Book Review - Philosophy by AC Grayling

Posted on November 16th, 2007

Still catching up on my book reviews here…

I have read a bunch of books about philosophers but I have never before read a book about philosophy. The trouble with reading about philosophers is that by that time you have slogged through 18 Greeks with similar sounding names they all blur into one and you can’t recall the difference between an atomist and an epicurean. It’s much easier to read about, say, ethics when it is all in one chapter.

Reading the book pretty much confirmed for me what Paul Graham said that the only thing 3000 years of philosophy has taught us is that there are limits to what we can know.

I am glad I read it but I won’t recommend it to anyone else.

The most disappointing thing was to read so many chapters about aesthetics, ethics, justice and morality and never once come across the word ‘evolution’. It seems a shocking oversight and I have written to Professor Grayling asking him to rectify that in a future edition.

Book Review - Misquoting Jesus

Posted on November 16th, 2007

I was really looking forward to reading this since I read an essay that Bart Ehrman wrote on the moment he lost his faith as a Born Again Christian.

I was pretty sure Professor Story would appreciate the argument, since I knew him as a good Christian scholar who obviously (like me) would never think there could be anything like a genuine error in the Bible. But at the end of my paper he made a simple one-line comment that for some reason went straight through me. He wrote: “Maybe Mark just made a mistake”.

This essay happens to be in the introduction of the book.

Misquoting I was a little disappointed when I actually came to read Misquoting Jesus but that probably says more about my expectations than about the book itself. Last year I read the quite marvellous Who Wrote the Bible and I was expecting Erhman to do the same thing for the New Testament that Friedman did for the Old.

All the facts were there, and he did a bang up job of telling the story but, overall, I felt like he was trying too hard.

Where Friedman just told a fascinating story about a fascinating episode of our history, Erhman felt like he had an agenda - to persuade the people who believe that the bible is the literal Word of God that it was written by fallible humans with agendas of their own. Since I already believe it was written by fallible humans, the advocacy got in the way of my enjoyment and, since I already knew the broad thrust of the story, it didn’t go deep enough to quench my thirst for knowledge.

It was a good read for all that though. I firmly believe that if kids were taught the history of the bible in school, it would inoculate them from some of the weirder fantasies conjured up by the literalists and they could enjoy the text for the beautiful literature that it is (in parts).

Recommended!

Book Review - The World Without Us

Posted on November 16th, 2007

For a long time, I have had a handful of questions that I kept handy in case I ran into a famous scientist but, one by one, I keep finding the answers to my questions. Questions like: “If the primates got wiped out, from which class would the next Intelligent Species to Dominate The World come?” (answer: Rodents. Thanks to Richard Dawkins in the Ancestors Tale - best book of the century so far).

My last remaining question was “How long would it take for all traces of humanity to disappear when we are gone?” so imagine my delight when I heard that someone had written a whole book on that very subject - The World Without Us by Alan Weisman.

World Without UsThe answer is quite encouraging. Much better than I had dared hope.

Starting with the example of what happens to a barn when you cut an 18 inch hole in the roof and then working up through a house with a loose shingle (once the water gets in, it’s all over) he talks us through the destruction of New York City (reverts to forest in a 100 years and then the next ice age removes all trace (but see below about bronze statues)).

Some of our artifacts - like Houston and all its refineries - will cause 100s of years of pain before fading into nothingness but, on the whole, he expects the world to recover quite well. All the rivers will revert to their original courses and all the forests will grow back. In many cases, the original species will also recover and much of our meddling (wheat, cows, maize, dogs) will get eaten or out-competed very quickly.

Cats (and a few ornamental shrubs) are a sad exception to this rule. Apparently they are responsible for an avian holocaust (second only to plate glass in their ability to take down whole species). I always suspected that cats were evil and now I have confirmation.

Some of the best chapters in the book are about some accidental experiments where humanity has temporarily left an area because of war (Cyprus, Korea’s DMZ) or disaster (Chernobyl) and in each case the native species returned very very quickly or lived on when the same species became almost extinct in other areas.

I also enjoyed the mystery of why all the North American mega fauna died out around the same time that men with spears were crossing the Bering Strait (coincidence or…?). Don’t worry though. They will grow back. Not exactly the same of course. Maybe there will be Sabre Toothed Sloths and Giant Ground Tigers instead of what we had before. Meanwhile, we can join the campaign to Bring Back the Elephants!

