What do you think?
Rate this book
Edge Question
What We Believe But Cannot Prove: Today's Leading Thinkers on Science in the Age of Certainty
More than one hundred of the world's leading thinkers write about things they believe in, despite the absence of concrete proof.
Scientific theory, more often than not, is born of bold assumption, disparate bits of unconnected evidence, and educated leaps of faith. Some of the most potent beliefs among brilliant minds are based on supposition alone—yet that is enough to push those minds toward making the theory viable.
Eminent cultural impresario, editor, and publisher of Edge, John Brockman asked a group of leading scientists and thinkers to answer the question: What do you believe to be true even though you cannot prove it? This book brings together the very best answers from the most distinguished contributors.
Thought-provoking and hugely compelling, this collection of bite-size thought-experiments is a fascinating insight into the instinctive beliefs of some of the most brilliant minds today.
Scientific theory, more often than not, is born of bold assumption, disparate bits of unconnected evidence, and educated leaps of faith. Some of the most potent beliefs among brilliant minds are based on supposition alone—yet that is enough to push those minds toward making the theory viable.
Eminent cultural impresario, editor, and publisher of Edge, John Brockman asked a group of leading scientists and thinkers to answer the question: What do you believe to be true even though you cannot prove it? This book brings together the very best answers from the most distinguished contributors.
Thought-provoking and hugely compelling, this collection of bite-size thought-experiments is a fascinating insight into the instinctive beliefs of some of the most brilliant minds today.
252 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2005
101 people are currently reading
3452 people want to read
About the author
John Brockman
66 books612 followersJohn Brockman is an American literary agent and author specializing in scientific literature. He established the Edge Foundation, an organization that brings together leading edge thinkers across a broad range of scientific and technical fields.
He is author and editor of several books, including: The Third Culture (1995); The Greatest Inventions of the Past 2000 Years (2000); The Next Fifty Years (2002) and The New Humanists (2003).
He has the distinction of being the only person to have been profiled on Page One of the "Science Times" (1997) and the "Arts & Leisure" (1966), both supplements of The New York Times.
He is author and editor of several books, including: The Third Culture (1995); The Greatest Inventions of the Past 2000 Years (2000); The Next Fifty Years (2002) and The New Humanists (2003).
He has the distinction of being the only person to have been profiled on Page One of the "Science Times" (1997) and the "Arts & Leisure" (1966), both supplements of The New York Times.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 146 reviews
December 4, 2013
This is what I would call a toilet book – the kind of reading matter that one keeps beside the toilet to be read in snatches. Most the articles go for three pages at the longest. What is particularly surprising is that the least interesting responses to the question of what you believe were from the most famous people. Dawkins, Davies, McEwan and even Diamond presented dull as dishwater articles – in fact, you could nearly guess exactly what each of them would say before reading their articles. The worst articles were the ones that said effectively, “I believe there is no God, but I can’t prove it” – oh, enough already. As an atheist I have the right to say that there are very few things as boring as atheism. After you’ve said, ‘there is no god’, there’s not a whole lot of interest left in the conversation.
Take Richard Dawkins saying ‘I believe design comes late in the universe’. That is much less interesting than if he had found something to say more directly related to his real speciality of biology – something like, “I believe the mongo-pongo ant will one day be shown to have a additional penis in what has always been taken to be its earlobe. Other specialist friends of mine have laughed at me at dinner parties when I’ve suggested this, but by God, if it’s not a penis it damn well looks like one!” (is it just me that finds the idea of Dawkins at a dinner party deeply troubling?)
That belief would have been interesting, but effectively saying ‘there is no god’ once again just isn’t. You see, the point of this book was for clever people to come up with stuff they believe to be true even though they don’t have any proof for it. But too many – particularly at the start (and so I was nearly going to stop a few times) said things like Michael Shermer, “Science as a method, and naturalism as a philosophy, together form the best tool we have for understanding reality.” And that’s what you believe, but can’t prove? Yes, indeed, I know, but boring.
Other people I’d never heard of before said much more interesting things. Jean Paul Schmetz for example says, “I believe that most ideas taught in Economics 101 will be proved false one day” – now, there is an interesting thing to say. There is something you can chat about over a beer down the pub! Isn’t that more interesting than McEwan’s ‘No part of my consciousness will survive my death’ or the seemingly endless string of people who said ‘we are not alone in the universe’ – yes, yes, yes… But virtually everyone likely to be reading this book is also very likely to have just that same belief. If you were going to do a ‘life in space’ belief I would have much preferred if someone had said something like, “I believe there will never be a silicon based life-form found in the universe.” There, balls have been put on the line. But to say that some form of life will be found somewhere in a near infinite universe – that brings ho into far too close contact with hum.
I have to admit that I did like some of the people who confirmed some of my pet prejudices – you know, that there will be no multiverse or that string theory will be proven to be silly – but I much preferred the ones that said things like, “I don’t believe in time” or “why not assume that consciousness does not play a significant role in human behaviour?” – now those are interesting beliefs to have.
So, what do I believe, but cannot prove? I'm going to put myself out there and say that Shakespeare wrote the works of Shakespeare. I know, it sounds impossible, but I’m a crazy kind of guy.
Take Richard Dawkins saying ‘I believe design comes late in the universe’. That is much less interesting than if he had found something to say more directly related to his real speciality of biology – something like, “I believe the mongo-pongo ant will one day be shown to have a additional penis in what has always been taken to be its earlobe. Other specialist friends of mine have laughed at me at dinner parties when I’ve suggested this, but by God, if it’s not a penis it damn well looks like one!” (is it just me that finds the idea of Dawkins at a dinner party deeply troubling?)
That belief would have been interesting, but effectively saying ‘there is no god’ once again just isn’t. You see, the point of this book was for clever people to come up with stuff they believe to be true even though they don’t have any proof for it. But too many – particularly at the start (and so I was nearly going to stop a few times) said things like Michael Shermer, “Science as a method, and naturalism as a philosophy, together form the best tool we have for understanding reality.” And that’s what you believe, but can’t prove? Yes, indeed, I know, but boring.
Other people I’d never heard of before said much more interesting things. Jean Paul Schmetz for example says, “I believe that most ideas taught in Economics 101 will be proved false one day” – now, there is an interesting thing to say. There is something you can chat about over a beer down the pub! Isn’t that more interesting than McEwan’s ‘No part of my consciousness will survive my death’ or the seemingly endless string of people who said ‘we are not alone in the universe’ – yes, yes, yes… But virtually everyone likely to be reading this book is also very likely to have just that same belief. If you were going to do a ‘life in space’ belief I would have much preferred if someone had said something like, “I believe there will never be a silicon based life-form found in the universe.” There, balls have been put on the line. But to say that some form of life will be found somewhere in a near infinite universe – that brings ho into far too close contact with hum.
I have to admit that I did like some of the people who confirmed some of my pet prejudices – you know, that there will be no multiverse or that string theory will be proven to be silly – but I much preferred the ones that said things like, “I don’t believe in time” or “why not assume that consciousness does not play a significant role in human behaviour?” – now those are interesting beliefs to have.
So, what do I believe, but cannot prove? I'm going to put myself out there and say that Shakespeare wrote the works of Shakespeare. I know, it sounds impossible, but I’m a crazy kind of guy.
July 15, 2021
This book has such an interesting premise that I decided to take a chance on it. I was hoping for some soaring flights of speculative thought, and did find some ideas that made me pause and think. The book consists of 109 short contributions, ranging from a single sentence to three pages, with most a page and a half, and it is a mixed bag of profound and pedestrian.
It didn’t start out well for me. The selections are loosely grouped together, and in the first one the writers talk about their belief in life beyond earth. This is such an obvious, easy one that it made me think the participants were going to play it safe, only asserting things that would not cause their colleagues to laugh at them behind their backs. The only memorable quote from that section is by Paul C.W. Davies, “I believe we are not alone because life seems to be a fundamental, and not merely an incidental, property of nature. It is built into the great cosmic scheme at the deepest level and therefore is likely to be pervasive.” (p. 34)
Some of the entries are thoughtful and well reasoned, but many of them seem to be off-the-cuff remarks that were dashed off between more important things. Also, a number of them were simple restatements of the projects their authors were working on: after all, you wouldn’t be working on it unless there were still some unanswered questions to pursue.
There is a good middle section on consciousness: how to define it, how it evolved, how it is connected, and with ideas like the argument that consciousness is not just inside us but an amalgamation of ourselves and the environment in which we live since, after all, language and society are bounding functions when it comes to how we interpret what we perceive.
