Customer Reviews

What We Believe but Cannot Prove: Today's Leading Thinkers on Science in the Age of Certainty

5 star:		(11)
4 star:		(9)
3 star:		(5)
2 star:		(4)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

The title of this book is a question that was put to 109 leading scientists and thinkers. Some wrote a single paragraph in response, others wrote three to four pages.

A question behind the question recurs many times. That is, what do the authors believe belief to be? One of the more interesting comments is by Maria Spiropulu: "I would suggest that belief and proof are in some way complementary: If you believe something, you don't need proof of it, and if you have proof, you don't need to believe." Leon Ederman would seem to speak for many contributors with the comment: "To believe something while knowing it cannot be proved (yet) is the essence of physics," while Mihalyi Csikszentmihalyi states: "I can prove almost nothing I believe in."

One's intuitive response to some of the contributors' beliefs might be that their beliefs would be considered to be facts. Gino Segre believes (to describe it shorthand) in the Big Bang. Stephen H. Schneider believes in global warming. Leonard Susskind believes in probability. Neil Gershenfeld believes in progress. Mihalyi Csikszentmihalyi considers: "I do believe in evolution," and David Buss states: "I believe in true love."

Among the beliefs that would seem to be particularly interesting are the following. Gregory Benford considers: "Why is there any scientific law at all?" Daniel Goleman believes that "todays children are unintended victims of economic and technological progress." Alison Gopnik believes that "babies and young children are actually more conscious . . . than adults are." George Dyson believes that bird dialects correspond to "indigenous human language groups", and Freeman Dyson believes that the reverse of a power of 2 is never a power of 5.

Some subjects would seem to be over-represented, such as the belief that "there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe", that a physical basis for consciousness will soon be discovered, or that there are universes other than our own. Besides such duplication, which tends to be tedious, the concise nature of the contributions, and the calibre of the contributors, makes this an easy(ish) and lively read.

"What We Believe" is an intriguing concept for a book. And it's a worthy read since some of the mini-essays live up to the potential. The answers come in from scientists from a variety of backgrounds, and are no longer than a page or two each, so it has the flexibility of either being a sustained read or can also work as a bathroom reader.

The book is at its best when people give honest thoughtful answers, like several writers who take on the old questions of consciousness, free will, morality, and the Hard Problem of neuroscience, but give the topics a tweak I haven't heard before. There are also more playful takes on the question, such as when Groovy Primatologist Robert Sapolsky asserts that he would "continue to believe there is no God even if it were proved that there is." Verena Huber-Dyson, one of the many mathematicians represented who stay up late at night questioning the existence of Goedel's proof, gives another memorable response: "I believe in the creative power of boredom." Or Stuart A. Kauffman's proposed fourth law of thermodynamics "concerning self-constructing nonequilibrium systems" anywhere in the universe: "The diversity of things that can happen next increases, on average, as fast as it can."

Interesting in its own way, but less entertaining, are the several nervous responses in which contributors either wring their hands over whether or not it's okay to believe anything without proof or else just defensively deny that they do. This may be just an overreaction to the rise of fundamentalism and the ubiquity of religion in popular discourse (How many Newsweek cover stories have there been, just since the '04 election, with `God' or `Jesus' in the title?). But, of course, this is missing the point of the scientific method. It reflects the confusion people get into over science as an institution versus science as a process. There is nothing wrong with anyone believing anything they want. It's healthy to have beliefs. It shows a certain mental flexibility and richness of character. It's only a problem when you insist on other people being as convinced as you. And then, pretty soon the moralizing starts. And the lobbying and legislating. And the pamphlets. T-Shirts. Armbands.

There are a few people who take an almost militaristic approach to rationality, as if any kind of emotional response or gut instinct is a sign of weakness. These are often the same people who write, with eager anticipation, glorious visions of a future when human minds will merge seamlessly with artificial intelligence, when, as Sir Martin Rees breathlessly states, "Perhaps these beings could achieve the computational ability to stimulate a universe as complex as the one we perceive ourselves to be in." Easy, Professor.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of uninteresting essays to weed through to get to the good ones. These are mostly from people who can't think outside their narrow little disciplines. Such as astrophysicists who use the occasion to denounce string theory. Or Jared Diamond weighing in on the exact chronology of the human expansion into the new world. Borat's brother, Simon Baron-Cohen, believes that the cause of autism will turn out to be "assertive mating of two hyper-systemizers." He then supports this claim hyper-systematically. Climatologists write that they really believe in global warming. Freeman Dyson cannot prove, but cares enough to mention, that the number resulting from reversing the digits of any exact power of two is never a power a five. I'm devastated. Worse yet are those that write in to promote their own pet theories, theories that they are already known for, in effect saying that they believe their views will someday be vindicated. "I believe that I'm right and you're wrong." Anyone who has even briefly succumbed to the quagmire of academia will immediately recognize these cretins for what they are. Unless they're one of them too. Nothing more petty than the politics of the irrelevant.

