What do you think?
Rate this book
Where Is Science Going?
Book by Planck, Max
224 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1932
44 people are currently reading
831 people want to read
About the author
Max Planck
286 books175 followersMax Karl Ernst Ludwig Planck was a German theoretical physicist who originated quantum theory, which won him the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1918.
Planck made many contributions to theoretical physics, but his fame rests primarily on his role as originator of the quantum theory. This theory revolutionized human understanding of atomic and subatomic processes, just as Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity revolutionized the understanding of space and time. Together they constitute the fundamental theories of 20th-century physics.
Planck made many contributions to theoretical physics, but his fame rests primarily on his role as originator of the quantum theory. This theory revolutionized human understanding of atomic and subatomic processes, just as Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity revolutionized the understanding of space and time. Together they constitute the fundamental theories of 20th-century physics.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews
December 22, 2016
A great insider's look at how scientific revolutions unfold from the first sparks of ingenuity to their establishment as accepted paradigms of their current times.
Planck's humbleness in spite of his great achievements is striking and praiseworthy, although rather common among the geniuses behind the great steps of scientific discovery - the exceptions always consisting of rather duller figures hyped into the status of celebrity usually over rather political reasons (Russell, Feynman, Crick, Hawking, Sagan, deGrasse Tyson and Kaku come to mind).
Still, Planck ruins an otherwise impeccable work when clinging too obsessively to underlying Christian ideology while discussing free will, and it is dismaying how he takes psychology, sociology, contemporary philosophy and history as serious sciences aligned with the scientific method and complementary to the hard sciences - they are not Mr. Planck.
Also if new-age and irrational pseudo-spiritual beliefs continue to permeate societies worldwide, it is not necessarily a proof of science failing to address deeper issues, as Planck claims. In my opinion, it just means that no matter how "educated" people are or how much information you pour at them, the fact is that intellectual laziness and social pressures are the overall winners at the end of the day when the love for truth is not cultivated.
After reading Planck, Tesla, Schrodinger and Heisenberg, it is the latter one who remains the most solid at detaching from personal biases and provided the most fascinating insights on the implications of modern physics into philosophy and world view. Planck is not a far second nonetheless.
The concept of detachment was precisely the one which made me appreciate Planck's words again, as his explanation of it falls in line with my personal understanding of the concept of Islamic prophethood:
"There is no reason why we should not scrutinize each experience and study it from the viewpoint of finding out the cause from which it resulted. An extremely difficult task, but the only soundly scientific way of dealing with our own lives. To carry out this plan of action, the facts of our own lives which we place under observation would have to be distanced, so that our present complex of living emotions and inclinations would not enter as facts into the observation. If we could possibly carry out the plan in this detached way, then each experience through which we have passed would make us immeasurably more intelligent than we were before. So intelligent indeed than in relation to our earlier condition we should rise to the level of the super-intelligence postulated by Laplace."
These words bring back the ideas of the journalist Ivor Benson on Muhammad:
"Only blind prejudice can prevent anyone who has gone to the trouble of studying even a summary of the contents of the Quran from realizing that Muhammad the Prophet was a moral genius, a person who, under pressure of a personal crisis of the mind, gained a quite extraordinary insight into those metaphysical laws, so hard to grasp, which prevail inexorably inside the human mind and in human relations."
Indeed attachment to personal biases, the fashions of the times and social pressures distance us from reality and truth, and it makes sense that anyone who achieves full detachment can gain a remarkable insight into the inner connections and deeper mechanisms of this creation. That, to me, is very close to what the prophets of the Islamic tradition did, perhaps along the lines of a Laplacian super-intelligence.
Planck's humbleness in spite of his great achievements is striking and praiseworthy, although rather common among the geniuses behind the great steps of scientific discovery - the exceptions always consisting of rather duller figures hyped into the status of celebrity usually over rather political reasons (Russell, Feynman, Crick, Hawking, Sagan, deGrasse Tyson and Kaku come to mind).
Still, Planck ruins an otherwise impeccable work when clinging too obsessively to underlying Christian ideology while discussing free will, and it is dismaying how he takes psychology, sociology, contemporary philosophy and history as serious sciences aligned with the scientific method and complementary to the hard sciences - they are not Mr. Planck.
Also if new-age and irrational pseudo-spiritual beliefs continue to permeate societies worldwide, it is not necessarily a proof of science failing to address deeper issues, as Planck claims. In my opinion, it just means that no matter how "educated" people are or how much information you pour at them, the fact is that intellectual laziness and social pressures are the overall winners at the end of the day when the love for truth is not cultivated.
After reading Planck, Tesla, Schrodinger and Heisenberg, it is the latter one who remains the most solid at detaching from personal biases and provided the most fascinating insights on the implications of modern physics into philosophy and world view. Planck is not a far second nonetheless.