Daniel Dennett gives a brief recapitulation of one of his most famous ideas, “I believe, but cannot yet prove, that acquiring a human language (an oral or sign language) is a necessary precondition for consciousness – in the strong sense of there being a subject, an I, a ‘something it is like something to be.’ It would follow that nonhuman animals and prelinguistic children...are not really conscious, in this strong sense.” (p. 142)
Of all the entries, the one I thought was the best written was by Irene Pepperberg, who clearly laid out her idea in the first sentence, then proceeded to build a explanation of why it is not proven but how it might still be true, and it is an interesting premise, “I believe, but can’t prove, that human language evolved from a combination of gesture and vocalizations, via the concomitant evolution of mirror neurons, and that birds will provide the best model for language evolution.” (p. 173)
I also found intriguing Donald I. Williamson’s idea that the Cambrian explosion can be explained by hybridization starting around 600 million years ago, in that early forms of multi-cellular life had evolved few mechanisms to prevent cross-fertilization, and so exchanged DNA freely, much like some bacteria do today. The failures disappeared and the successful ones thrived, going on to form the phylla we see today. There are fossils in the Burgess Shale which provide tantalizing support for this idea in their seemingly odd amalgamation of parts, but there is no firm proof.
Kevin Kelly also has an interesting idea regarding DNA variability. We think of our genetic code as having been firmly fixed at conception, but it changes over time. “A few biologists know (even if most of the public doesn’t) that the full sequence of DNA in your cells changes over time, since your chromosomes are shortened each time they divide in growth. Because of a bug in the system, DNA is unable to duplicate itself when it gets to the very tip of its chain, so at each cell division it winds up a few hundred bases short.” (p. 220) From this he speculates that not only does our DNA change during our lifetime, but it is possibly different even in different parts of our bodies.
There is also one entry that I am sure the editor would like to be able to pull back, by none other than alleged pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. He was known for spreading money around scientific circles, and is described here as money manager and science philanthropist. His entry is the silliest of them all, and I am certain his money had something to do with it being accepted for this collection. “I believe that the mechanism for the human perception of time will be discovered...There will be found (in addition to entropy) a cost, or friction, for just moving through time.” (p. 246) That is the kind of thing sophomores say to each other late at night while sharing a joint.
There are also one or more thumbnail essays on faster than light drive, panspermia, free will, true love, evolutionary psychology, a possible fourth law of thermodynamics, animal consciousness, quantum theory, the idea that we are living in what amounts to a draft version of a fully functioning universe, and more.
So, even though this book is uneven in the quality of its essays, it was worth my time. In fact, the best thing I took away from it is new books to add to my reading list. Each author is introduced with a paragraph saying who they are and where they work, and includes the books they have published, some of which definitely sound worthwhile.
It didn’t start out well for me. The selections are loosely grouped together, and in the first one the writers talk about their belief in life beyond earth. This is such an obvious, easy one that it made me think the participants were going to play it safe, only asserting things that would not cause their colleagues to laugh at them behind their backs. The only memorable quote from that section is by Paul C.W. Davies, “I believe we are not alone because life seems to be a fundamental, and not merely an incidental, property of nature. It is built into the great cosmic scheme at the deepest level and therefore is likely to be pervasive.” (p. 34)
Some of the entries are thoughtful and well reasoned, but many of them seem to be off-the-cuff remarks that were dashed off between more important things. Also, a number of them were simple restatements of the projects their authors were working on: after all, you wouldn’t be working on it unless there were still some unanswered questions to pursue.
There is a good middle section on consciousness: how to define it, how it evolved, how it is connected, and with ideas like the argument that consciousness is not just inside us but an amalgamation of ourselves and the environment in which we live since, after all, language and society are bounding functions when it comes to how we interpret what we perceive.
Daniel Dennett gives a brief recapitulation of one of his most famous ideas, “I believe, but cannot yet prove, that acquiring a human language (an oral or sign language) is a necessary precondition for consciousness – in the strong sense of there being a subject, an I, a ‘something it is like something to be.’ It would follow that nonhuman animals and prelinguistic children...are not really conscious, in this strong sense.” (p. 142)
Of all the entries, the one I thought was the best written was by Irene Pepperberg, who clearly laid out her idea in the first sentence, then proceeded to build a explanation of why it is not proven but how it might still be true, and it is an interesting premise, “I believe, but can’t prove, that human language evolved from a combination of gesture and vocalizations, via the concomitant evolution of mirror neurons, and that birds will provide the best model for language evolution.” (p. 173)
I also found intriguing Donald I. Williamson’s idea that the Cambrian explosion can be explained by hybridization starting around 600 million years ago, in that early forms of multi-cellular life had evolved few mechanisms to prevent cross-fertilization, and so exchanged DNA freely, much like some bacteria do today. The failures disappeared and the successful ones thrived, going on to form the phylla we see today. There are fossils in the Burgess Shale which provide tantalizing support for this idea in their seemingly odd amalgamation of parts, but there is no firm proof.
Kevin Kelly also has an interesting idea regarding DNA variability. We think of our genetic code as having been firmly fixed at conception, but it changes over time. “A few biologists know (even if most of the public doesn’t) that the full sequence of DNA in your cells changes over time, since your chromosomes are shortened each time they divide in growth. Because of a bug in the system, DNA is unable to duplicate itself when it gets to the very tip of its chain, so at each cell division it winds up a few hundred bases short.” (p. 220) From this he speculates that not only does our DNA change during our lifetime, but it is possibly different even in different parts of our bodies.
There is also one entry that I am sure the editor would like to be able to pull back, by none other than alleged pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. He was known for spreading money around scientific circles, and is described here as money manager and science philanthropist. His entry is the silliest of them all, and I am certain his money had something to do with it being accepted for this collection. “I believe that the mechanism for the human perception of time will be discovered...There will be found (in addition to entropy) a cost, or friction, for just moving through time.” (p. 246) That is the kind of thing sophomores say to each other late at night while sharing a joint.
There are also one or more thumbnail essays on faster than light drive, panspermia, free will, true love, evolutionary psychology, a possible fourth law of thermodynamics, animal consciousness, quantum theory, the idea that we are living in what amounts to a draft version of a fully functioning universe, and more.
So, even though this book is uneven in the quality of its essays, it was worth my time. In fact, the best thing I took away from it is new books to add to my reading list. Each author is introduced with a paragraph saying who they are and where they work, and includes the books they have published, some of which definitely sound worthwhile.
April 24, 2015
I've read some atheist who ludicrously claim they hold no beliefs, they go about mocking faith and gloat about how they only have knowledge based on reason and science, he he... Considering these happily deluded pseudo-skeptics and "free-thinkers", I appreciated these quotes from this book:
"I’ve always found belief a bit difficult; most of what I believe to be true lies far beyond my ability to prove it. As far as knowledge goes, I’m a consumer and sometimes a distributor, not a producer. My beliefs are based on faith in other people and in processes and institutions. The same is true for most of us. Those who can prove their beliefs in their own field of expertise still rely on faith in others when it comes to other fields. To continually acknowledge this would make every utterance tentative, encrust every concept with ceteris paribus clauses. But when faced with a question about our beliefs, the role of faith in people and social institutions has to be credited."
"I can prove almost nothing I believe in. I believe the earth is round but I cannot prove it, nor can I prove that the earth revolves around the sun or that the naked fig tree in the garden will have leaves in a few months. I can’t prove that quarks exist or that there was a Big Bang—all of these and millions of other beliefs are based on faith in a community of knowledge whose proofs I am willing to accept, hoping they will accept on faith the few measly claims to proof I might advance."
"When considering the Edge Question, one has to remember the basis of the scientific method: formulating hypotheses that can be disproved. Those hypotheses that are not disproved can be believed to be true until disproved. Since it is more glamorous for a scientist to formulate hypotheses than it is to spend years disproving existing ones proposed by other scientists, and unlikely that someone will spend time and energy trying to disprove his or her own statements, our body of scientific knowledge is surely full of hypotheses that we believe to be true but will eventually be proved false."
"First, and most simply: Everything. In a strict Popperian reading, all the things I “know” are only propositions I have not yet falsified. They are best estimates—hypotheses that so far make sense of all the data I possess. I cannot prove that my parents were married on a certain day in a certain year, but I claim to “know” that date quite confidently. Sure, there are documents, but in fact in their case there are different documents, presenting two different dates. I recall the story my mother told to explain that, and I believe it, but I cannot prove I am right. I know Newton’s laws—and, indeed, believe them—but I also now know their limitations and imprecisions and suspect that more surprises lurk in the future."
