Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
93 of 111 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Either read the book or don't "review" it., July 6, 2005
The "mediocrity principle" doesn't fare so well in The Privileged Plant, but this should not be startling. The mediocrity principle stands in opposition to a great and growing number of observations, measurements and calculations that are frequently grouped in what is called the anthropic principle. The implications of the anthropic principle are supported by several decades of our best scientific work, while the mediocrity principle, often mistakenly called the Copernican principle, is now shown to be supported simply by several generations of dogmatic philosophical preference. For some, there is clearly going to be an emotional aspect to this philosophical conflict, an "anthropic" universe is "fine tuned" and has the look of a theistic (or at least deistic) universe, a "mediocre" universe is said to have the look of an atheistic universe. For those who possess a strong disdain for theism, mediocrity is the poor horse that must be ridden hard. As Alfred North Whitehead pointed out, the individual driven by the purpose of insisting that all is without purpose makes for an interesting study in psychology!
It is a curious thing to note the spike in pejorative "reviews" of this book posted in early June. Might this have more to do with newspaper commentaries and blog reactions to the showing of the related film at the Smithsonian, than with the content of this book itself? Looking at the stories that appeared notably in the New York Times and Washington Post, stories presumptively about the film based on this book, it is difficult to conclude otherwise. The June 3 article in the Post was titled "Dissing Darwin" and characterized the film, as had the Times article, as being some kind of attack on evolutionary theory. The film doesn't mention biological evolution. The book, as those who have actually read it will be aware, barely mentions biological evolution. It certainly takes no position opposing or championing any biological theory - it is a book about geophysics, astrophysics, and the history and philosophy of science that touches also on cosmological and quantum physics. A discussion of the relationship of fossil fuels (the remains of ancient plants) to technological advances and to abating what would have otherwise been far more extensive deforestation over the past century, are as close as the authors come to matters biological. The existence of ancient plant life and geological dynamics is seen as a necessary proviso and boon to technological and scientific development (if our primary source of energy were firewood or whale oil we could hardly have conceived of putting scientific instruments in space!). Nothing in this line of argument is "against evolution," as the New York Times ignorantly characterized it.
As someone who has in fact read the book, it is all too painfully obvious that the "reviewer" who posted below (on June 8) has certainly NOT read this book, and that he does not even have any direct knowledge of the general thesis of this book. To review books you have not read is to be (borrowing from the alleged "reviewer") "simply a victim of your own ignorance."
The June 7 reviewer (whose passionate description berates a "pile of steaming manure") didn't read the book either, as is evident in the fact that nothing of the content or even thesis of the book is cited in the "review." It is interesting to notice how often phrases like "pseudo-scientific claptrap" are used in emotionally charged pseudo-reviews. If you have not read a book but have submitted a "review" anyway, it's not too late to do the right thing. Delete the "review" and resolve to live as an honest man hereafter.
This book is actually quite interesting and presents more sophisticated scientific argument, more direct treatment of opposing arguments, and less dogmatic philosophizing than did Carl Sagan, whose doctrines the authors effectively take to task. Because the thesis treats of the most necessarily opposed world views, purposeless materialism versus purposeful theism, it has clearly inspired some rather childish and passionate reactions, perhaps especially from certain ideologues who have not touched the book. Read it or don't pretend you did. I suggest you actually educate yourself regarding that which you strive to overcome, whether you're posting a review at amazon.com or are a "reporter" for the New York Times or Washington Post. Anything less is probably just a tantrum, not relevant, and is certainly "not science."
* 08.26.05 addendum: and it continues - the August 5 'reviewer' (above) obviously has a mirror-opposite ideology to the "reviewers" I have mentioned earlier. Yet it is apparent that he has not read the book either - plainly apparent for the same reasons. The August 26 'reviewer' has a sermon to preach but notably does not engage any specific argument from this book, in fact demonstrates that he is ignorant of them: the sun will not "go cold", it will explode and then perhaps implode into a neutron star or black hole. Yes there is an overarching purpose for this, it is discussed in the book, something of which our "reviewer" is apparently unaware (are you seeing a pattern here folks). One can say they are comforted to 'know' that their molecules will be recycled into 'someone else in the universe' in an 'endless continum' (sic) but this is a metaphysical 'knowing' and not a scientific one. It is now expected by most astrophysicists that only second-generation main sequence G class stars like our sun, and perhaps third [and fourth?] generation similar stars are/will be physically appropriate to hosting a system that could support life, especially "higher" life. Contrary to so many popular assertions, our host star is both remarkable and atypical. Someone who had actually read the book, or any current book about astrobiology, would have known this. Please don't let your runaway passions embarrass yourselves people! Read (especially if you intend to write a review!), study, contemplate, and then, if ever, spend your own words, carefully measured and with prudent relevance. This page of feigned "reviews" is becoming a dumping ground for people with words to spew but who have NOT read the book.