The concept of detachment was precisely the one which made me appreciate Planck's words again, as his explanation of it falls in line with my personal understanding of the concept of Islamic prophethood:
"There is no reason why we should not scrutinize each experience and study it from the viewpoint of finding out the cause from which it resulted. An extremely difficult task, but the only soundly scientific way of dealing with our own lives. To carry out this plan of action, the facts of our own lives which we place under observation would have to be distanced, so that our present complex of living emotions and inclinations would not enter as facts into the observation. If we could possibly carry out the plan in this detached way, then each experience through which we have passed would make us immeasurably more intelligent than we were before. So intelligent indeed than in relation to our earlier condition we should rise to the level of the super-intelligence postulated by Laplace."
These words bring back the ideas of the journalist Ivor Benson on Muhammad:
"Only blind prejudice can prevent anyone who has gone to the trouble of studying even a summary of the contents of the Quran from realizing that Muhammad the Prophet was a moral genius, a person who, under pressure of a personal crisis of the mind, gained a quite extraordinary insight into those metaphysical laws, so hard to grasp, which prevail inexorably inside the human mind and in human relations."
Indeed attachment to personal biases, the fashions of the times and social pressures distance us from reality and truth, and it makes sense that anyone who achieves full detachment can gain a remarkable insight into the inner connections and deeper mechanisms of this creation. That, to me, is very close to what the prophets of the Islamic tradition did, perhaps along the lines of a Laplacian super-intelligence.
September 2, 2021
اولین کتابی که یجورایی من رو با فلسفه علم آشنا کرد این کتاب بود
در یک منبع ناموثقی هم میخوندم که این کتاب یکی از ده کتابیست که پروفسور گلشنی معرفی کردند
به طور خلاصه این کتاب با مقدمه آلبرت انیشتین نوشته شده و درباره تحولات علم فیزیک در سال های 1900 تا 1950 و جنبه های فلسفی آن بحث میکند
در یک منبع ناموثقی هم میخوندم که این کتاب یکی از ده کتابیست که پروفسور گلشنی معرفی کردند
به طور خلاصه این کتاب با مقدمه آلبرت انیشتین نوشته شده و درباره تحولات علم فیزیک در سال های 1900 تا 1950 و جنبه های فلسفی آن بحث میکند
November 30, 2016
Before going into the future of science, in face of the quantum theory, He shows how science actually develops. From the creative mind process that scientists have to do to create new theories up to the consolidation and recognition by their peers as valid. From relative to absolute, exemplified with the weight of the atom. Or even a invalidation of a previous valid theory by a new theory (as this review is being written, Einstein's speed of light as being constant is getting challenged which puts Einstein's relativity theory at risk).
Something that I wasn't expecting was Planck going metaphysical with causation and free will citing Aristotle, Descartes; rationalistic philosophers with Spinoza, Leibniz, Kant; solipsists with Locke, Berkley.
Reading a physicist going metaphysical was really interesting.
Questions about the limits of perception and knowledge.
"The freedom of the ego here and now, and its independence of the casual chain, is a truth that comes from the immediate dictate of the human consciousness."
"The building-stones of science is received either directly through our own perception of outer things or indirectly through the information of others."
"Is there a point at which the casual line of thought ceases and beyond which science cannot go ?"
And as quantum theory hits the wall of the measurement problem, It gave space for metaphysical interpretation mixed with physics shown at the epilogue with Murphy and Einstein:
Murphy: ... you have already been widely quoted in the British Press as subscribing to the theory that the outer world is a derivative of the consciousness.
Einstein: No physicists believes that ... You must distinguish between what is literary and what is a scientific pronouncement.
Planck realized that and wanted to make sure that science follows It's path of seeking for the truth or a more fundamental theory but acknowledging that We might never find it.
“Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are a part of the mystery that we are trying to solve.”
Something that I wasn't expecting was Planck going metaphysical with causation and free will citing Aristotle, Descartes; rationalistic philosophers with Spinoza, Leibniz, Kant; solipsists with Locke, Berkley.
Reading a physicist going metaphysical was really interesting.
Questions about the limits of perception and knowledge.
"The freedom of the ego here and now, and its independence of the casual chain, is a truth that comes from the immediate dictate of the human consciousness."
"The building-stones of science is received either directly through our own perception of outer things or indirectly through the information of others."
"Is there a point at which the casual line of thought ceases and beyond which science cannot go ?"
And as quantum theory hits the wall of the measurement problem, It gave space for metaphysical interpretation mixed with physics shown at the epilogue with Murphy and Einstein:
Murphy: ... you have already been widely quoted in the British Press as subscribing to the theory that the outer world is a derivative of the consciousness.
