Took a little blog-break there. Thought I’d ease myself back in with a self-indulgent post about the reviews for 13 Things That Don’t Make Sense.
It’s self-indulgent because they’ve been surprisingly good. Well I’m not surprised, obviously, because I think the book is marvellous. But you all probably are surprised. And some of the book's critics might be too. Bizarrely, there have been calls to strip me of my PhD for writing this book, and one household name has said it discusses things that “should not be discussed”. Oh come on…
Anyway, this being the internet age, the reviews are all online, so I’ll restrict myself to some excerpts and links.
First of all, the Sunday Times. Christopher Hart said:
In this fascinating, bang-up-to-date report from the outer limits of scientific knowledge today, New Scientist writer Michael Brooks examines 13 of the most urgent scientific mysteries in turn.
Like all the best science popularisers … Brooks reawakens us to the astonishing fact of our mere existence, the strangeness of the world around us, and the astonishing amount that science has yet to discover.
The Times Higher made it their book of the week (under the heading “Books by Academics”, but that’s their call…). Robert Matthews alarms me slightly, giving me the sense that he sees this as a potentially career-ending work!
Brooks quit his full-time post with New Scientist to ponder the sorry state of contemporary science. The outcome is 13 Things That Don't Make Sense, which will fascinate, entertain and outrage anyone who hankers for the glory days when science was getting somewhere.
I’m not sure I’d say contemporary science is in a sorry state – that seems a bit strong. There are issues to resolve, sure, and it doesn’t hurt to look in the mirror once in a while. But most of science remains fascinating to me…anyway, I like this bit a lot:
…Science is no longer progressing at breakneck speed because the low-hanging fruit of discovery has gone. Brooks makes a compelling case that if we want to get to the rest of the crop, we must start looking for ladders. Sadly, too many of today's scientists get a panic attack at the mere sight of a footstool.
I think that’s definitely true: there is too much pressure to publish (and in the right journals) to take risks with areas that might get you nowhere – or even sacked.
OK, one more, because there’s a less traditional, but rather charming review at Litlove. It’s the transcript of a husband and wife conversation about the book, and I think it gets the spirit of the book bang on. I particularly like this exchange:
Me: And tell me how scientific is all this? What’s the style like? Could I understand it?
Him: Oh yes, it’s very clearly and engagingly written, partly because he’s very good at talking about the people who are caught up in these things. He’s just taking evidence and exploring it and poking holes in the weak spots. If you’re not a scientist you could be led to believe that science was a nice white smooth sheet and everything’s explained. But it’s not like that at all.
Me: Well, I find that reassuring as I don’t like the idea of science as an impregnable narrative as…. What?
Him: sorry (sniggering) it’s just I’m talking as if… as if… we’ve never talked like this before.
Me: What’s your problem?
Him: No, no, its just I’m still talking like I’m talking to the general public and then when you start talking properly I thought you were being too…sorry, it’s too strange.
Me: Are you all right? Hang on in there, it will all be over soon. So, how does it compare to other popular science books you’ve read?
Him: Very well. He links all the chapters together and it’s like he just leads you from one dilemma to the next one by having connecting thoughts, connecting ideas, it really leads you along and you don’t stop at the end of a chapter, you think, oh well I’ll just get onto the next one… You feel he has a real interest, understanding and affection for the scientists and I think that’s important because it’s not a debunking of science…
Me: No, he’s written it from the inside.
THANK YOU FOR NOTICING! Yes, I do have a real interest, understanding and affection for the scientists, and no I’m not debunking science.
OK, enough self-indulgence for one day. More tomorrow, if you don’t behave…
Subscribe