Reviews for Words of Wonder Conversations With the Greatest Science Fiction Authors of the Last Eight De...

The average rating for Words of Wonder Conversations With the Greatest Science Fiction Authors of the Last Eight De... based on 2 reviews is 2 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2016-11-17 00:00:00 Robert Tubbs As the subtitle says, this is a book about the science of prediction. Very little of the book (the last chapter) is about specific predictions of the future. The book is divided into three parts. Part one talks about predicting in the past, a major focus of which is in mechanics. This includes Ptolmey’s model, the Copernican model, Galileo and Newton’s mechanics. Part two covers the science of prediction in the present. It focuses on the weather, biology (mainly genetics and its influence on health), and economics. David Orrell’s major claim in this part of the book is that prediction goes astray not because of chaos theory (sensitive dependence on initial conditions—the famous butterfly effect), but on model error because no model is exact enough to capture all the necessary elements. Part three then looks at the future of predicting with a dismal appraisal. But, he is not claiming that all prediction is worthless. In the final chapter he gives two sets of prediction. One in which we do nothing about carbon emissions and one where we do. There are three appendixes, which explain some of the mathematics (simplified) used in prediction models. Here are some of the notes and comments I made on the text: [page 9] The whole thing of “an insect flapping its wings [the butterfly effect]” and affecting a storm at a great distance seems pretty far-fetched to me. Orrell tends to agree with me, but his view comes from his work on model error [also see comment for page 145]. [page 70] He and his editor made a big mistake: “[Galileo] also discovered four moons around Saturn.” They were Jupiter’s moons. Galileo did discover Saturn’s rings, not its moons; [page 95] “When Napoleon asked Laplace why God did not play a role in his calculations for the solar system, he is said to have replied, ‘I have no need of that hypothesis.’” This is an excellent summation of methodological naturalism, which most practicing scientists adhere to, at least in their scientific work. Some people do consider god a mathematician, but most of these people I feel are usually speaking figuratively. [page 105] Speaking on non-local phenomena in quantum mechanics, he claims that “Einstein . . . was religious . . .” Einstein was not religious in the sense of practicing a religion. He might have had some nonstandard belief in god, or some sense of spirituality, but that is a far cry from being religious. [page 109] He seems to defend free will by reference to unpredictability, which he is saying all our prediction models of complex systems exhibit. I claim unpredictability does not eliminate cause and effect. The only known area of the universe that is known to be noncausal is in the quantum sphere, but from there on up it is cause and effect. If cause and effect were not occurring, the world would be a pretty strange place as the quantum realm appears to be. He says that autonomy comes from this unpredictability. Autonomy should only be considered as being violated when someone does not determine his or hers actions, but is force to or prevented from doing something. [page 114] “It is important that models not be confused with this [complex systems] far richer reality.” A good example of the basic principle of “the word is not the thing” or “the map is not the territory.” [page 124] “[Aristotle’s] own view [of meteorology] was that thunder, lightening, and hurricanes were all caused by ‘windy exhalations,’ perhaps from quarreling philosophers.” Orrell shows this sense of humor in places throughout the book. [page 145] In response to the butterfly effect as a perceived source of prediction error, not model error, he states: “But is the weather really so delicate and finely poised a system that an insect can stir up a hurricane—or knock it off track—with a beat of its tiny wings?” My sentiments actually. As far as the second half of the book, I found nothing worthy of comment, except I admire his willingness to see metaphor as an integral part of science, and I say as it is with life. I thought the book to be a fair appraisal of the state of the science of prediction, and what can be expected from it in the future. I am not sure how other scientists working on prediction models would rebut his arguments, that the main problem with these models is model error (for instance, not having enough parameters), not sensitive dependence on initial conditions (ala chaos theory); although, I do not think he believes that chaos theory does not play any role at all. Orrell is a good explainer and easily understood by someone conversant enough with science. The book was enjoyable to read, and I did learn some new stuff, not just stuff I already new explained in a different way, that I often run into in reading popular science books. If you are looking for what is going to happen in the future, you maybe disappointed. However, if you would like to know or know more about models used in prediction science, especially those involved with the weather, health, or economics, the book should be of interest to you. I will offer one word of caution. If you are looking for actual mathematics (except for the appendixes) and not just description, I feel you would be as disappointed as those that wish for predictions for what is going to occur in the future.

Review # 2 was written on 2014-06-08 00:00:00 Douglas Dilling A lot of words to reach an underwhelming conclusion.