24 of 27 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Common sense., October 22, 2002
Excellent essay about the real nature of science and the fact that day-to-day common sense will never give an understanding of the nature of science.
Absolutely to the point are his analyses of science and technology (science produces ideas whereas technology results in the production of usable objects), science and philosophy (science has been immune to philosophical doubts) & science and morality (decisions are political and economic).
His viewpoint on genetic engineering is 'common sense': "... genetic engineering ... has so far damaged no one. By contrast, smoking, AIDS, drugs and alcohol have caused massive damage to children in utero." (p.168)
Particularly impressive are the chapters on 'Science and religion' (7) where the author defends secularism, and on 'Moral and Immoral Science' (8).
This book contains some very painful paragraphs on Konrad Lorenz.
A must read for everybody interested in western and scientific culture.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
11 of 15 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
Wolpert's "Unnatural" Argument, December 7, 2009
I agree that Lewis Wolpert's language is "measured and thoughtful" in "The Unnatural Nature of Science", as advertised. He asks thought-provoking questions (What catalysts produced the scientific revolution? What are the origins of creativity?). The book, though, does not fully answer the questions and suffers from three fundamental problems:
1) "Unnatural" is not clearly-defined
2) He relies on unsubstantiated assertions and generalizations
3) He disparages psychology and philosophy as unscientific, yet psychology and philosophy (or, his own version of them) comprise his argument.
The first problem is the biggest. If Wolpert had provided a coherent definition of "natural" and "unnatural", we could verify or falsify his argument. As it is, we are left to infer his precise meaning from examples and assertions about "common sense" versus science, which he apparently contends are mutually-exclusive. Because he does not clearly define his terms, the book prods in search of an objective.
Wolpert generalizes heavily from anecdotal evidence, asserting various assumptions (i.e., 'phlogiston leaves burning materials', 'the earth is the center of the universe', 'science is dangerous and produces monsters like Frankenstein') to be common-sense and natural, while the scientific explanation presumably defies a common-sense, natural approach. This seems to be a straw-man, as the scientific explanations are often more natural, more common-sense (by my own understanding), when all the facts are reviewed.
Besides: granting his assertion for argument's sake, how did "unnatural" science arise from natural origins? Wolpert is no Design proponent, so attributing its cause and stewardship to Greek and Christian thought as he does simply multiplies the questions he means to answer.
Finally, Wolpert denigrates the philosophy of science (which forms the basis of science) while embracing his own version of philosophy (namely, that science is "unnatural"). He largely scorns psychology while promoting it in every chapter. While touting scientists as "self-aware", Wolpert apparently fails by his own definition. This simply doesn't work.
"Science does not fit with our natural expectations," Wolpert says, but he has not defined "natural expectations", has generalized from anecdotal observation, and has failed to realize that his own psychology (the study of which he scorns) apparently provides all but a rough outline for his thoughts. Though it wanders through some promising territory, his "unnatural" argument never gets off the ground. Disappointing.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
0 of 1 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Important concepts about science, July 18, 2010
To me this is a very valuable book because what he discusses is at the roots of the trouble people have in understanding science. The review by Luc Reynaert highlighted important aspects of the book. The flaws pointed by other reviewers are, to me, secondary to the contribution of setting science apart from common sense. The other book about the subject that I like immensely is Uncommon sense by Alan Cromer. He further explores the subject and links it to the effectiveness of teaching science.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No