|
|
|
68 of 86 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Fantastic and informative, March 2, 2004
By A Customer
I got this book as soon as it became available, so I thought I'd be the first one to write a review. I've followed the debates over design and fine tuning for a while, and had heard this book was in the pipeline. I am thoroughly impressed with the clarity of its argument, the elegance of its prose, and the staggering level of scholarship displayed in its pages. I have no doubt that it will raise the level of debate on the larger issues about the meaning of it all. The book is richly illustrated with both color and black and white pictures.Gonzalez and Richards' (G and R) argument is something that, so far as I know, has not really been discussed before, namely, that the universe is fine-tuned for scientific discovery itself. This is a completely new angle. But the book is more than an argument for purpose in the universe. In fact, in many ways, it's a sweeping overview of the history of scientific discovery itself. I would like to say something about the Publishers Weekly review that is posted on Amazon.com. It's baffling. I thought Publishers Weekly reviews were supposed to be more or less descriptive rather than editorial. But this review must have been written by someone who either didn't read The Privileged Planet carefully, or didn't understand the argument. First of all, the description of their treatment of habitability is inaccurate. G and R don't claim that Earth is the only habitable planet. They argue that, given what we already know about what it takes to make a habitable planet, such planets are probably rare. And they definitely don't argue that just because the Earth is well suited for life, therefore it was designed. In fact, they go to great lengths to show why that's not a very good argument. The reviewer also misunderstood the central point of the book, or what the authors call "the correlation between habitability and measurability." In fact, the review turns the very thesis of the book into an afterthought: "In addition, the authors contend, the universe itself is designed for discovery." Huh? That's the point of the book, and it is developed and reiterated many times, so I don't know how a reviewer could miss it. The argument is fairly straightforward: the (universal) requirements for complex observers like human beings also provide the best (overall) places for making scientific discoveries. In other words, observers (embodied observers, anyway) will find themselves in the best places for making various significant kinds of scientific discoveries. Some of their examples, like eclipses, are, frankly, a little eerie. The rarity of conditions for complex life is one of the premises of their argument for purpose, but it's not the only premise. Finally, the Publishers Weekly reviewer warns readers "that the vast majority of scientists reject the intelligent design argument." Why would that be in a review? Did the reviewer poll all scientists? And which intelligent design argument is he referring to? There's more than one. In the ancient world there was Plato's, Cicero's and Thomas Aquinas'. In the 19th century, there was William Paley's. In recent years, there have been design arguments from Michael Denton, Michael Behe and William Dembski in biology, to John Barrow, Frank Tipler, John Leslie, and others in physics. The argument in The Privileged Planet is related to these arguments, but it is also different. Even those who are critical of design arguments in biology might like the argument in The Privileged Planet, since it has to do with the design of the universe as a whole, and not with individual items within the universe. It's most related to the fine-tuning arguments in physics, but it deals with a new class of evidence. I don't think their argument would differ if Darwin's theory of evolution were true in all its details. In any case, the book should be judged on its own merits, and not just lumped in with a generic and somewhat dismissive phrase like "the intelligent design argument." Finally, how can a reviewer make bald assertions about the general reception of an argument which isn't even known yet? (The Publishers Weekly review came out before the book was even available at Amazon.com.) Is he clairvoyant? I do hope that readers will read the book for themselves. And I also hope that future reviews will be more careful in how they describe this important and inspiring book.
|
|
|
28 of 35 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
The Special, and Intelligently Designed "Pale Blue Dot", June 21, 2006
Co-authored by two Discovery Institute Fellows, astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez and philosopher Jay W. Richards, The Privileged Planet presents a new form of design argument which can be applied to the level of the cosmos. Design proponents have long held that the physical constants of nature and properties of our solar system appear finely tuned and specified to allow for advanced life. But Richards and Gonzalez take this argument to a new level by arguing that the same set of circumstances which permit advanced life are also optimized for a range of scientific discoveries.
Chapter eight, for instance, centers on research by Gonzalez that was featured in a cover story of Scientific American in 2001. Like our solar system's habitable zone, our galaxy has a habitable zone as well. This broken ring roughly have way from the galaxy's center is far enough away from the radiation-filled center of the galaxy, between its radiation-filled spiral arms, but not so far out that it lacks the heavy elements needed for terrestrial planets like Earth. This location is also well situated for making a range of scientific discovery. While other locations might allow improved observation of this or that feature, the Galactic Habitable Zone offers an overall better location for a range of important scientific observations. This is but one of many instances of what seems to be a consistent correlation between the requirements for life and the requirements for scientific discovery.
But any book coauthored by a philosopher must investigate the philosophical implications. Richards and Gonzalez recounts that a historical myth developed, according to which, when it was discovered that the Earth was neither the center of the Solar System nor the Universe, Earth became insignificant. This mythology was popularized by materialists like Carl Sagan who preferred to portray Earth to the public as just a lucky but insignificant pale blue dot floating through the uncaring depths of space.
The Privileged Planet argues that there is a weak historical and theological basis for the claim that Christianity requires Earth to be at the center of the action. Moreover, there is a growing body of scientific evidence from a range of disciplines showing that great care and intelligent design was taken in our cosmic placement. According to the evidence cited in the book, both the design of cosmic laws and the specific architecture of our solar system, including the sizes and relationship of Earth and moon, permit the existence of advanced life with the opportunities to make profound scientific discoveries.
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
by Peter Douglas Ward
DVD ~ Jay Richards
