have free will, but the interesting question is not whether they have it, but how is free will even possible? Also, according to the author, "determinism is true" (apparently by fiat). How he reconciles that with quantum mechanics is left as an excercise for the reader, I suppose.
The list goes on and on. Affirmative action is a "nightmare," which is going to lead to the gumment telling you whom you can or can't marry, and you won't even be able to choose the gender of your spouse! Seriously, this guy's a raving lunatic. And kind of an idiot: after talking about how worthless college writing courses are, it turns out that he doesn't even know what the hell the word "metaphor" means. How does a grown man not know that? Honestly, why did none of his friends point out that his section called "Take Metaphors Seriously" doesn't contain a discussion of even one metaphor?
He is basically the equivalent of a wild-eyed religious fanatic on the street corner, handing out pamphlets full of twisted logic and incoherent gibberish. And here I thought Ben Stein was a moron ("Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" -- his funniest movie yet!)
If you are interested in reading a grown-up book about some of these issues, I would highly recommend "The Blank Slate" by Steven Pinker for an insightful take on various moral issues. For an interesting look at free will, the mind-body problem, the problem of knowledge, etc., you might want to check out Colin McGinn's "Problems in Philosophy," though this isn't exactly a light read (short, but fairly dense). On the other hand, if you consider the logic of Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly to be impeccable, then perhaps "The Big Questions" is for you. In the end, however, I think you would do well to take seriously the author's own advice -- "Don't spend valuable time and energy in nonproductive ways" -- and skip this book.
I apologize if I've been overly vituperative here, but the combination of supreme arrogance and marked stupidity in one and the same person does get under my skin.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
38 of 49 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
The Big Questions is a Big Boy Book, November 23, 2009
This review is from: The Big Questions: Tackling the Problems of Philosophy with Ideas from Mathematics, Economics, and Physics (Hardcover)
If you are reading The Big Questions merely for a playful romp you may be a little disappointed. Oh, it's a terrific romp, and well worth the price of admission. However, the book is a romp for the truly intellectually curious as it delves head on into theories of beliefs, epistemology, fairness, existence and more using the rigorous logic of physics, math and economics. Professor Landsburg's ability to cover all of these ideas so clearly, so enjoyably and so convincingly in less than 300 small pages is no less impressive than conceiving of the fabulously enormous schnoogol (see p. 102).
I only say "disappointing" because reading the book makes one wish they had the ability to learn more about each of its subjects. The paradoxes and puzzles are tantalizingly interesting, and the logic behind their resolutions so refreshingly solid, that reading it might lead one to believe that they have the capability to master the deepest insights into these fields. Have you ever wanted to grasp what the Uncertainty Principle really means? Well, you'll certainly be able to relay it to your friends after reading this book. But if you are like me, I am not sure you will be any closer to fully appreciating the weirdness that is quantum physics even after wrestling with this neat and short chapter.
The risk with explaining phenomena so clearly or with simple logic, is that one might be lured into believing that addressing the solution to the phenomenon is simple, or perhaps impossible. Take for example the discussion of activities that disturb your neighbors (pp. 113-121). The logic is airtight that, "when the cost of your activities spill over onto your neighbors, you engage in more of those activities than you ought to." Every economist worth their salt understands this. But it does not follow that pollution should be cleaned up or that it won't be cleaned up absent some grand plan to do so. Landsburg, of course, also recognizes this. But a quick or careless reading of that section or with only a casual understanding of the transactions costs which might prevent a convergence of marginal and social costs, or a casual understanding of the cooperative arrangements that might emerge in response to such problems, would have some readers thinking that the only solution to the "potbelly pig problem" is to tax them, regulate them or otherwise impose draconian governmental solutions.
This is what I mean when I say the Big Questions is a Big Boy Book. Some readers that are amateur philosophers or physicists or economists who find the logic behind the arguments so persuasive and impenetrable, nonetheless walk away feeling like there must be more to the story, or worried about using that logic in an open forum. I hope that this book is not the readers' first encounter with the ideas from math, physics and economics that are used to deal with the Big Questions - for this is not the place to begin your study of those fields. Rather, the point of the book is to use key insights from within those fields to inform the Big Questions. All too often, casual readers of books like this seem to misunderstand this application.
Of course the book was not written as a primer on physics, math and economics. It was written to demonstrate the power of logic, the virtues of consistency, how to craft a serious argument, the power of simple arithmetic and an exercise to invigorate the mind. It is a home run on all of these measures. The Big Questions is antiseptic against ad hominem arguments - see for example the discussion of the prejudice against those who accumulate great financial fortunes (p. 219), or the encouragement (really!) to delight in losing arguments. The Big Questions is an intellectual version of "putting your money where your mouth is" - see, for example the discussion of immigration and the logic required to argue that immigrants are "bad" for an economy. And it is much more. In short, the Big Questions is a terrific toolkit for anyone hoping to engage sincerely in intellectual debate and choc full of hammers to help you tamp down those nails that have been sticking out of your intellectual edifice.
In a world of myriad wonderful entertainment and educational choices, reading the Big Questions nonetheless is well worth the investment.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
