Customer Reviews

Are Universes Thicker Than Blackberries?: Discourses on Godel, Magic Hexagrams, Little Red Riding Hood, and Other Mathematical and Pseudoscientific Topics

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

 

 

This is the fifth collection of Martin Gardner's essays that I have read, and as usual I found them a pleasure to read. Once again the venerable champion of common sense assumes his role as the sorcerer's apprentice trying to sweep back the tide of pseudoscience. And once again he provides insight into just how overwhelming that task really is.

The thirty-one essays, many of which appeared in The Skeptical Inquirer, are sorted into five parts: Science, Mathematics, Religion, Literature, and Moonshine. As a special treat (!?) some clerihews and other poetic bits by Gardner's "friend" Armand T. Ringer are sprinkled throughout, especially at the beginning of chapters. One notes in passing that "Armand T. Ringer" is an anagram of "Martin Gardner." Also included is a short story by Gardner from The College Mathematics Journal entitled "Against the Odds" (Chapter 6), a pleasant tale about a gifted black boy and a prejudiced schoolmarm notable for a happy ending and a thoroughgoing sense of the politically correct.

The first essay, "Multiverses and Blackberries" is a discussion of the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. I was surprised to learn that this mind-boggling take on QM has been "defended by such eminent physicists as Murray Gell-Mann, Stephen Hawking, and Steven Weinberg." (p. 3) I think they may have defended it at one time or another, but I doubt that they embraced it wholeheartedly! A physicist who has of course is Oxford University's David Deutsch. What Gardner reveals in this interesting piece is that there are two versions of the MWI of QM, one in which the many worlds are "abstractions such as numbers and triangles," and the other in which the many worlds are real. (p. 5)

The second and third essays are on the philosophy of science, a favorite Gardner topic, and a topic that he actually makes readable and interesting, one deflating Karl Popper and the other partly a personal remembrance and appreciation of Rudolf Carnap. And then we have "Some Thoughts About Induction" in which Gardner aligns himself with David Hume, Bertrand Russell and others on the possibility that we can really prove anything by induction. This essay includes this glancing blow at those who would imagine that we might discover the ultimate nature of things: "[Electrons] may be made of superstrings. If so, what are superstrings made of?"

Other essays include "The Strange Case of Garry Wills," and "The Vagueness of Krishnamurti" from Part III on Religion in which Gardner reveals his consummate interest in the intimate details of the lives of the famous, especially the non-flattering details. I was surprised to learn of Krishnamurti's various episodes of hanky-panky. Like Gardner I had always found him unreadable, but herein I learned that the probable sufficient secret of his success was his charismatic personality.

In Part V on Moonshine Gardner has some fun with the idea that Little Red Riding Hood is a symbolic story of emerging womanhood complete with the red hood symbolizing menstrual blood and the wolf's appetite being not entirely gastronomic. I think here revealed is Gardner's limited appreciation of the nature of certain kinds of literature, of which fairy tales and religious works are examples. Such works are necessarily symbolic since what they are about cannot be expressed in a strictly denotative way because to do so would offend or be in conflict with some particulars of whatever the current wisdom might be. Such "evolved" literatures must be accessible regardless of the taboos of the present society. Better than any of the commentary from Gardner or those he quotes on the tale is the amazing print on page 180 by Gustave Doré of Little Read Riding Hood in bed with the wolf. The primeval nature of the tale is exemplified by Little Red Riding Hood's appearance simultaneously as a little girl and as a small woman, and the wolf's large mouth and ready claws. Doré knew that this was one scary tale that penetrated the listener's subconscious.

Perhaps the most valuable essays in the book are "The Brutality of Dr. Bettelheim" and "Facilitated Communication: A Cruel Farce" (chapters 23 and 24). In the first, Gardner reminds us how Dr. Bruno Bettelheim in particular, and psychoanalytic theory in general, mistreated a generation (or two or three) of autistic children and especially their so-called "refrigerator mothers" through a gross misunderstanding of autism and how to treat it. Some of the material comes from Edward Dolnick's Madness on the Couch: Blaming the Victim in the Heyday of Psychoanalysis (1998), a book I reviewed favorably and recommend highly. In the second, Gardner reminds us of the fraudulent Quija board technique employed by some health workers using autistic children that had its heyday in the late eighties and early nineties before being exposed on Frontline and 60 Minutes. The disturbing thing about Gardner's report is that one of the true believers, Professor of Education Douglas Biklen, is still at Syracuse University and is still plying his trade.