"I’ve always found belief a bit difficult; most of what I believe to be true lies far beyond my ability to prove it. As far as knowledge goes, I’m a consumer and sometimes a distributor, not a producer. My beliefs are based on faith in other people and in processes and institutions. The same is true for most of us. Those who can prove their beliefs in their own field of expertise still rely on faith in others when it comes to other fields. To continually acknowledge this would make every utterance tentative, encrust every concept with ceteris paribus clauses. But when faced with a question about our beliefs, the role of faith in people and social institutions has to be credited."
"I can prove almost nothing I believe in. I believe the earth is round but I cannot prove it, nor can I prove that the earth revolves around the sun or that the naked fig tree in the garden will have leaves in a few months. I can’t prove that quarks exist or that there was a Big Bang—all of these and millions of other beliefs are based on faith in a community of knowledge whose proofs I am willing to accept, hoping they will accept on faith the few measly claims to proof I might advance."
"When considering the Edge Question, one has to remember the basis of the scientific method: formulating hypotheses that can be disproved. Those hypotheses that are not disproved can be believed to be true until disproved. Since it is more glamorous for a scientist to formulate hypotheses than it is to spend years disproving existing ones proposed by other scientists, and unlikely that someone will spend time and energy trying to disprove his or her own statements, our body of scientific knowledge is surely full of hypotheses that we believe to be true but will eventually be proved false."
"First, and most simply: Everything. In a strict Popperian reading, all the things I “know” are only propositions I have not yet falsified. They are best estimates—hypotheses that so far make sense of all the data I possess. I cannot prove that my parents were married on a certain day in a certain year, but I claim to “know” that date quite confidently. Sure, there are documents, but in fact in their case there are different documents, presenting two different dates. I recall the story my mother told to explain that, and I believe it, but I cannot prove I am right. I know Newton’s laws—and, indeed, believe them—but I also now know their limitations and imprecisions and suspect that more surprises lurk in the future."
March 25, 2015
هذا الكتاب يجمع إجابات عدد كبير من العلماء والمفكرين والكتاب عن سؤال حول ما يؤمنون به ولا يملكون له إثباتا.
كالعادة تتنوع الإجابات الجميلة والعميقة والحالمة أيضاً. وأجمل ما في هذه الإجابات المختصرة والموجزة هو أنها لا تتحدث عن الإيمانيات التي لات نطلب لها تفسيرا بل عن أفكار الباحثين التي يسعون لإثباتها أو يأملون بإيجاد طريقة للبدء بذلك. وبالتالي فإن الكتاب يصلح ليكون نزهة في عقول الباحثين، للتمتع بأسئلتهم الأكثر إلحاحا وجاذبية.
وكعادة بروكمان في كتبه، بحتاج الكتاب إلى إخراج أجمل وتبويب يساعد الباحث في الكتاب أو الراغب بقراءة أكثر تنظيما.
كالعادة تتنوع الإجابات الجميلة والعميقة والحالمة أيضاً. وأجمل ما في هذه الإجابات المختصرة والموجزة هو أنها لا تتحدث عن الإيمانيات التي لات نطلب لها تفسيرا بل عن أفكار الباحثين التي يسعون لإثباتها أو يأملون بإيجاد طريقة للبدء بذلك. وبالتالي فإن الكتاب يصلح ليكون نزهة في عقول الباحثين، للتمتع بأسئلتهم الأكثر إلحاحا وجاذبية.
وكعادة بروكمان في كتبه، بحتاج الكتاب إلى إخراج أجمل وتبويب يساعد الباحث في الكتاب أو الراغب بقراءة أكثر تنظيما.
July 11, 2023
Мне понравилась глобально идея книги, но расстроила ее реализация.
В книге много людей отвечало на один и тот же вопрос. Основная масса этих людей - ученные, а выбранные ими вопросы - научные. Каждый ответ занимает буквально пару страниц, и мне кажется что это очень мало. Расписать достойно свою мысль на трех-четырех страницах - довольно сложно, а разобраться в какой-либо научной теории за такое время вообще практически нереально. В итоге как читатель, ты прыгаешь по самым-самым верхам, не погружаясь глубоко в проблематику темы и не разобравшись нормально ни в одном вопросе.
"Я верю, что любой разум, любое творчество и любой замысел в любой точке Вселенной - это прямой или опосредованный результат кумулятивного процесса, эквивалентного тому, что мы называем естественным отбором. Следовательно, разумный замысел приходит с опозданием во Вселенной, после периода дарвиновской эволюции. Замысел не может предшествовать эволюции и поэтому не может лежать в основе Вселенной." Ричард Докинз
"Я не могу этого доказать, но верю, что люди выжили и получили преимущества в процессе естественного отбора благодаря способности верить в то, что невозможно доказать." Рэндольф Нессе
"Но амбиции молодых, новые методы и наша смертность - могущественные силы. Как заметил один комментатор, наукой движут похороны."
В книге много людей отвечало на один и тот же вопрос. Основная масса этих людей - ученные, а выбранные ими вопросы - научные. Каждый ответ занимает буквально пару страниц, и мне кажется что это очень мало. Расписать достойно свою мысль на трех-четырех страницах - довольно сложно, а разобраться в какой-либо научной теории за такое время вообще практически нереально. В итоге как читатель, ты прыгаешь по самым-самым верхам, не погружаясь глубоко в проблематику темы и не разобравшись нормально ни в одном вопросе.
"Я верю, что любой разум, любое творчество и любой замысел в любой точке Вселенной - это прямой или опосредованный результат кумулятивного процесса, эквивалентного тому, что мы называем естественным отбором. Следовательно, разумный замысел приходит с опозданием во Вселенной, после периода дарвиновской эволюции. Замысел не может предшествовать эволюции и поэтому не может лежать в основе Вселенной." Ричард Докинз
"Я не могу этого доказать, но верю, что люди выжили и получили преимущества в процессе естественного отбора благодаря способности верить в то, что невозможно доказать." Рэндольф Нессе
"Но амбиции молодых, новые методы и наша смертность - могущественные силы. Как заметил один комментатор, наукой движут похороны."
December 30, 2008
This book includes tiny essays (no more than four pages each, sometimes as short as a paragraph) by the world's smartest people about their hunches, estimates, guesses about a broad range of topics. It's a pretty thoughtful survey that results in a lot of interesting ideas. Some of the more interesting concepts and quotes:
"I believe that the human race will never decide that an advanced computer possesses consciousness."
"We will find ways to circumvent the speed of light as a limit on the communication of information"
"We will find another Earthlike planet within a decade."
"I believe nothing to be true if it cannot be proved."
"No part of my consciousness will survive my death."
"People gain a selective advantage by believing in things they cannot prove."
"There is no God that has existence apart from people's thoughts of God."
"There is a God, it's not me (and it's also not you)."
"I believe that there is an external reality, and that you are not all figments of my imagination"
"I believe in true love."
"I believe that neuroscientists will never have enough understanding of the neural code, the secret language of the brain, to read people's thoughts without their consent."
Then, outside of the actual arguments and suggestions were some well-worded statements about life and beliefe in general:
"Beliefs that one cannot prove are often wrong (as demonstrated by the contradictory beliefs in these pages). But they are also often healthy, and they are essential in science." (Carlo Rovelli)
Also from Rovelli: "I also believe but cannot prove that we humans have the collaborative instinct. This instinct will eventually prevail over the shortsighted, egoistic, and aggressive instinct that produces exploitation and war."
"How do we remember the past? I have been puzzled by my ability to remember my childhood even though most of the molecules in my body today are not the same ones I had as a child." (Terrence Sejonowski)
"Zen is wrong..." -- or, being a happy human is not about savouring the moment. "Spend your life in the eternal bliss of always having something to hope for, something to wait for, plans not realized, dreams not yet come true. Make sure you have new points on the horizon, that you deliberately create. And at the same time relive your memories, uphold and cherish them, keep them alive and share them, talk about them. Make plans and take pictures." (Kai Krause)
All in all, by its very nature, this book was a thought-provoking read. I gave it three stars because a lot of it sailed clear right over my head: mathematicians and physicists and neuroscientists making no attempt to make their fields accessible to laypeople. I mean, you can't fault them: you're asking them to talk about things they can't prove, when "proving things" is the one thing they are very, very good at. They HAVE to include minutiae and industry-specific terminology to even talk about the topic. As a result, I had no idea what 1/4 of the book was talking about.
"I believe that the human race will never decide that an advanced computer possesses consciousness."
"We will find ways to circumvent the speed of light as a limit on the communication of information"
"We will find another Earthlike planet within a decade."
"I believe nothing to be true if it cannot be proved."
"No part of my consciousness will survive my death."
"People gain a selective advantage by believing in things they cannot prove."
"There is no God that has existence apart from people's thoughts of God."
"There is a God, it's not me (and it's also not you)."