So in some sense it is a lost opportunity. I'd rather there were submissions from a wider scope of people, and then they could select them based on the thoughtfulness of the answers as opposed to the minor B-list academic celebrity of the author. But still, there is enough that is worth reading to recommend this book, so thumbs up. But I have to dock a star for all the filler.

+++++

"What do you believe to be true even though you cannot prove it?"

This was what John Brockman, the editor and publisher of the online intellectual think-tank "Edge," asked leading thinkers. This book contains what this think-tank deems to be the best answers to this question.

Each contributor's answer is preceded by a brief profile of him or her. (There are 15 female contributors.)

The majority of the thinkers this book's profiles have more than one occupation. The most frequent job titles mentioned in each brief profile are as follows:

(1) author
(2) professor
(3) scientist (such as physicist, computer scientist)/social scientist (such as psychologist, economist)
(4) director (for example, a director of a laboratory)

Some other occupations mentioned are inventor, writer, editor, journalist, publisher, lecturer, and linguist.

Here is a typical profile:

"Freeman Dyson is professor emeritus of physics at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton. He is the author of a number of books about science for the general public including "Imagined Worlds" and "The Sun," "The Genome," and "The Internet."

Here is a sample of the beliefs that cannot be proved:

Contributor #1: I believe that intelligent life may presently be unique to our Earth but has the potential to spread throughout the Galaxy and beyond it."
#109: "I can prove almost nothing I believe in."
#5: "I believe that evolution explains why the living world is the way that it is."
#20: "I'm pretty sure that people gain a selective advantage from believing in things they can't prove."
#30: "I believe...that cannibalism and slavery were both prevalent in human history."
#40: "I believe that scientific theories are a means of going...beyond what we observe of the physical world, of penetrating into the structure of nature."
#50: "I believe that the human race will never decide that an advanced computer possesses consciousness."
#60: "I believe that animals have feelings and other states of consciousness."
#70: "I believe that human talents are based on distinct patterns of brain connectivity."
#80: "I believe that it is possible to change adult cells from one phenotype to another."
#90: "I believe that black holes do not...destroy information, thereby violating quantum mechanics."
#100: "I believe that the mechanism for the human perception of time will be discovered."

For the most part, all answers can be easily understood but some may require a dictionary to aid in understanding technical terms. Some contributors have the same beliefs so there is a bit of redundancy. However, I don't see this as something necessarily bad as the reader gets a different perspective on a prior mentioned belief. As well, all answers are "bite-sized," ranging from a sentence to a couple of pages.

I did find a few problems:

First, the table of contents. It simply lists all the contributors in non-alphabetical order with their first names first! Why not list them in alphabetical order with the first names last? Better still, put the answers in general categories. For example, those contributors whose answers deal with consciousness would have there names under this heading or those that deal with life in the universe would have there names under this heading.

Second, the book simply ends with the final contributor's answer. I couldn't understand this especially since there's a well-written introduction. There should have been a conclusion of some sort.

Finally, the book's subtitle states "Today's leading thinkers on science in the age of certainty." This gives the impression that this book deals exclusively with scientists. It does not. There are thinkers in other fields who contribute answers also.

In conclusion, I believe this is a good book of educated speculation and I've tried to prove it!!

(first published 2006; preface; introduction; 109 contributors; main narrative 250 pages)

+++++

in fact, that's a part of their job description.

What We Believe But Cannot Prove edited by John Brockman is edge.org's latest question of the year answered by more than 100 of the great thinkers of our time as defined by edge.org. The responders are writers, professors, scientists, and philosophers. Many of them have great name recognition because of books they have written or talk shows they have appeared on. Almost all of them have something significant to say. This book is an easy read but more for the occasional insight or chuckle than for any fact or explanation although there are a few of these.

Some of the "what's" include:

== Life is ubiquitous in our universe

== Nothing is true that can't be proved

== True love exists

== God does not exist

== Evolution is a fact

== The processes of evolution are ...

== There is great creative power in boredom

== The real world is a construct of our consciousness

== The real world exists independent of our consciousness

== Laughter and other airway maneuvers are verbal punctuation

The list goes on and on, of course. It is unlikely that you have heard of all the ideas covered in the book or that you have heard or believe none of them. I was struck with how many GOOD ideas are being discussed, researched, and written about - ideas that aren't necessarily technology driven or business related. There is so much we believe is true in this wonderful world but we still can't prove!

I thought this book would be more than it was. But I still liked it because many answers were provocative and interesting. So many scientists are atheists and they occasionally pontificate (see H.Kimble), but at least they are slightly educated and using reason and established facts, unlike the vast majority of 'other' people who pontificate.