One of the best reasons for reading Gardner is to appreciate how clear his expression is, and how readable he makes just about any subject. He has a gift for making the abstract concrete and the obtuse transparent.

Martin Gardner continues to publish many good skeptical books very late into his long life. If you like to read books by Stephen Jay Gould, James Randi, Isaac Asimov, Arthur Clarke, or Carl Sagan, then the writings of Gardner will be something you very much want to be informed about.

Gardner writes about many varied topics in science, mathematics, pseudoscience, religion, psychics and the so-called paranormal, and other delusions -- always from a skeptical viewpoint. If Gardner thinks somebody is wrong, crazy or foolish he points it out without hesitation. He doesn't care if they are thought to be great people. He calls them like he sees them. Gardner pulls no punches.

Many of the essays in this book are from his column "Notes of a Fringe Watcher" that regularly appear in the Skeptical Inquirer magazine.

He has a curiously dry sense of humor that goes unnoticed by many who read him, especially if they disagree with the position Gardner is taking. This makes for some rather colorful angry letters to the Skeptical Inquirer and other publications that Gardner's writings have appear in. Many other of Gardner's books have included them in the past; we don't appear to get many of these exchanges in the addendums to some of the columns this time. That is my only disappointment with this book. It would have liked to see more of those. You can't always get everything you want. Which is a point that Gardner has continually been making for several years now.

As a science/math/blackberry buff I was attracted by the title. Some of the essays are extremely good but a large number are average. The essays are grouped into 5 sections of which I found 3 (Science, Math, Literature) of interest.

The Science section looks mostly at some of the philosophy of science. The title piece explores the "many worlds" interpretation of Quantum mechanics and divides physicists into two groups - those who believe the MWI is real and those who think that it is merely mathematics. He then takes a few potshots at Karl Popper (which I disagreed with), engages in some personal reminiscences on Rudolf Carnap and writes very well about Induction. I believe I've read the essay on time travel before and it includes Wheeler's whimsical conjecture that the universe is made up of a single electron traveling back and forth in time - great fun.

The highlights (for me) in the Math section include the essay on Magic Hexagrams and the short story "Against the Odds" about a young student who succeeds in spite of an early math teacher. I'm also currently rereading Flatterland: Like Flatland, Only More So with my youngest - its a great book but Gardner's review is only surface level - pun intended.

As to the Literature section - as a child I read as much of the Wizard of Oz series that I could find; the essay on the "Tin Woodman of Oz" and the origin of the character names was both humorous and fascinating. The Gardner's negative take on Hemingway looks at his relationships with women - not bad but if you've been into Hemingway this stuff is well known. Having never heard of Edgar Wallace nor his book "The Green Archer" Gardner's coverage was less than compelling.

The section on Religion and the final section on Psychology and Psychics , except for the for the first article on interpretations of Red Riding Hood, were dated and boring. Aside from a reasonable dissing of Freud and a passable expose of Bruno Bettelheim for his highly damaging influence on the treatment of autistic children he debunks several scam artists but here again the writing did not hold my interest.

Overall a mixed bag. A few bright spots but not really worth purchasing especially if you are short on shelf space but OK for a library read.

I have enjoyed Gardner's math recreation books immensely over the years. He should really stick to Math. His chapter on Krishnamurti tells more about Gardner than about Krishnamurti (JK). Gardner has not taken the slightest trouble to understand the essence of JK's essays. His quotes from JK apparently attesting to JK's vagueness can ALL be explained within the context of JK's essays - if one is actually reads and understands them. The mighty Gardner could not understand JK - that implies that JK must obviously be vague, false, or must have ulterior motives. Gardner states that JK believed that meditations "cause mutations in the brain". Gardner's statement is factually incorrect and nonsense. First, JK never advocated meditation, at least not in the conventional sense of the word. Second, JK's uses the word "mutation" as a metaphor to the kind of transformation of paradigm that occurs in the mind when it gets rid of its own preconceived notions (to which JK again refers metaphorically as "thought", "memory", etc.). Gardner is all in glee for having pointed out this "nonsense". This is what some skeptics tend to do sometimes (I consider myself a skeptic by the way). Rather than try to find the essence of what someone is saying they like to bash that person up first by fishing for some inconsistency or seemingly false statement, especially if at first sight it seems to be something they don't understand or something that threatens their world view. The other major negative in this chapter is the fact that rather than debate JK on the content of his essays which Gardner clearly cannot do because he has not understood anything, he brings up ad-hominem attacks and spends plenty of ink talking about JK's various relationships, and that he was cremated upon death (now why should that matter?). The chapter actually reads like a raunchy tabloid article. It's too bad that JK isn't here to defend any of this although I suspect he would not even care what Gardner has to say about him. I suspect Gardner has disdain for things Eastern, and especially India when he says "..There is never a hint in Krishnamurti's writings of a personal God.." Should there be one? Perhaps Gardner believes in the Abrahamic God and that ironically makes him the believer and Krishnamurti, who asks you to challenge all authoritarian thought, especially religious thought, the real skeptic.