"I believe that there is an external reality, and that you are not all figments of my imagination"
"I believe in true love."
"I believe that neuroscientists will never have enough understanding of the neural code, the secret language of the brain, to read people's thoughts without their consent."
Then, outside of the actual arguments and suggestions were some well-worded statements about life and beliefe in general:
"Beliefs that one cannot prove are often wrong (as demonstrated by the contradictory beliefs in these pages). But they are also often healthy, and they are essential in science." (Carlo Rovelli)
Also from Rovelli: "I also believe but cannot prove that we humans have the collaborative instinct. This instinct will eventually prevail over the shortsighted, egoistic, and aggressive instinct that produces exploitation and war."
"How do we remember the past? I have been puzzled by my ability to remember my childhood even though most of the molecules in my body today are not the same ones I had as a child." (Terrence Sejonowski)
"Zen is wrong..." -- or, being a happy human is not about savouring the moment. "Spend your life in the eternal bliss of always having something to hope for, something to wait for, plans not realized, dreams not yet come true. Make sure you have new points on the horizon, that you deliberately create. And at the same time relive your memories, uphold and cherish them, keep them alive and share them, talk about them. Make plans and take pictures." (Kai Krause)
All in all, by its very nature, this book was a thought-provoking read. I gave it three stars because a lot of it sailed clear right over my head: mathematicians and physicists and neuroscientists making no attempt to make their fields accessible to laypeople. I mean, you can't fault them: you're asking them to talk about things they can't prove, when "proving things" is the one thing they are very, very good at. They HAVE to include minutiae and industry-specific terminology to even talk about the topic. As a result, I had no idea what 1/4 of the book was talking about.
December 17, 2010
آراء 109 عالم وباحث وصلوا إلى القمة كلٌ في مجاله. سئلوا عما يعتقدون بصحته ولكن لا يمكن إثباته. فكانت النتيجة تصورات مستقبلية مثيرة للاهتمام، وهي في مجالات متعددة من الكمبيوتر إلى الأحياء إلى الفيزياء و الكون. قلت لئن عشنا سنرى بعد سنوات هل تظهر حقيقة بعض مما قالوا
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
توقعت أن يكون الكتاب من النوع الثقيل، فقد كان واضحاً من مقدمته أن فيه كثيراً من الفلسفة. ولكن المحرر سهل علينا فجعل لكل عالم صفحة أو أكثر قليلاً ليعرض فكرته فجاءت الأفكار خفيفة ويمكن فهمها، أو قُل فهم شيء منها ، والذي لا أفهمه أتركه وهو أكثر ولكن لا بأس. كما سعى المحرر لترتيب العلماء حسب الموضوع فساعد ذلك على سهولة القراءة فلو خلط بينهم لمللت الكتاب من بدايته
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
خفت في البداية من قراءة الكتاب فهؤلاء العلماء أغلبهم ملحدون ولا يؤمنون بأي دين، وتنظيراتهم كلها مبنية آراء إلحادية جامدة. ولكن وبعد أن قرأت الكتاب وجدت أموراً زادتني يقيناً بالله
فمثلاً يقول بعضهم أنه ملحد ولكنه يؤمن بأهمية الإيمان أي إيمان يدفع الإنسان للعمل وكما يقول إيمان أعمق من الدين! وآخر يؤمن برأي يقول إنه يتمنى أن يكون حقاً فهو بديل للدين! وآخر يقول إن نظرية النشوء والإرتقاء مستحيلة ولكنها أمر واقع! وآخر يقول أن الكون لم يخلق مصادفة (ينفي الصدفة ولا يثبت شيئاً) وآخر يقول إن الإنسان ليس شريراً بطبعه ولكن فيه الخير والشر ويقول أن تراثنا (تراثهم) الديني (صلب المسيح) والعلمي (فرويد وغيره) يؤصل أن الإنسان شرير بطبعه. ولعله لم يقرأ "فألهمها فجورها وتقواها"
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
فوجدت فيهم جهلاً عجيباً، فهم كلهم يرون أن الدين فكر ظلامي استبدادي وعلى الأفضل نظام أخلاقي وضعه البشر وبالتالي فهو مستثنىً في كل ما يعتقدونه، وإصرارهم على ذلك عجيب فعلاً
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
توقعت أن يكون الكتاب من النوع الثقيل، فقد كان واضحاً من مقدمته أن فيه كثيراً من الفلسفة. ولكن المحرر سهل علينا فجعل لكل عالم صفحة أو أكثر قليلاً ليعرض فكرته فجاءت الأفكار خفيفة ويمكن فهمها، أو قُل فهم شيء منها ، والذي لا أفهمه أتركه وهو أكثر ولكن لا بأس. كما سعى المحرر لترتيب العلماء حسب الموضوع فساعد ذلك على سهولة القراءة فلو خلط بينهم لمللت الكتاب من بدايته
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
خفت في البداية من قراءة الكتاب فهؤلاء العلماء أغلبهم ملحدون ولا يؤمنون بأي دين، وتنظيراتهم كلها مبنية آراء إلحادية جامدة. ولكن وبعد أن قرأت الكتاب وجدت أموراً زادتني يقيناً بالله
فمثلاً يقول بعضهم أنه ملحد ولكنه يؤمن بأهمية الإيمان أي إيمان يدفع الإنسان للعمل وكما يقول إيمان أعمق من الدين! وآخر يؤمن برأي يقول إنه يتمنى أن يكون حقاً فهو بديل للدين! وآخر يقول إن نظرية النشوء والإرتقاء مستحيلة ولكنها أمر واقع! وآخر يقول أن الكون لم يخلق مصادفة (ينفي الصدفة ولا يثبت شيئاً) وآخر يقول إن الإنسان ليس شريراً بطبعه ولكن فيه الخير والشر ويقول أن تراثنا (تراثهم) الديني (صلب المسيح) والعلمي (فرويد وغيره) يؤصل أن الإنسان شرير بطبعه. ولعله لم يقرأ "فألهمها فجورها وتقواها"
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
فوجدت فيهم جهلاً عجيباً، فهم كلهم يرون أن الدين فكر ظلامي استبدادي وعلى الأفضل نظام أخلاقي وضعه البشر وبالتالي فهو مستثنىً في كل ما يعتقدونه، وإصرارهم على ذلك عجيب فعلاً
October 22, 2014
Больше сотни коротких эссе от публичных ученых и интеллектуалов, каждый со своими ответами на вопрос, вынесенный в заголовок книги. Много известных имён: Макьюэн, Докинз, Даймонд и пр.
Редактор не просто дал сборник эссе, а попытался создать мозаичное метаповествование: начал с основных философских вопросов (есть ли бог и пр.), продолжил темой физической антропологии, потом социальной, после - фундаментальные вопросы физики, завершил небольшой серией долгосрочных прогнозов. Понятно, что строго по схеме не выходит, потому что каждый ответчик касается как правило нескольких сторон, но общий замысел по-моему видно.
Непонятно, можно ли считать это срезом мыслей современного учёного глобального мира, но вот определённое представление о мышлении учёных, и о наборе остростоящих сейчас вопросов даёт.
Ну и на вопрос "а что бы почитать" отвечает, да - для каждого автора указаны основные книги, никуда лезть не надо.
Редактор не просто дал сборник эссе, а попытался создать мозаичное метаповествование: начал с основных философских вопросов (есть ли бог и пр.), продолжил темой физической антропологии, потом социальной, после - фундаментальные вопросы физики, завершил небольшой серией долгосрочных прогнозов. Понятно, что строго по схеме не выходит, потому что каждый ответчик касается как правило нескольких сторон, но общий замысел по-моему видно.
Непонятно, можно ли считать это срезом мыслей современного учёного глобального мира, но вот определённое представление о мышлении учёных, и о наборе остростоящих сейчас вопросов даёт.
Ну и на вопрос "а что бы почитать" отвечает, да - для каждого автора указаны основные книги, никуда лезть не надо.
August 31, 2016
http://www.edge.org/annual-questions
The reader is not expected to agree with everything written in this book, which would probably defeat the point of its premise - but it allows the reader to examine a wide range of interesting theories and personal beliefs set in the anthology - the clarity and conciseness with which many of these have been espoused making it a digestible perusal even for average readers like myself.
Highly recommendable.
The reader is not expected to agree with everything written in this book, which would probably defeat the point of its premise - but it allows the reader to examine a wide range of interesting theories and personal beliefs set in the anthology - the clarity and conciseness with which many of these have been espoused making it a digestible perusal even for average readers like myself.
Highly recommendable.