There were a few things I didn't like. First, there is no apparent order to the table of contents. Second, too many of the people believe the same things and it got a little repetitive.

I would recommend this book for a fun, thought-provoking quick read.

The question posed by John Brockman was "What do you believe but cannot prove?" It might be classed as one of those Mediaeval "angels on the head of a pin" queries. However, this is the 21st Century and what we know of Nature now stands in stark contrast to what was known then. The responses show that serious questions remain to be resolved. Not all of them can be, as the issue concerned lies either in the past or is too remote for close study. Some, of course, lie in the realm of what we deem "consciousness". A vague term in its own right, made even more difficult when the various respondents offer their own definitions. That tactic, however, makes the answers more stimulating by creating fresh questions. By selecting novelist Ian McEwan to write the introduction, Brockman shows he doesn't consider the question limited to scientific speculation. McEwan demonstrates his knowledge of the scientific issues [would that more fiction writers matched that capacity!] and how "inspiration" has advanced our understanding of Nature.

Although he doesn't describe the process, the reader will soon learn that the editor has placed the responses in some general categories. The first area of interest is cosmology - who is out there? How might we learn of them? Can we ever reach worlds light years away? More to the point, how is the universe put together and why in that way and not another? Are there other universes we can't see? Since many of these questions touch on what we call "values", the next grouping addresses that sort of reply. What is "morality" and what are its origins? In this collection, the "divine" is bypassed, leaving only humans to provide the answer to those "eternals". Yet humans, the responders acknowledge, are the product of natural selection. We have had a long time with even longer biological underpinnings to develop ideas of what is "moral". And moral issues are considered with other emotional aspects of our relations with others - including that favourite topic, "true love". As "love" is limited among humans without language, how we communicate and how language developed is another aspect of our evolutionary roots.

None of these behavioural characteristics of our species can be adequately explained until we have some notion of what drives them. Human consciousness is receiving greater attention through brain research. Cognitive science is revealing what is ticking over in our brains when we deal with such factors as "love" or "communication". A precise definition of consciousness has yet to emerge. The respondents here include one who feels consciousness doesn't even emerge until the language facility is fully developed. Others, using different criteria, even assign consciousness to the lowly cockroach. That consciousness may be at a different level, and operate in more constrained circumstances than that of our species, but consciousness it remains. It is in this segment of the collection where the respondents include the views of colleagues in their essays. That alone is enough to demonstrate the importance of the issues raised here. It may also portend deeper questions on wither the human species is bound. Will humans merge with computers as a means of enhancing their cognitive capacity?

Some more random responses to the "Edge" question conclude the collection. A few direct social issues are addressed, along with associated predictions. Is the human species "improving" and can that be directed are typical examples. Rounding out a fascinating collection, these last are wide-reaching and may be more immediate than the foregoing replies. With such a talented stable of commentators, Brockman's gathering is of immense importance. These are real questions under investigation by highly qualified thinkers. McEwan himself reappears in a thoughtful note all of us should consider. It has great impact on how we conduct our lives - and how novelists portray that behaviour. This is an enduring collection, and should be on every bookshelf. Add it to yours. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]

As a scientist I approached this book with a lot of expectations. I wanted to know what the greatest minds in science believe but cannot prove. I was expecting a lot of cutting edge topics and revolutionary ideas. Yes, there are some pieces that fulfilled and even exceeded my expectations, but there were also others that I couldn't even get past the first paragraph.
I guess it is always difficult to put together a book with so many contributors and the result is always going to be a mix of, in this case, brilliant ideas and not so surprising monologues.

This is a wide ranging and fun read. Each section is short and frequently thought provoking. The brevity of the sections makes this a book that you might want to carry around with you and read when you have only a little down time. Highly recommended.

A bit disappointing. I thought that this would be a really special book, and I found it quite erratic. Some of the thinkers seem to have taken this very seriously, while others have not spent more than 10 minutes in this (that is not necessarily a bad thing). There are many repetitions, and some answers do not fit well in the book. Anyway, there are some very interesting ideas and clever answers, such as those given by Seth Lloyd, Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi and others that made the book worth reading.

This book exemplifies "science on vacation" -- not the idea that we are taking a break from the scientific method, but rather the notion that scientists can be playful if they want to be. "I believe that there is an external reality" and that other people are not figments of my imagination, says one contributor. Another says that all human consciousness is "a conjuring trick." Some of the world's top scientists, philosophers, and other thinkers are letting their minds roam and thinking the big thoughts, and the result is (mostly) fascinating.

It was surprising for me, as a non-scientist, to note how many "big" problems in science are not yet resolved and how many important propositions thus remain unproved.