送交者: habpi 于 2005-11-23, 14:16:32:
良忠 mentioned this book in his article. So I checked Amazon and found these two interesting reviews:-)
39 of 43 people found the following review helpful:
Third Rate, May 28, 2001
Reviewer: A reader
The underlying premise of this book is that a new kind of scientist-popularizer now serves as the intellectual elite of our culture. Each chapter focuses on one such scientist-popularizer; first he or she explains his/her work and then peers comment on it. Broadly, the science focuses on about four themes: evolution, cognitive science/AI, cosmology, and complexity. The people interviewed include Steven Jay Gould, Richard Dawkins, Marvin Minsky, Roger Penrose, Murray Gellman, Steve Pinker, and others. My criticisms of the book are
1. It's exceedingly arrogant in its dismissal of literary and politcal intellectuals in the book's preface.
2. At least half of the peer discussion at the end of chapters is inane remarks like "So-and-so's work is very important. She's the smartest person I know." This, along with the tone of the preface, makes it seem as if the participants are insecure somehow. It also makes me suspect the book is merely a promotional vehicle for the participants books. (The editior of this book is a literary agent.)
3. In very few instances are the participants ideas adequately developed or critiqued. The spatial limitations are exacerbated by the inane praise and filler.
4. Much of the thinking covered is glitzy with little substance and this gives a false notion of how science is done. There's very little mention of experiment.
3 and 4 combine to create a book that includes both crackpot and mainstream scientific ideas and then doesn't not present the reader with enough information to distinguish between them.
The book does attempt to do some worthwhile things:
1. Lead one to some great authors. For instance, readers pick up the book because they like Pinker's "The Language Instinct" might then be led to Dawkins' "Selfish Gene"
2. Present both sides of a scientific debate. Dawkins vs. Gould is the prime example. I wish this had been developed more.
3. Show what prominent scientists think of each other's work.
4. Show some modern scientific paradigms--only this is done somewhat disingenously because real scientific breakthroughs and the paradigms they beget are eschewed for pop-sci that has done very little. For instance, fields like genomics and quantum computation are passed over but complexity is included.
My advice is to peruse the contents and use that to find interesting authors to read directly.
Was this review helpful to you? YesNo (Report this)
15 of 17 people found the following review helpful:
Good Idea, Lousy Execution, February 14, 2003
Reviewer: K Ackermann (Chicago, IL USA) - See all my reviews
This book is a sad collage of weak efforts from a self-promoting literary agent. Brockman co-opts a pithy title with a specific meaning and then misapplies it intentionally, seeking to acquire the virtues of the label without providing the substance to back it up. If you want to read a group of highly respected scientists (and an occasional philosopher) speculating about their work's broader context -- socially, historically, aesthetically, morally, spiritually -- without the rigorous requirements of a peer reviewed journal or the space required to make a nuanced argument, this may be worth your time. However, be prepared to wade through piles of mutual admiration smugness and now-you're-an-insider prose.
Brockman positions the work as an "oral history of a dynamical emergent system," which is just a jargon-laden smokescreen for a half-assed effort. If only Brockman had the spine to take the transcripts of his interviews and synthesize them for the reader into a coherent, readable whole! Instead, we have edited transcripts, a power point version of a thoughtful book, the crucial synthetic element replaced with copyediting and cleverly labeled section titles. Good idea, lousy execution. This is a book edited by Brockman, not written by him; he apparently lacked the self-confidence or talent to write in his own voice, and he does a disservice to the thinkers whose verbal speculations he edits into pabulum, digestible by the massest of the mass public (e.g., "Chris Langton is the central guru of this artificial life stuff." Ack.).
Do yourself a favor and buy the original works of the thinkers included in this volume, or read their original academic publications. Yes, it may be putting money in Brockman's pocket as their agents, but at least he will be rewarded for the work that reflects his talent - leeching off others. The cover swims with the names of Nobel Prize winners and scientific luminaries - in a halo around his own.
Was this review helpful to you? YesNo (Report this)