More depressing are the sections that enumerate our waste products that will stick around for a long time like plastics, tyres, U-235 and dioxins but, one day, some clever bacteria will figure out what to do with them (except the U-235. nature will just have to learn to tolerate that). It’s actually quite shocking what we are doing with plastics and nuclear waste. Before I read the book, it was shocking in an abstract, distant way but now the problem appears quite real and close at hand.

Some of our artifacts that will be around longest include Mount Rushmore, bronze sculpture and the Voyager probes (which will probably outlast the earth) but they are all fairly innocuous so I don’t resent them too much.

All in all, I found the book very uplifting and it almost wants me to hasten our demise so that nature can make a start on restoring some of the beauty that we have destroyed. Which is why I just signed up with the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement.

May we live long and die out!

Who was Uncle Muncher?

Posted on November 1st, 2007

I vaguely remember that my first hamster, Uncle Muncher, was named after a cartoon character but I didn’t remember anything more than that until…

…through the magic of Google:

BOBO BUNNY (early ’70s)

Surreal fare for the under eights. Bobo of the title was a blue rabbit, who lived with his family of assorted brightly coloured and bizarrely named rabbits, like cousin Read-to-me and Aunty Shut-that-door. Our favourite was Uncle Muncher who was orange, and ate everything in sight (”Oh no, Uncle Muncher has eaten the front door.”). Other stories in the comic were Pinkie Puff the Magic Elephant, and ‘We All Live in a Big Yellow Caravan’, in which around 30 people lived in a caravan that was both big and yellow.

bobo

LibraryThing jolly good

Posted on October 5th, 2007

I like this LibraryThing thing. See what your friends are reading. Get books recommendations.

Be my friend?

Reddit?

Posted on October 5th, 2007

All the cool kids are doing it and I wanna be like the cool kids.

These are the 106 books that are most often marked as ‘owned but not read’ at LibraryThing.

I have read the ones in bold . According to the rules, I am supposed to italicize the ones I have partially read, but I am going to italicize the ones that I am pretty sure I have read but remember nothing about.

Here goes:

  • Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell
  • Anna Karenina
  • Crime and Punishment
  • Catch-22
  • One Hundred Years of Solitude
  • Wuthering Heights
  • The Silmarillion
  • Life of Pi : a novel
  • The Name of the Rose
  • Don Quixote
  • Moby Dick
  • Ulysses
  • Madame Bovary
  • The Odyssey
  • Pride and Prejudice
  • Jane Eyre
  • The Tale of Two Cities
  • The Brothers Karamazov
  • Guns, Germs, and Steel: the fates of human societies
  • War and Peace
  • Vanity Fair
  • The Time Traveler’s Wife
  • The Iliad
  • Emma
  • The Blind Assassin
  • The Kite Runner
  • Mrs. Dalloway
  • Great Expectations
  • American Gods
  • A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius
  • Atlas Shrugged (it is third in my bookpile though)
  • Reading Lolita in Tehran : a memoir in books
  • Memoirs of a Geisha
  • Middlesex
  • Quicksilver
  • Wicked : the life and times of the wicked witch of the West
  • The Canterbury tales
  • The Historian : a novel
  • A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man
  • Love in the Time of Cholera
  • Brave New World
  • The Fountainhead
  • Foucault’s Pendulum
  • Middlemarch
  • Frankenstein
  • The Count of Monte Cristo
  • Dracula
  • A Clockwork Orange
  • Anansi Boys
  • The Once and Future King
  • The Grapes of Wrath
  • The Poisonwood Bible : a novel
  • 1984
  • Angels & Demons
  • The Inferno
  • The Satanic Verses
  • Sense and Sensibility
  • The Picture of Dorian Gray
  • Mansfield Park
  • One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest
  • To the Lighthouse
  • Tess of the D’Urbervilles
  • Oliver Twist
  • Gulliver’s Travels
  • Les Misérables
  • The Corrections
  • The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay
  • The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time
  • Dune
  • The Prince
  • The Sound and the Fury
  • Angela’s Ashes : a memoir
  • The God of Small Things
  • A People’s History of the United States : 1492-present
  • Cryptonomicon
  • Neverwhere
  • A Confederacy of Dunces
  • A Short History of Nearly Everything
  • Dubliners
  • The Unbearable Lightness of Being
  • Beloved
  • Slaughterhouse-five
  • The Scarlet Letter
  • Eats, Shoots & Leaves
  • The Mists of Avalon
  • Oryx and Crake : a novel
  • Collapse : how societies choose to fail or succeed
  • Cloud Atlas
  • The Confusion
  • Lolita
  • Persuasion
  • Northanger Abbey
  • The Catcher in the Rye
  • On the Road
  • The Hunchback of Notre Dame
  • Freakonomics : a rogue economist explores the hidden side of everything
  • Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance : an inquiry into values
  • The Aeneid
  • Watership Down
  • Gravity’s Rainbow
  • The Hobbit
  • In Cold Blood : a true account of a multiple murder and its consequences
  • White Teeth
  • Treasure Island
  • David Copperfield
  • The Three Musketeers