July 14, 2019
Brilliant idea leading to a most fascinating and enlightening read
This seemingly modest little book with a cartoon like cover is in my (in this case clearly) humble opinion one of the best books of 2006. John Brockman, who is a man with a gift for editing the scientific mind and for getting the most from people who are not necessarily at their best when writing for a general readership, is the force behind the idea for this book. The idea is something close to a stroke of genius: get an all-star line up of today's leading scientists and cultural mavens to go on record about what they believe but cannot prove. Simple idea. Profound consequences.
Normally if you ask scientists to describe the future or what they think is really happening at the edge of their discipline, or what they think is going on scientifically in fields outside their area of expertise, you are liable to get some carefully worded, very guarded opinions. But free the scientists from the responsibility of scientific rigor for the moment and just let them tell us what they think based on their unique knowledge and long experience, and guess what? You are liable to get the kind of candor that otherwise would not be forthcoming. And what is more, you are going to get, as it happens, some very significant predictions about the future. That is what happened here.
Some highlights:
Anthropologist Scott Atran writes, "There is no God that has existence apart from people's thoughts of God. There is certainly no Being that can simply suspend the (nomological) laws of the universe in order to satisfy our personal or collective yearnings and whims--like a stage director called on to improve a play." But, he adds, we can suspend belief in what we "see and take for obvious fact." He calls this the quest for "nonapparent truth." (p. 47)
Independent scholar Judith Rich Harris adds to natural selection and sexual selection the intriguing possibility of "parental selection" in which in tough times parents select which infants to keep. Stir this factor into the mix and evolutionary changes can take place very quickly. She cites skin color and hairiness as examples of the kind of superficial changes that we would notice. (p. 66)
Psychologist Nicholas Humphrey writes, "I believe that human consciousness is conjuring trick, designed to fool us into thinking we are in the presence of an inexplicable mystery. Who is the conjuror, and what can be the point of such deception? The conjuror is the human mind itself, evolved by natural selection, and the point has been to bolster human self-confidence and self-importance--so as to increase the value we each place on our own and others' lives." (p. 111)
Cognitive scientist Alison Gopnik believes that "the problem of capital-C Consciousness will disappear in psychology just as the problem of life disappeared in biology...The vividness and intensity of our attentive awareness...may be completely divorced from our experience of a constant first-person I." (p. 139)
This reflects my belief that the so-called problem of consciousness is a problem of a confused conjoining of two or three aspects of awareness. Here Gopnik points to pure awareness AND self-identify, which are really separate phenomenon often thrown indiscriminately together as "consciousness."
Neurobiologist William H. Calvin in his essay beginning on page 142 makes a distinction between "our kind of consciousness" which depends heavily upon language, and other possible consciousnesses.
Psychology professor Robert R. Provine turns the consciousness question on its head with this: "Instead of wondering whether other animals are conscious, or have a different, or lesser, consciousness than ours, should we be wondering whether our behavior is under no more conscious control than theirs?" (p. 147)
Some of the essays by physicists are concerned with whether there are many universes instead of just one, or even if there are an infinite number of universes. Some of the other pieces by physicists concern the nature of time, string theory and quantum mechanics. Physicist Carolo Rovelli writes, "I am convinced, but cannot prove, that time does not exist..." (p. 229) This is consistent with an idea I got from one of my students some years ago: Time is a mathematical point.
I found some of the speculations not so agreeable. Philosopher Daniel Dennett's belief that "acquiring a human language...is a necessary precondition for consciousness..." seems almost silly, even in consideration of the qualifications that follow. (See page 124.)
I found philosophy professor Rebecca Goldstein's essay (pp. 84-85) on scientific theories mostly impenetrable, and I could not disagree more with neurobiologist Leo M. Chalupa's statement that "...we will eventually succeed in discovering all there is to discover about the physical world..." (p. 174) Science writer Margaret Wertheim shares what is clearly the majority opinion, writing, "...there will always be things we do not know--large things, small things, interesting things, and important things." (p. 176)
The essays are all short, the longest perhaps a thousand words, the shortest a sentence or two. They are arranged roughly by discipline or area of interest (the ones on consciousness, for example, are all more or less together, one after the other). It is evident that the contributors, before finalizing their essays, were able to read the other essays in the book because in some cases one writer would refer to something another wrote.
This is the kind of book that needs to be returned to after some serious thought and after further reading. Even though the essays are short they require deep reflection. Some of the essays are brilliant and reflective of some of best scientific and cultural thinking going on today.
--Dennis Littrell, author of “The World Is Not as We Think It Is”
This seemingly modest little book with a cartoon like cover is in my (in this case clearly) humble opinion one of the best books of 2006. John Brockman, who is a man with a gift for editing the scientific mind and for getting the most from people who are not necessarily at their best when writing for a general readership, is the force behind the idea for this book. The idea is something close to a stroke of genius: get an all-star line up of today's leading scientists and cultural mavens to go on record about what they believe but cannot prove. Simple idea. Profound consequences.
Normally if you ask scientists to describe the future or what they think is really happening at the edge of their discipline, or what they think is going on scientifically in fields outside their area of expertise, you are liable to get some carefully worded, very guarded opinions. But free the scientists from the responsibility of scientific rigor for the moment and just let them tell us what they think based on their unique knowledge and long experience, and guess what? You are liable to get the kind of candor that otherwise would not be forthcoming. And what is more, you are going to get, as it happens, some very significant predictions about the future. That is what happened here.
Some highlights:
Anthropologist Scott Atran writes, "There is no God that has existence apart from people's thoughts of God. There is certainly no Being that can simply suspend the (nomological) laws of the universe in order to satisfy our personal or collective yearnings and whims--like a stage director called on to improve a play." But, he adds, we can suspend belief in what we "see and take for obvious fact." He calls this the quest for "nonapparent truth." (p. 47)
Independent scholar Judith Rich Harris adds to natural selection and sexual selection the intriguing possibility of "parental selection" in which in tough times parents select which infants to keep. Stir this factor into the mix and evolutionary changes can take place very quickly. She cites skin color and hairiness as examples of the kind of superficial changes that we would notice. (p. 66)
Psychologist Nicholas Humphrey writes, "I believe that human consciousness is conjuring trick, designed to fool us into thinking we are in the presence of an inexplicable mystery. Who is the conjuror, and what can be the point of such deception? The conjuror is the human mind itself, evolved by natural selection, and the point has been to bolster human self-confidence and self-importance--so as to increase the value we each place on our own and others' lives." (p. 111)
Cognitive scientist Alison Gopnik believes that "the problem of capital-C Consciousness will disappear in psychology just as the problem of life disappeared in biology...The vividness and intensity of our attentive awareness...may be completely divorced from our experience of a constant first-person I." (p. 139)
This reflects my belief that the so-called problem of consciousness is a problem of a confused conjoining of two or three aspects of awareness. Here Gopnik points to pure awareness AND self-identify, which are really separate phenomenon often thrown indiscriminately together as "consciousness."
Neurobiologist William H. Calvin in his essay beginning on page 142 makes a distinction between "our kind of consciousness" which depends heavily upon language, and other possible consciousnesses.
Psychology professor Robert R. Provine turns the consciousness question on its head with this: "Instead of wondering whether other animals are conscious, or have a different, or lesser, consciousness than ours, should we be wondering whether our behavior is under no more conscious control than theirs?" (p. 147)
Some of the essays by physicists are concerned with whether there are many universes instead of just one, or even if there are an infinite number of universes. Some of the other pieces by physicists concern the nature of time, string theory and quantum mechanics. Physicist Carolo Rovelli writes, "I am convinced, but cannot prove, that time does not exist..." (p. 229) This is consistent with an idea I got from one of my students some years ago: Time is a mathematical point.
I found some of the speculations not so agreeable. Philosopher Daniel Dennett's belief that "acquiring a human language...is a necessary precondition for consciousness..." seems almost silly, even in consideration of the qualifications that follow. (See page 124.)
I found philosophy professor Rebecca Goldstein's essay (pp. 84-85) on scientific theories mostly impenetrable, and I could not disagree more with neurobiologist Leo M. Chalupa's statement that "...we will eventually succeed in discovering all there is to discover about the physical world..." (p. 174) Science writer Margaret Wertheim shares what is clearly the majority opinion, writing, "...there will always be things we do not know--large things, small things, interesting things, and important things." (p. 176)
The essays are all short, the longest perhaps a thousand words, the shortest a sentence or two. They are arranged roughly by discipline or area of interest (the ones on consciousness, for example, are all more or less together, one after the other). It is evident that the contributors, before finalizing their essays, were able to read the other essays in the book because in some cases one writer would refer to something another wrote.