At the age of 90 author Martin Gardner has already been much applauded for his books on math, science, philosophy in literature: Are Universes Thicker Than Blackberries? Shows he hasn't lost any of his touch, providing essays which gathers the best of his recent journalism writings, which have appeared in Scientific American and other notable publications. Essays are organized into five broad categories and survey many theories or 'miracles' which have fooled readers over the years. A delightful probe of 'pseudoscience' evolves.

When I wanted to mark the book with 3 stars, I was surpised indeed that other readers did the same.
Over the years I used to buy a book by M. Gardner the moment I saw it a bookstore, and by now I have a dozen of them or more, some read and re-read numerous times. I could honestly say these were his book that formed my love of mathemathics, cybernetics etc
But this last book caused me to feel pity. It seems pathetically outfashioned, talks about discoveries, scientists and philosophers of '50-'70. It's nostalgic, yes, but not breath-taking.
The narratives themselves and the factual presentations are neither deep nor intuitive, and, frankly, boring to an extent.
I wouldn't thought the 1st review I write about a book by M. Gardner would be of this kind, I do it because I really appreciate him, his books and firmly believe that this book is an exception.

I love the Skeptical Enquirer and its no-nonsense way of getting to the truth of the matter. Martin Gardner, author of many science-for-the-people books is a contributor to that magazine and his articles are always delightful, sometimes controversial, always opinionated and extremely erudite. This book is really a collection of some of these articles, arranged by category.

He is at his best when on the attack against the New Agers, the superstitious, horoscopes, ESP, magic, channelers, charlatans, Pyramid power and the like. He demonstrates, step by step, the fallacy of their thinking and is just, even fair, in presenting the opposing viewpoint.

The first article from the title of the book sets the tone. In it he discusses how a theoretical flight of fancy (there are as many universes as we can imagine) became, for some, scientific fact despite not one scintilla of evidence. But more than a discussion of the Multiple Universe Theory, it is an examination of the trend of mixing Eastern religious thought with science and producing a mishmash of pseudo-scientific lingo that is as trendy as it is illogical. He takes on many icons - Karl Popper, Hemingway, Bettelheim and Gary Wills - and, like Paul Johnson in his great tome, INTELLECTUALS - finds monsters, egos and irrationality just around the bend.

He tackles various cultural movements, traces their history and their tragic results: Cult leaders, Primal Screaming, psychoanalysis, Facilitated Communication and weird and little known individuals who made a mark at the time. The quality of the essays are uneven and there is this infuriating obsession with fundamentalists of the Protestant persuasion. He takes after them as if they were the Great Evil yet, as far as I know, no fundamentalist has murdered millions in religious wars, conquered nations in the name of God, slaughtered people due to their size or tortured millions "for the Faith". For that, one must point to (respectively) European Christians, Islam, African tribes and Catholicism. THis does not include the tens of millions slaughtered by secular regimes in this century.

All in all, a good book, a quick read and another valuable lesson in the phrase "seeing is not believeing."

Although this collection is not his best, Gardner is after all getting older and so I seems likely to me that after of lifetime of battling superstition and pseudoscience, the effects are wearing upon him. His mentioning and warnings about fundamentalism are indeed important as not only are we fighting Islamic fundamentalists, but Christian ones in our own country who want to degrade public education, oppress certain minorities and restrict freedom of the press and speech.

Martin Gardner is still a national treasure and will be sorely missed when he passes on. It must be a compliment when your least important collection of essays still have several ones that pack a whollop.

I made the mistake of buying this book, because Martin Gardner writes fantastic math books and because the title and location in he bookstore suggested this was a book on math ad science.Wrong.

Aside from a few philosophical comments on quantum theory and the scientific method, this book is ramblings. The title claims it contains 'Other Mathematical and Pseudoscientific Topics' but in reality these acount for 2-3 out of five chapters. (One chapter is on the paranormal). The chapter on science contains one barely readable essay out of five.

This is the worst disappointment I have read.