Strive not to vex

Posted on October 3rd, 2007

My vacation started just over half an hour ago and already it is quite excellent. From my chair, at the top of my drive, as I sip my second beer, I can see no less than 12 wireless networks.

I am enjoying my book (despite its not being very good) and came across this quote, which I thought I’d share:

It is an excellent rule to be observed in all disputes, that men should give soft words and hard arguments; that they would not so much strive to vex, as to convince an enemy.

John Wilkins, 1643-ish

The book is Soul Made Flesh by Carl Zimmer. It tells the story of man’s beliefs about the soul and is a kind of potted history of neuroscience through superstition, alchemy and - I presume because I haven’t yet got that far - science.

The major thurst of the book is OK but he keeps meandering off into these irrelevant side-stories and, in the latest one, his version of the English Civil War has the Puritan freedom-fighters erecting a beacon of tolerance and freethinking to illuminate the land after the dark ages of the tyrant Stuart kings.

Since I dropped history at the first opportunity (there is only so much you can take of Mrs Timm), I don’t really know the official establishment view of the Civil War. Most of my knowledge is coloured by Winston Churchill’s History of the English Speaking Peoples in which the Churchill Family were the underground resistance during a brutal military dictatorship in which humourless Roundheads abolished song and colour and beauty and imposed meat and two veg on generations of Englishmen.

In my version, Cromwell has a lot in common with Mullah Omar. Not that I am a Royalist, you understand (quite the contrary), but I note that many of the great advances that came out of England came after the Restoration.

I wonder what the official view is. I wonder what other Englishmen think about the Civil War - to the extent that they think about it at all. Comwell. Good guy or bad guy?

I shall ask the very next Englishman I meet.

Speaking of which, one of my favourite Englishmen has invited me to a Britain-oriented quiz on Plot Night. No-one from my part of the country calls it Plot Night. To us, it is Guy Fawkes’. No doubt that’s another symptom of the North-South divide.

Speaking of Plot Night, Aaron asked me if he could come to our Guy Fawkes-themed camping trip dressed as Guy. Only if your costume is flammable, I replied - quite reasonably I thought.

Thanks to V is for Vendetta, Aaron has it in his head that Guy Fawkes was some kind of revolutionary hero - to Americans like Aaron, all revolutionaries are heroes - but I carefully explained that Guy Fawkes was closer to one of Osama bin Laden’s suicide bombers than to Thomas Paine - who, by the way, got his start in the village pub in Lewes where my mum lives. I also explained that the American Revolution was quite a-typical as most affairs of that nature are followed by Reigns of Terror or Interregna in which Humourless Roundheads/Khmer Rougians/Enragés put people in re-education camps, chop off their heads, persecute the Irish, and, worst of all, blandify English menus.

So, anyway, which is it?

Cromwell. Good guy or bad guy?

Books and Miracles

Posted on June 14th, 2007

The New York Times just had a review of Natalie Angier’s The Canon. I expected the book to be good (despite the review) but I read a couple of chapters in Borders to see if it was worth buying and couldn’t get past what Pinker called “the distracting wordplay”. I think Angier has a quota of four puns and three metaphors per sentence.

Anyway, one of the better sections was on probability and she described the intriguing idea that, if you define a miracle as something that has less than a one in a million chance of happening, most people should experience a miracle once a month.

Speaking of books…just yesterday I was trying to think of books that I really enjoyed as a 12 year old that my soon-to-be-12-year-old might also enjoy and two really stood out in my memory. Both books  are both about teenagers which is probably why they made such an impression on me.

