Other than maybe a humorous read or a broadening of horizons in the realm of what one thinks, what would be the purpose of buying/reading this book? I read the summary from the link (pasted below) and just don't see the connection. Reading the customer critiques I see more what the book is supposed to portray and it still just seems like a roundtable of conversational essays designed to make you question what/how you believe even if you cannot prove it. Which I guess is related but not strictly so. I also know the more hit you in the face connection based on the title alone (tms being uncertain in the minds of some and hard to prove well enough for others) but apart from that I don't see it. Is this what you wanted to provide? The rethink how you think to the universe approach? No offense Shawnsmith. I read a few entries about your weirdness (of which unless criminally insane I kind of admire weirdness) and a comparison to House MD (now if you had the same smoldering blue eyes we'd talk. LOL) so I am intrigued as to your response to this.
Copy starts here:
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
Thanks!
Ali Cat
Hugs,
Ali Cat |
What We Believe but Cannot Prove (New Book)
Posted - 08/02/2007 : 20:05:08
