The Big Questions: Tackling the Problems of Philosophy with Ideas from Mathematics, Economics, and Physics [Hardcover]

Steven E Landsburg (Author)

Book Description

Release date: November 3, 2009 | ISBN-10: 143914821X | ISBN-13: 978-1439148211 | Edition: First Edition

In the wake of his enormously popular books The Armchair Economist and More Sex Is Safer Sex, Slate columnist and Economics professor Steven Landsburg uses concepts from mathematics, economics, and physics to address the big questions in philosophy: What is real? What can we know? What is the difference between right and wrong? And how should we live? Landsburg begins with the broadest possible categories from a mathematical analysis of the arguments for the existence of God; to the real meaning of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and the Godel Incompleteness Theorem; to the moral choices we face in the marketplace and the voting booth. Stimulating, illuminating, and always surprising, The Bid Questions challenges readers to re-evaluate their most fundamental beliefs and reveals the relationship between the loftiest philosophical quests and our everyday lives.

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly

With an folksy style and overly reductive economics, Landsburg (The Armchair Economist) solves, to his own satisfaction, a host of such philosophical problems as the limits of knowledge, what reality is and why we should reject liberal social policies based on fairness. With a founding claim that mathematical objects are real (albeit real in a way that is never made quite clear) the author argues for the necessity of the universe, before offering refutations of intelligent design and St. Anselm's proof for the existence of God. The possibility of knowledge is demonstrated by familiarizing the reader with a few ideas the author simply knows to be true such as Gödel's theorem and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Sections on morality and the life of the mind apply the Economist's Golden Rule to questions of right and wrong before advising the reader not to bother studying English literature. While serving up plenty of sound economics, the book falls short on the philosophy, displaying not only conceptual inconsistencies but an intolerance for the irrational dimensions of human existence. (Nov.)
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Review

"In "The Big Questions", Steven Landsburg ventures far beyond his usual domain to take on questions in metaphysics, epistemology and ethics. . . . [T]his must make Steven Landsburg history's most courageous mathematician because for Landsburg mathematical abstractions are not like Mount Everest, rather Mount Everest is a mathematical abstraction. Indeed, for Landsburg, it's math all the way down--math is what exists and what exists is math, A=A. Read the book for more on this view, which is as good as any metaphysics that has ever been and a far sight better than most." -- MarginalRevolution.com

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Hardcover: 288 pages
• Publisher: Free Press; First Edition edition (November 3, 2009)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 143914821X
• ISBN-13: 978-1439148211
• Product Dimensions: 5.3 x 1 x 8.5 inches
• Shipping Weight: 13.4 ounces
• Average Customer Review: 2.8 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (38 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #857,752 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

54 of 67 people found the following review helpful

1.0 out of 5 stars Flung Mightily Away March 11, 2010

By Edward A. Meissner

Format:Hardcover|Amazon Verified Purchase

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.

60 of 77 people found the following review helpful

1.0 out of 5 stars Review of "The Big Questions" January 15, 2010

By Jeffrey D. Huffman

Format:Hardcover|Amazon Verified Purchase

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. Read more ›

40 of 52 people found the following review helpful

4.0 out of 5 stars The Big Questions is a Big Boy Book November 23, 2009

By Michael Rizzo

Format: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. Read more ›

20 of 25 people found the following review helpful

5.0 out of 5 stars Big Satisfaction December 13, 2009

By David Ross

Format:Hardcover|Amazon Verified Purchase

If you've read any of his earlier books, you're already aware that Steven Landsburg is a great economist with a writing flair that makes difficult concepts appear easy.

What you might not know if you've read only his other books (as opposed to some of his more abstruse journal articles) is that Landsburg is not only a whiz in economics, but in math, and can hold his own in physics and philosophy.

So what's an economist with insights into math, physics, and philosophy, who also has a writing flair gonna do for an encore? Write about THE BIG QUESTIONS, of course.

What are the big questions? You know...they're the one's we always ask as children without expecting, as adults, to get an answer. Questions like why is there anything rather than nothing, what constitutes knowledge, what is Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and what was Gödel talking about in distinguishing truth from provability. Questions of ethics and questions of education: telling right from wrong, what's best to study, how economists modify the golden rule. How to know if alleged believers really believe what they say.

In reading Landsburg's thoughts on these various topics, you feel like you're having a personal conversation--granted, he's doing all the talking, but it's in an inviting, conversational tone--with someone whose given these ideas great thought, saving you lots of time and providing you lots of enjoyment.

Does Landsburg ANSWER all of these Big Questions? Of course not. That's not the kind of questions they are, and not the point of the book. But thoughts about big questions, about what kind of answers might fit, about why some attempted answers are clearly wrong, aids in understanding.... Easily within reach of the intelligent layperson without technical background in economics, math, physics, or philosophy, this book is highly recommended. Read more ›