The first, The Chocolate War, by Robert Cormier, was the first book I ever read that was set in the USA and it made America seem so much more real - and different! - to me than the fantasy place in the movies. I just checked out the reviews on Amazon and they all say things like

I agree with the reviewers who believe that this book is one of the best books ever written for young adults.

I had no idea it was a famous book. There was a movie made of it (it was crap) but I have never heard of anyone else who had even read it. One detail that sticks in my mind is that the protagonist has a poster in his locker that asks

Do I dare disturb the universe?

which, as a 12 year old, moved me tremendously and is the theme for the whole book and often pops into my head when I have a difficult choice to make.

The other book, The Satanic Mill, is even more obscure. Imagine Harry Potter, set in a 17th century Bavarian forest, told by the Brothers Grimm. But take away all the non-dark bits. The reviewers at Amazon are unanimous in their opinion that it deserves 5 stars and it seems that everyone read it in foreign - in French, in Russian and the original German - except me.

I expected them both to be out of print so, imagine my delight when I came home from work today to find that my lovely wife had got The Chocolate War from the library for Dylan. What are the chances of that? I rushed to Amazon to look up The Satanic Mill and, sure enough, it was out of print but…the library has it! Copy’s on the way!

What are the chances that either book is as good as my 30 year old memory of it?

Nothing to read

Posted on August 10th, 2006

I was in a very bad mood when I woke up this morning and my mood got even darker when I glanced I at my books-waiting-to-be-read pile.

I like to read something while I sit down with my cup of tea in the morning and since I let my Newsweek and Economist subscriptions lapse I have had to revert to old-fashioned books. Apart from the delightful Francis Crick biography, I have bounced from book to mind-numbing book - UML Distilled and The Innovator’s Dilemma and several other books that I should be reading. My arm went numb just reaching for the pile.

I had started reading the first three chapters of The Innovator’s Dilemma about 5 times before and, after I convinced myself that reading the whole book would be a lot like reading the first three chapters another 5 times, aborted the effort. I decided that life was too short to be reading books that did not enjoy and in the mood I was under, I really couldn’t face another chapter of Working with Legacy Code.

The quirky cover of that tractor book that Richard had lent me a couple of weeks ago caught my eye. I read the first paragraph…

Two years after my mother died, my father fell in love with a glamorous blonde Ukrainian divorcee. He was eighty-four and she was thirty-six. She exploded into our lives like a fluffy pink grenade, churning up the murky water, bringing to the surface a sludge of sloughed-off memories, giving the family ghosts a kick up the backside.

Tractors in UkraineJust what I was looking for! I got about half way through the first chapter before I had to leave for work. When I arrived here I glanced at the reviews on Amazon. All the reviews gave it either 5 stars or 1 star. Perfect! As Kathy Sierra says, if everyone has a strong opinion about your work - they either love it or hate it - you are probably onto something. Even better - the lovers found the book hilarious and the haters found it depressing (Angela’s Ashes, anyone?).

I can’t wait to get home now! It had better live up to my towering expectations!

Flamboyant Genius - a little bit flawed - never in a modest mood

Posted on August 7th, 2006

Francis CrickWhen I said that Crick was a flawed, flamboyant genius, I was guessing really. Pretty good guess, it turns out, as Matt Ridley’s fascinating mini-biography makes vividly clear.

Let’s get the flaws out of the way first. What I had in mind first time around was his total disdain for the institutions of religion and monarchy but, on reflection, I think he really deserves respect for standing up for what he believed in - at potentially great cost to his career. There are a bunch of interesting anecodotes about his antipathy to organized religion - Crick makes Richard Dawkins look like the Archbishop of Canterbury - but my favourite episode occurred when he was offered a founding fellowship of Churchill College. The college was being founded in honour of Winston Churchill as a specifically scientific college in an attempt to imitate the success of MIT. Crick had initially refused the fellowship because the college planned to add a chapel (the initial plan did not include one) and Crick thought a chapel had no place in a place of science. He was persuaded to change his mind because it was considered unlikely that the college would ever raise the funds to build the chapel. Crick became a fellow.

