Review by New York Times Review
Every year, Brockman, a literary agent, poses a different question to "leading thinkers" on his Web site. Edge. Last year's question - "What scientific concept would improve everybody's cognitive tool kit?" - drew 165 responses from scientists, sculptors, linguists and museum curators, each presenting a specialized theory or term that should be adopted into common parlance - in the manner of "random sample" or "placebo" - making "people smarter by providing widely applicable templates." The mini-manifestoes gathered in this book indicate various trends. Psychologists dwell on the power of attention, with Daniel Kahneman, a recipient of a Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Science, noting that the very act of concentrating on something leads us to exaggerate its importance and its potential to make us happy. Physicists suggest that we should become more comfortable with uncertainty. Curiously, some of the more philosophical statements about our place in the universe come from biologists, with P.Z. Myers writing that we are adrift in an indifferent cosmos, one that the genome scientist Craig Venter insists is teeming with alien life. An ambitious few propose spreading the scientific method to the masses, with Richard Dawkins suggesting that if double-blind control experiments were standard classroom fare, we would not "be seduced by homeopaths and other quacks." Delving into this book is like overhearing a heated conversation in a lab. It captures the preoccupations of top scientists and offers a rare chance to discover big ideas before they hit the mainstream. Jascha Hoffman has written for Nature and The New York Times.
Copyright (c) The New York Times Company [August 5, 2012]
Review by Kirkus Book Review
Culture: Leading Scientists Explore Civilizations, Art, Networks, Reputation, and the Online Revolution, 2011, etc.) asks a group of eminent scientists and writers their views on the question, "What Scientific Concept Would Improve Everybody's Cognitive Toolkit?" The thematic question was actually proposed to the editor by Harvard professor Steven Pinker, who urges the need for people to recognize the value of win-win bargaining based on cooperation rather than competition--positive rather than zero sum games. New Scientist editor Roger Highfield writes humorously that "one way to win the struggle for existence is to pursue the snuggle for existence: to cooperate." In a similar vein, astronomer Marcelo Gleiser suggests that since humans may be unique in the universe, "[we] might as well start enjoying one another's company." Psychologist Daniel Goleman examines the seeming indifference of most people about the risk of "planetary meltdown." In the same vein, science writer Alun Anderson suggests changing the name of our species to Homo dilatus because of our inability to face up to the consequences of global warming. Physicist Lawrence Krauss looks at the importance of scale in determining how precise an answer must be, and Lisa Randall argues the need for understanding both the "robustness and the limitations" of scientific results. Neuroscientist Robert Sapolsky warns against too much reliance on anecdotal evidence, and several contributors touch on the theme of how to evaluate risk and the tendency of people to over-focus on the immediate in estimating dangers. Other notable contributors--there are more than 150--include Stewart Brand, Richard Dawkins, Jonah Lehrer, Nicholas Carr, David Eagleman, Alison Gopnik, Jaron Lanier, V.S. Ramachandran, Brian Eno, Amanda Gefter and Clay Shirky. A winning combination of good writers, good science and serious broader concerns.]] Copyright Kirkus Reviews, used with permission.
Copyright (c) Kirkus Reviews, used with permission.
