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

~ (Author) "I believe that intelligent life may presently be unique to our Earth but has the potential to spread throughout the galaxy and beyond it-indeed, the..." (more)
Key Phrases: postsymbolic communication, metaphysics rule, cognitive spectrum, Big Bang, Edge Question, New York (more...)

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly

The title's question was posed on Edge.org (an online intellectual clearing house), challenging more than 100 intellectuals of every stripe—from Richard Dawkins to Ian McEwan—to confess the personal theories they cannot demonstrate with certainty. The results, gathered by literary agent and editor Brockman, is a stimulating collection of micro-essays (mainly by scientists) divulging many of today's big unanswered questions reaching across the plane of human existence. Susan Blackmore, a lecturer on evolutionary theory, believes "it is possible to live happily and morally without believing in free will," and Daniel Goleman believes children today are "unintended victims of economic and technological progress." Other beliefs are more mundane and one is highly mathematically specific. Many contributors open with their discomfort at being asked to discuss unproven beliefs, which itself is an interesting reflection of the state of science. The similarity in form and tone of the responses makes this collection most enjoyable in small doses, which allow the answers to spark new questions and ideas in the reader's mind. It's unfortunate that the tone of most contributions isn't livelier and that there aren't explanations of some of the more esoteric concepts discussed; those limitations will keep these adroit musings from finding a wider audience. (Mar.)
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

From Booklist

In this informative and often surprising book, more than 100 notable scientists and scholars answer the question, "What do you believe even though you cannot prove it?" The responses range from the thought-provoking to seemingly trivial (or just plain silly). Professor of cosmology and astrophysics Martin Rees, for example, admits that he believes intelligent life is unique to our world (in sharp contrast to many of his fellow contributors). Alun Anderson, senior consultant to New Scientist magazine, believes cockroaches are conscious. Mathematician and science-fiction novelist Rudy Rucker believes in a multiplicity of universes. Susan Blackmore, who has written widely on the subject of consciousness, appears to believe that she doesn't exist. The contributors touch on a broad spectrum of subjects, from religion to science and many points in between. Although some of the responses are arrogant or nitpicky, the majority are thoughtful, honest, and revelatory of the contributors' own intellectual and philosophical biases. And the book certainly gets us thinking about our own deeply held, if entirely unprovable, beliefs. David Pitt
Copyright © American Library Association. All rights reserved

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Paperback: 272 pages
• Publisher: Harper Perennial; 1 edition (February 28, 2006)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0060841818
• ISBN-13: 978-0060841812
• Product Dimensions: 7.8 x 4.9 x 0.7 inches
• Shipping Weight: 6.4 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 3.9 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (27 customer reviews)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #38,624 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

  Popular in these categories: (What's this?)

  #16 in	Books > Science > Essays & Commentary
  #21 in	Books > Nonfiction > Philosophy > Epistemology

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

74 of 77 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars Concise and Lively -- With Some Duplication, February 28, 2006

By	Rev. Thomas Scarborough (Cape Town, South Africa) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

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.

21 of 23 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars "Great minds can sometimes guess the truth before they have...the evidence...for it", September 10, 2006

By	Stephen Pletko "Uncle Stevie" (London, Ontario, Canada) - See all my reviews (TOP 500 REVIEWER)

+++++

"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)

+++++

15 of 16 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars but I believe in swordfish, May 29, 2007

By	My Uncle Stu (Boston) - See all my reviews (TOP 1000 REVIEWER)

"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.