This is the kind of book that needs to be returned to after some serious thought and after further reading. Even though the essays are short they require deep reflection. Some of the essays are brilliant and reflective of some of best scientific and cultural thinking going on today.
--Dennis Littrell, author of “The World Is Not as We Think It Is”
May 27, 2022
Can speed of light change? Here is what I think. If the universe expands, and if we stop pretending that there is nothing in cosmos (there are some particles, perhaps dust, a lot of "thingis" got to our planet from the outside), than it is quite reasonable to believe that light's speed might be changing (traveling through more or less dense space). For example there is over twice as much energy in "empty" cosmos as in all the matter, including dark matter in the universe.
When it comes to consciousness the phenomenon seems not to be explained as of yet by materialistic theories.
The chapter by Margaret Werthein is fantastic, and I agree with her ideas: we have still a lot of explorations to do, and we are never 100% knowing it all.
Finally let me quote Lee Smolin: "I am convinced that quantum mechanics is not a final theory. I believe this because I have never encountered an interpretation of the present formulation of quantum mechanics that makes sense to me."
Interesting fact: Anton Zeilinger, a professor of physics at the University of Vienna conducted quantum teleportation experiments ("beam us Scotty" :-))
When it comes to consciousness the phenomenon seems not to be explained as of yet by materialistic theories.
The chapter by Margaret Werthein is fantastic, and I agree with her ideas: we have still a lot of explorations to do, and we are never 100% knowing it all.
Finally let me quote Lee Smolin: "I am convinced that quantum mechanics is not a final theory. I believe this because I have never encountered an interpretation of the present formulation of quantum mechanics that makes sense to me."
Interesting fact: Anton Zeilinger, a professor of physics at the University of Vienna conducted quantum teleportation experiments ("beam us Scotty" :-))
March 2, 2025
Interesting idea to ask a hundred people a question and publish their answers. And since the question was so generic, the answers are all over the place.
August 14, 2025
DNF. A lot of this went over my head, the language was verbose and did not retain my interest. Also I stopped reading after the contribution by Jeffrey Epstein...
September 17, 2010
Very interesting read. Check out Edge.org... it's all there, plus more. Very thought provoking.
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.
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.
October 1, 2020
Sono presenti contributi davvero molto interessanti, che rappresentano anche degli ottimi spunti di riflessione.
January 7, 2013
It’s taken a couple attempts to finish this book, but I’m glad I did. I was lost for some of the astrophysics entries; there seemed to be too many complex terms and obscure theories that overwhelmed my science knowledge. But, thankfully, that didn’t happen very often. Most of the entries provided new points of view for phenomenon I was familiar with (or able to easily research and understand). I’m somewhat familiar with evolution, but hadn’t thought about evolution in relation to beliefs. One essayist stressed the importance of cultural evolution in belief; that ancient beliefs about the sacred and profane have been “selected over time and in different situations and therefore might be worthy of belief”. Hearing the beliefs of scientists is more interesting to me than hearing something more concrete like their research, because it reminds me of the humanity behind science. The scientific method accrues evidence rather than finds truth (one scientist insisted that he believes cell phones are harmless, but can’t prove so—which must be very frustrating). This being so, scientists must be constantly skeptical and their skepticism always provides new research opportunities. But there is always a choice in what to research and that choice is impacted by belief. If you believe cell phones are harmless, as many do, you won’t pursue that as a research topic. You will pursue something you believe needs to be investigated. Belief plays a part in science and it’s refreshing to read a book that at least partly acknowledges that.
This book is also a nice reminder that the scientific community isn’t united. For every essay favoring something like free will, there is one against it. But all essays don’t stand in opposition to one another; many just demonstrate that there is so much that we don’t know. Autism, consciousness, dreams, language acquisition and most function of the brain are still a mystery. I look forward to seeing how in 10 years my beliefs change as a result of emerging knowledge.
This book is also a nice reminder that the scientific community isn’t united. For every essay favoring something like free will, there is one against it. But all essays don’t stand in opposition to one another; many just demonstrate that there is so much that we don’t know. Autism, consciousness, dreams, language acquisition and most function of the brain are still a mystery. I look forward to seeing how in 10 years my beliefs change as a result of emerging knowledge.
October 22, 2008
Okay, so this is supposed to be the responses of the greatest thinkers still alive in this century, at least in the scientific community anyway, to the question: "What do you believe but cannot prove?" And, I concede, that in several entries, I was inspired and challenged by the original theories posed about everything from the origin of the universe to whether or not animals have feelings to Armageddon and the existence of God. However, a good many of the entries (though the foreword cajoles you into believing otherwise) are filled with jargon and esoteric name droppings, making the reading not only confusing and elitist, but also as a direct result, dull. And I couldn't decide if ordering the responses by subject was helpful or boring. I mean, it helps to understand a writer's reference to another writer if you've just finished reading the referenced writer, but, adversely, how many subtly different takes on string theory can you read before you a) start to hate that you really don't understand it, or b) just don't care anymore. I admit that many times I fought the urge to skip ahead to the next response subject. Though the ending is somewhat redeeming, composed of fresh responses and forward thinkers, over all, the book is a collection of supereducated pseudophilosophers gorging on their own academic egos and trying to outdo the guy before him. I was expecting so much more. (And where the hell is Hawking in all of this? Since when is he not considered a brilliant scientific mind?)
June 19, 2013
I'm not convinced that this was a great idea for a book. It reads like an internet forum (which is more or less what it actually started as), where some people write at length and others can barely be bothered to go beyond a few sentences. For instance, they put Richard Dawkins' name on the back cover, presumably to attract sales, but his contribution amounts to a single paragraph. It contains an interesting idea, but it's over and then we're on to someone else's two cents. That's not very satisfying over the long term, so it's a good thing that reading it isn't a long-term proposition.
Some of it is really interesting and thought-provoking stuff. Many of the answers contradict one another and indicate exciting and different ideas about life and the universe. Some ideas are not conventional or apparently far-reaching, but remain interesting. Do the ravens of Alaska and British Columbia "speak" in different dialects? I don't know, but George Dyson seems to think they might, and quirky little ideas like that are a nice distraction from wondering whether or not the universe is infinite.
Incidentally, out of 109 contributors to this book, 15 are women (I arrived at these numbers by counting them, so I might be slightly off). As for what *I* believe but cannot prove, I believe it would have been possible to assemble a comparable body of "today's leading thinkers" with a more equal gender ratio.
Some of it is really interesting and thought-provoking stuff. Many of the answers contradict one another and indicate exciting and different ideas about life and the universe. Some ideas are not conventional or apparently far-reaching, but remain interesting. Do the ravens of Alaska and British Columbia "speak" in different dialects? I don't know, but George Dyson seems to think they might, and quirky little ideas like that are a nice distraction from wondering whether or not the universe is infinite.
Incidentally, out of 109 contributors to this book, 15 are women (I arrived at these numbers by counting them, so I might be slightly off). As for what *I* believe but cannot prove, I believe it would have been possible to assemble a comparable body of "today's leading thinkers" with a more equal gender ratio.
August 11, 2015
bazısı sanki araştırmasına fon arıyor, bazısı nereye, hangi alana yatırım yapılmasına dair güçlü bir yönlendirme yapmış, bazısı birbirine bilenme ortamı olarak kullanmış.
önce evrende yalnız değiliz, akıllı yaşam oracıkta, ölümden sonra bilinç yok, tanrı yok, özgür irade yoklar geliyor. sonra birazcık sicim teorisi, kuarklar. işin içine bunlar girince ben kopuyorum, bir sigara yakıp uzaklara boş boş bakıyorum. sonra bilinç düzeyleri için farklı görüşler, modern yaşama bilenmeler, işbirliğine övgüler geliyor. kimin hangi alanda çalıştığını görmek için daha iyi bir derleme örneği gelmiyor aklıma.
önce evrende yalnız değiliz, akıllı yaşam oracıkta, ölümden sonra bilinç yok, tanrı yok, özgür irade yoklar geliyor. sonra birazcık sicim teorisi, kuarklar. işin içine bunlar girince ben kopuyorum, bir sigara yakıp uzaklara boş boş bakıyorum. sonra bilinç düzeyleri için farklı görüşler, modern yaşama bilenmeler, işbirliğine övgüler geliyor. kimin hangi alanda çalıştığını görmek için daha iyi bir derleme örneği gelmiyor aklıma.
May 19, 2010
Each little "belief" is about a page long so they are quick and to the point which is great if you're not that interested in the topic and leaves you wanting more if you do like the topic. I wrote down the names of some of the people so I can follow up on people and topics. It gave me a lot to think about.
May 30, 2015
Книга містить ряд інтерв'ю з відомими вченими, журналістами та популяризаторами науки які відповідають лише на одне питання "В що ви вірите". В кожного відповідь своя.