Shortly after that, one Timothy Beaumont donated the entire cost of the chapel and the foundations were dug before the fellows even got to have a say. Crick resigned immediately and sent a letter of resignation to Winston Churchill. He received the following reply:

I was sorry to learn that you have resigned from Churchill College, and am puzzled by your reason. The money for the chapel was provided specifically for that purpose by Mr Beaumont and not taken from general college funds. A chapel, whatever one’s views on religion, is an amenity which many of those who live in the College may enjoy, and none need enter it unless they wish.

Crick sent this reply:

To make my position a little clearer I enclose a cheque for ten guineas to open the Churchil College Hetairae [courtesans] fund. My hope is that it will eventually be possible to build permanent accommodation within the College, to house a carefully chosen collection of young ladies in the charge of a suitable Madam who, once the institution has become traditional, will doubtless be provided, without offense, with dining rights at the High Table.

Such a building will, I feel confident, be an amenity which many who live in Cambridge will enjoy very much, and yet the institution need not be compulsory and none need enter it unless they wish. Moreover it would be open (conscience permitting) not merely to members of the Church of England, but also to Catholics, Non-Conformists, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Zen Buddhists and even atheists and agnostics such as myself.

The trustees may feel my offer of ten guineas to be a joke in rather poor taste. But that is exactly my view of the proposal of the Trustees to build a chapel, after the middle of the 20th century, in a new college and in particular one with a special emphasis on science. Naturally some members of the college will be Christian, at least for the next decade or so, but I do not see why the college should tacitly endorse their beliefs by providing them with special facilities. The churches in town, it has been said, are half-empty. Let them go there. It will be no further than they have to go for their lectures.

Even a joke in poor taste can be enjoyed, but I regret that my enjoyment of it has entailed my resignation from the college, which bears your illustrious name.

The chapel was eventually built outside of college grounds.

Crick refused to attend weddings, funerals and baptisms in church but suggested that, if humanism were to take off it would need its own rituals, anticipating Kev and Jeff’s House of Death by 40 years. I think Francis Crick would have appreciated a sad, silent clown.

There is another great story which has a broke, father-of-three, Francis Crick writing to Jim Watson to request - and be refused - Watson’s blessing for a show about the double helix on BBC Radio:

Do you still feel you can’t allow the Third Programme Broadcast? I’ve yet to find anyone who would object to it, and things have cooled down a bit now. Also, it would bring in $50 to $100 which at the moment I could do with.

Watson refused his blessing:

If you need the money that bad, go ahead. Needless to say, I should not think any higher of you and shall have good reason to avoid any further collaboration with you.

Crick graciously declined to do the broadcast but this episode was perhaps in the back of his mind when he and Watson had their great falling out over the latter’s The Double Helix (Amazon, here I come again). Crick did everything he could to try to suppress Watson’s book which (I am told - still waiting for delivery) is written as much as a warts-and-all autobiography as an account of the science that led to the breakthroughs with DNA that won them their Nobel Prize. Crick succeeded in getting Harvard Press to refuse to publish it and, after its eventual publication, bore a grudge for several years.

But, as Julio suggested, none of that rises to the level of ‘flawed’. But flaws, sadly, there are. In the 70s, Crick was very outspoken on such contentious topics as eugenics, population control and race. He made suggestions that seem outrageous now (and, presumably, then) such as forced sterilization, social experiments on twins (who would be subject to madatory separation at birth) and a form of licensing to discourage breeding among the genetically unfit.

I won’t spend too much time on Crick’s flamboyance. Just open the book at any page to read of the parties at his residence, The Golden Helix (at one party in particular, guests were handed a sketchpad and required to provide a sketch of the nude life model in the foyer) or of his reckless yachting adventures or his eccentric choice of friends (including one who would habitually use Crick’s name whenever he was arrested - often - or picking up women on foreign beaches - all the time).

The book is ultimately, of course, about Crick’s genius which seems almost unfathomable. Consider a man who quit his well-paying job to enter academia but could not decide whether to first solve the secret of life or whether to explain the nature of consciousness. With the double helix well-documented and the DNA code cracked Crick still found time, at the age of 60 to start work on the second problem. Sadly, time ran out for Francis Crick in 2004. I am sure he would have cracked that one too if he had only started a little earlier.

One day, when I am rich, I will have a house with a study and on the walls of that study will be the portraits of all my heroes. Francis Crick will be up there with Bob, George, Winston and the others.