Ця книга цікава там, що дає зрозуміти, чим замається сучасна наука, куди вона рухається, які настрої в наукових колах.
Наприклад можна зрозуміти, чому Шелдон кинув вивчати Теорію струн.
Ця книга цікава там, що дає зрозуміти, чим замається сучасна наука, куди вона рухається, які настрої в наукових колах.
Наприклад можна зрозуміти, чому Шелдон кинув вивчати Теорію струн.
December 18, 2018
Short 1-3 page "essays" on the beliefs of researchers and thinkers working at the fringes of empirical science (neuroscience, quantum physics, psychology, virtual reality, mathematics, etc.). It's a good introduction to a lot of ideas and figures. What is interesting is that many of the essays will expound upon a particular hypothesis before the next essay presents the antithesis.
March 15, 2019
A completely humbling experience. Reading this book feels like those existential conversations you have with your sister on a Sunday morning, it's exciting. Probing the minds of wiser men to explore theories that are just as outlandish as your sisters' but nonetheless intelligent and some even hopeful.
June 20, 2019
Great book format for getting introduced to many scientists, but the content gets repetitive and overlaps heavily with, "What Have You Changed Your Mind About?" by the same author (in fact, some of the essays are word-for-word repeats).
June 21, 2018
An amazing tale that relates the history of science and what we believe in. Incredible narrated and written.
August 12, 2018
The Seed Media Offices recently sent a book to me to review. This book,
What We Believe But Cannot Prove: Today's Leading Thinkers on Science in the Age of Certainty
(2006, Harper Perennial) is edited by John Brockman, publisher of Edge. The book is a collection of essays written by more than 100 scientists and other leading scholars in response to the question, "What do you believe even though you cannot prove it?" Each essay is blog-length, ranging between five words and approximately 800–1000 words, so it makes for interesting thought experiments that you can easily read and contemplate while waiting for the bus, for example.
I enjoyed this pleasant little book and its bite-sized essay format. Even though the writing can be rather dry in places, and it is sometimes repetitive, the topics discussed are very interesting. The contributors discuss everything from mathematics, computer software and the Big Bang to evolution, consciousness and whether there is a God.
I was particularly intrigued by linguist John McWhorter's essay. He says that human languages evolve towards complexity rather than simplicity, unless they are a blend of two or more languages. He also observes that subjugated peoples tend to modify the dominant people's language, creating a sort of "pidgin" form that is a simplified form of the dominant language combined with strong influences from the subordinant language(s). One example is the Afrikaans language, which is Dutch modified by several local African languages spoken by the Khoikhoi, Xhosa and later, by the Zulu peoples.
So, based on these data, McWhorter believes that three strangely streamlined languages spoken on the Indonesian island of Flores resulted from blending the language(s) spoken by humans with the language(s) spoken by the so-called "hobbits", an extinct species of Homo that were recently described. He writes;
But wait, there's more. If interspecies communication doesn't interest you, there is a smorgasbord of topics to read about. For example, Professor of Cognitive Science, Alison Gopnik, believes that babies and young children are actually more conscious than adults. George Dyson, an Historian of Technology, believes that bird dialects correspond to indigenous human language groups. Philosophy Professor Daniel Dennett believes that acquiring a human language is a necessary precondition for consciousness. Terrence Sejnowski, a Computational Neuroscientist, believes that memories are stored in the connective tissue located in the extracellular space within the brain. Independent Scholar and Theoretician, Judith Rich Harris, believes there are three processes (not two) involved in human evolution; natural selection, sexual selection and parental selection. Robert Sapolsky, a Neuroscientist at Stanford University, believes that there is no god(s) nor such a thing as a soul (whatever the religiously inclined of the right persuasion mean by that word). Psychologist David Buss believes that true love exists.
Each belief is well-argued using both existing data and as well as speculation, or "flights of fancy", if you will. One thing that I wish could have been part of this book was a discussion between contributors who wrote about the same topics, particularly when their beliefs conflicted. But maybe that's something best left to blogs instead.
NOTE: Originally published at ScienceBlogs on 20 March 2006.
I enjoyed this pleasant little book and its bite-sized essay format. Even though the writing can be rather dry in places, and it is sometimes repetitive, the topics discussed are very interesting. The contributors discuss everything from mathematics, computer software and the Big Bang to evolution, consciousness and whether there is a God.
I was particularly intrigued by linguist John McWhorter's essay. He says that human languages evolve towards complexity rather than simplicity, unless they are a blend of two or more languages. He also observes that subjugated peoples tend to modify the dominant people's language, creating a sort of "pidgin" form that is a simplified form of the dominant language combined with strong influences from the subordinant language(s). One example is the Afrikaans language, which is Dutch modified by several local African languages spoken by the Khoikhoi, Xhosa and later, by the Zulu peoples.
So, based on these data, McWhorter believes that three strangely streamlined languages spoken on the Indonesian island of Flores resulted from blending the language(s) spoken by humans with the language(s) spoken by the so-called "hobbits", an extinct species of Homo that were recently described. He writes;
So isn't it interesting that the island those [unusual] languages are spoken on is none other than Flores, which had its fifteen minutes of fame last year as the site where skeletons of "little people" were found. Anthropologists have hypothesized that this was a different species of Homo. While the skeletons date back 18,000 years ago or more, local legend recalls "little people" living alongside modern humans - little people who had some kind of language of their own and could "repeat back" in the modern humans' language.
But wait, there's more. If interspecies communication doesn't interest you, there is a smorgasbord of topics to read about. For example, Professor of Cognitive Science, Alison Gopnik, believes that babies and young children are actually more conscious than adults. George Dyson, an Historian of Technology, believes that bird dialects correspond to indigenous human language groups. Philosophy Professor Daniel Dennett believes that acquiring a human language is a necessary precondition for consciousness. Terrence Sejnowski, a Computational Neuroscientist, believes that memories are stored in the connective tissue located in the extracellular space within the brain. Independent Scholar and Theoretician, Judith Rich Harris, believes there are three processes (not two) involved in human evolution; natural selection, sexual selection and parental selection. Robert Sapolsky, a Neuroscientist at Stanford University, believes that there is no god(s) nor such a thing as a soul (whatever the religiously inclined of the right persuasion mean by that word). Psychologist David Buss believes that true love exists.
Each belief is well-argued using both existing data and as well as speculation, or "flights of fancy", if you will. One thing that I wish could have been part of this book was a discussion between contributors who wrote about the same topics, particularly when their beliefs conflicted. But maybe that's something best left to blogs instead.
NOTE: Originally published at ScienceBlogs on 20 March 2006.
February 20, 2019
Quite bluntly, this book is a load of rubbish. There is a sense of irony that few of the supposedly "great thinkers" of this book seem to get, and that is that a lot less is certain that the writers included here tend to think. Most of the writers (although mercifully not all) are atheists of a particularly unfortuante kind, the kind that are unaware of their own dependence on assumptions and presumptions about that which is true. A great many of the authors, even worse, have a degree of contempt for biblical morality and the God of heaven and earth that is unacceptable and certainly unbecoming of anyone who wishes to be viewed as a great thinker. Invocations to supposed sky gods and nasty comments about religion being the source of evil and other falsity fills this book. The certainty that many of these readers seem to possess is the certainty of people who are blindly sailing towards icebergs in the North Atlantic or poking at sleeping bears or partying on a meteor that is headed into a planet, blithely unaware of their folly and doom.
That is not to say that there is nothing in this book worth reading. If you want to read a lot of snarky and condescending comments from idiots who consider themselves to be brights, and who look down on those of decent behavior and godly lives, this book is for you, and may warm your own dark and prejudiced heart. When the authors move beyond their mistaken presuppositions about that which has been proven and move into the realm of that which they consider unproven, there is more to appreciate, at least a little, even if the authors show themselves most interested in a very small set of problems. While one or two may ponder about the afterlife and desire their own forms of immortality despite the absence of belief in a future judgment and in eternal life in some form or fashion, most of the people here spend their time writing about problems of consciousness or quantum mechanics or the mind-body-brain problems. The best of the lot ponder the lack of interest that psychology has in questions of faith and religion, pointing out that what billions of people on earth consider important is worth researching on those grounds alone, while most of the rest seem to lack curiosity in anything outside of their own minds, in which they have a great degree of confidence in.
The editors and publishers of this book should be ashamed of themselves. This book purports to be the sort of book that is inspired by the post-cocktail wonderings of a group of naval gazing pseudointellectuals who view their own intellects positively and seem to think that they are writing mainly for other people like themselves and not those who do not believe in the same things. This is clearly written for an in-group audience of people who fancy themselves to be leading lights engaged in normal research that will solve what are viewed to be important problems that would make the universe entirely mechanistic or deterministic and deal with the last few doubts in their own capacity to understand the universe and to control it and harness it for their own benefit. Yet the authors make all kinds of assumptions about that which is supposedly already proven and have all the certainty of scientists in the age when Newtonian mechanics was viewed to be triumphant with nothing left but a few problems to uncover and some greater understanding of various issues in string theory or quantum mechanics and human consciousness before we take our place as one of a numerous of sentient species in the galaxy seeking an age of peace and harmony under the rule of enlightened philosopher kings.
That is not to say that there is nothing in this book worth reading. If you want to read a lot of snarky and condescending comments from idiots who consider themselves to be brights, and who look down on those of decent behavior and godly lives, this book is for you, and may warm your own dark and prejudiced heart. When the authors move beyond their mistaken presuppositions about that which has been proven and move into the realm of that which they consider unproven, there is more to appreciate, at least a little, even if the authors show themselves most interested in a very small set of problems. While one or two may ponder about the afterlife and desire their own forms of immortality despite the absence of belief in a future judgment and in eternal life in some form or fashion, most of the people here spend their time writing about problems of consciousness or quantum mechanics or the mind-body-brain problems. The best of the lot ponder the lack of interest that psychology has in questions of faith and religion, pointing out that what billions of people on earth consider important is worth researching on those grounds alone, while most of the rest seem to lack curiosity in anything outside of their own minds, in which they have a great degree of confidence in.
The editors and publishers of this book should be ashamed of themselves. This book purports to be the sort of book that is inspired by the post-cocktail wonderings of a group of naval gazing pseudointellectuals who view their own intellects positively and seem to think that they are writing mainly for other people like themselves and not those who do not believe in the same things. This is clearly written for an in-group audience of people who fancy themselves to be leading lights engaged in normal research that will solve what are viewed to be important problems that would make the universe entirely mechanistic or deterministic and deal with the last few doubts in their own capacity to understand the universe and to control it and harness it for their own benefit. Yet the authors make all kinds of assumptions about that which is supposedly already proven and have all the certainty of scientists in the age when Newtonian mechanics was viewed to be triumphant with nothing left but a few problems to uncover and some greater understanding of various issues in string theory or quantum mechanics and human consciousness before we take our place as one of a numerous of sentient species in the galaxy seeking an age of peace and harmony under the rule of enlightened philosopher kings.
May 22, 2017
Probably would give this more a 3.5 star rating. Things I liked about the book was that it really was a smattering of shared ideas about what people think will be proved true. Like there is life out there somewhere in the universe. (not a surprising thought but one that popped up a lot.) There was other common un-provable ideas. One thing that popped up that I found (unsurprising) a bit of a "come on people" was the semantic responses of what can be proved, and what makes something provable etc... It's a little akin to taking the situation a bit too serious or coming off a little stuffy.
There weren't any real off-beat thoughts about things, but I found a lot of more interesting items came from people in the social sciences actually and one person in the realm of physics actually had a similar take on quantum mechanics as I did. The system to explain it now is too quirky and at some point an simpler explanation will be found at some point where it can be understood if not explained more thoroughly! And, another person said that one has a hard time accomplishing things if you don't believe in something just the simple having faith (taking a leap of faith) on your own ideas and worth- makes things happen.
The downside was that there are a bunch of chapters that just didn't grab me or said something similar to another chapter but not as well. Was it worth getting the book, yes- if only to get me familiar with the website www.edge.org and to get a feel of what people are thinking in the sciences. Basically these un-provable ideas, are what these guys are looking at proving. A good way to know if you'll like the book is to check out the website.
There weren't any real off-beat thoughts about things, but I found a lot of more interesting items came from people in the social sciences actually and one person in the realm of physics actually had a similar take on quantum mechanics as I did. The system to explain it now is too quirky and at some point an simpler explanation will be found at some point where it can be understood if not explained more thoroughly! And, another person said that one has a hard time accomplishing things if you don't believe in something just the simple having faith (taking a leap of faith) on your own ideas and worth- makes things happen.
The downside was that there are a bunch of chapters that just didn't grab me or said something similar to another chapter but not as well. Was it worth getting the book, yes- if only to get me familiar with the website www.edge.org and to get a feel of what people are thinking in the sciences. Basically these un-provable ideas, are what these guys are looking at proving. A good way to know if you'll like the book is to check out the website.
January 8, 2023
This was a book that encouraged me to think! 107 different “experts” explain something they believe, but cannot prove. Some of the topics included: life on other planets, if time exists, the existence and impact of little known-societies, how language evolved and the impact it has on our lived experiences, the existence of God, life after death, and so many more ideas that have no definite answer. Some of the topics drew me in and I dog-earred the page to be able to reference them. Others were a bit more challenging and I had to read them more than once.
Each author was introduced by a short, biographical account of his or her current role, and oftentimes the title of something he-she has published. The shortest entries were one paragraph and the longest were three pages. At times I found myself questioning how I felt about the author’s topic and did not want his-her entry to end. There were some authors I recognized such as Leon Lederman, Howard Gardner, and Daniel Goldman, but many others had names which were new to me.
I felt empowered reading this book and am thinking of an assignment for my seniors so they can express their ideas about language, language learning, and-or bilingualism. In short, although a bit dated having been published in 2006, this book was an amazing Little Library find. Not only did I enjoy this book, but I believe I learned a great deal and very much thought critically and enjoyed being encouraged to do so.
Each author was introduced by a short, biographical account of his or her current role, and oftentimes the title of something he-she has published. The shortest entries were one paragraph and the longest were three pages. At times I found myself questioning how I felt about the author’s topic and did not want his-her entry to end. There were some authors I recognized such as Leon Lederman, Howard Gardner, and Daniel Goldman, but many others had names which were new to me.
I felt empowered reading this book and am thinking of an assignment for my seniors so they can express their ideas about language, language learning, and-or bilingualism. In short, although a bit dated having been published in 2006, this book was an amazing Little Library find. Not only did I enjoy this book, but I believe I learned a great deal and very much thought critically and enjoyed being encouraged to do so.
April 13, 2023
Значно перевершуюча за якістю та подачею інформації компіляція поглядів та суджень під редакцію того ж Джона, але від того не набуваюча хоч якоїсь значущості з точки зору "культурної спадщини", на відміну від, наприклад, Reading Jazz ("несумісність" суто умоглядна). Всі "есеї" виглядають (а можна бути впевненим, що й звучать), ніби у хвилинному дозвіллі за чашкою розчинної кави залишені під останнім твітом, скажімо, Ніла Деграсса Тайсона коментарі. В данном контексте, поддерживается в читателе некоторое любопытство, нежели конкретный интерес, не говоря уже о недостижимой при принятом "подредакцией" Брокмана формате, увлечённости.
Откровенно говоря, не знаю, в ожидании чего я бралась за такую литературу прежде, однако задача её вполне сопоставима с каким-нибудь..хм..йо-йо. Комп'ютерні ігри - все ж результат "інтелектуальної праці" та неабияких ідеологічних інвестицій. Але як пе-да-го-ги-ня, я б віддала перевагу спілкуванню з дітьми, які читають "Економіста" чи "Нового Інтернаціоналіста", ніж цікавляться речами, у які "вірять, але не можуть довести" ті, хто лише тому й продовжує вірити, що не може довести (від)сутності розуміння (від)сутності віри.
Отже: "вірю, але не можу довести", що книги такого формату катастрофічно впливають на розвиток людей, які проявляють значну, але неструктуруровану схильність до "наукової інтерпретації світу", а не тільки вдалого розгортання кар'єри серед "інтелектуальних еліт".
Откровенно говоря, не знаю, в ожидании чего я бралась за такую литературу прежде, однако задача её вполне сопоставима с каким-нибудь..хм..йо-йо. Комп'ютерні ігри - все ж результат "інтелектуальної праці" та неабияких ідеологічних інвестицій. Але як пе-да-го-ги-ня, я б віддала перевагу спілкуванню з дітьми, які читають "Економіста" чи "Нового Інтернаціоналіста", ніж цікавляться речами, у які "вірять, але не можуть довести" ті, хто лише тому й продовжує вірити, що не може довести (від)сутності розуміння (від)сутності віри.
Отже: "вірю, але не можу довести", що книги такого формату катастрофічно впливають на розвиток людей, які проявляють значну, але неструктуруровану схильність до "наукової інтерпретації світу", а не тільки вдалого розгортання кар'єри серед "інтелектуальних еліт".
Displaying 1 - 30 of 146 reviews