Einstein: No physicists believes that ... You must distinguish between what is literary and what is a scientific pronouncement.
Planck realized that and wanted to make sure that science follows It's path of seeking for the truth or a more fundamental theory but acknowledging that We might never find it.
“Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are a part of the mystery that we are trying to solve.”
January 6, 2016
This is a book for any and all readers. It gives a clear perspective of the history of science and the many other challenging problems that still to this day have not been solved.
November 27, 2018
Empecé el libro esperando ciencia y me terminé encontrando con filosofía.
March 7, 2021
Brilliant essays on art, science, causality, and existence. I didn't expect such eloquence from Planck!
February 11, 2018
This is a brief reading on the views of Max Planck regarding the development of Science in the first decades of the 20th Century. Although many of the discoveries and achievements mentioned by him are somewhat outdated, what is really striking is the critical and humble approach that he has on describing the Scientific Method - its limitations and its potentials.
The book is a lot more about Philosophy of Science, and it is very well written for those that are not familiar with some of the hard sciences. I recommend it to all of those that are interested in the History of Modern Science and in the people that helped to build its foundations.
The book is a lot more about Philosophy of Science, and it is very well written for those that are not familiar with some of the hard sciences. I recommend it to all of those that are interested in the History of Modern Science and in the people that helped to build its foundations.
October 10, 2025
A comfortable collection of ideas that bring the human being from his anticipation of abstracts into the reality of a firmly testable reality in science. Theory is united with experiment to give the reader information on how theory has been influenced by the outer world to create new avenues for innovation. I really enjoy this book! It gives a fair understanding also of the application of scientific analysis in theory comparisons. This book is lovable!
March 1, 2025
خلال اربعة ايام كان هذا الكتاب رفيقي و لم امل من سطر واحد بل في كل سطر انهيه يزداد فضولي .
يناقش بلانك و هو الفيزيائي المعروف و الذي نسب اليه ثابت كل هاوي في العلوم يعرفه و هو ثابت بلانك عن اتجاه العلم و ناقش الأمر في ستة فصول ليست بالطويلة و المملة .
كتاب ممتع و ثري و لابد من تكرار القراءة فهو من الكتب التي تكتشف شيئاً آخر عند الإعادة .
يناقش بلانك و هو الفيزيائي المعروف و الذي نسب اليه ثابت كل هاوي في العلوم يعرفه و هو ثابت بلانك عن اتجاه العلم و ناقش الأمر في ستة فصول ليست بالطويلة و المملة .
كتاب ممتع و ثري و لابد من تكرار القراءة فهو من الكتب التي تكتشف شيئاً آخر عند الإعادة .
February 4, 2026
Come for Einstein’s beautiful prologue, stay for everything else
January 1, 2020
Fifty Years of Science
Summarizing the altering progress in physical science in the past fifty years, in 3 different theories:
1. Theory of Electrons:
Problem of origin of rays and the nature of their activity. Leads to "Discovery of free electrons", which cause dispersion of light. Then discovery of bounded electrons, and at last the positive electricity.
2.The Relativity Theory:
Introduction of space-time dimension.
3.The Quantum Theory:
Computing the absolute weight of atoms, and discovering the independent existence and activity of light quota
Is the External World Real?
Starting with the sceptic attacks on science (after religion and art), we are in search of building-stones of truth. Logic in its purest form (mathematics) only co-ordinates and articulates one truth with another, therefore can not be foundation of truth. Then we turn to "physics" :
Human mind coming to a knowledge of external reality. To arrive at universal elementary laws from which the cosmos can be built up by pure deduction. Hence physics is dependent upon and controlled by the world of sense-perception, and there is no pure logical way to these laws.
"Human knowledge" 's data only come from direct sensory perception of outside world.
---Here, there is a question of reliability of human knowledge---
Hence " Positivists " (formed by Auguste Comte) entirely exclude all theory and hypothesis-building (philosophy), and exclusively describe the order observed in studying natural phenomenon. This school accepts only one's own experience as primary data. Planck critics their ideology by saying that: 1) In this way there would be no place for ideas or imagination. No meaning or interpretation from natural world or phenomenon, no mental construction out of sensory reaction, hence no place for metaphysics (examples of table, and Ptolemy vs. Copernicus). Although non-positivists admit validity of aesthetic and ethical standpoints. 2) sensory impressions can be deceptive. 3) No knowledge of other people's impressions, since they are not direct sensory perceptions.
Simply the physical world is much greater than sensory perceptions, and we have to take a jump into metaphysical realm. They bring news of another world which lies outside of ours and is "entirely independent of us". So there is a real outer world which exists independently of our act of knowledge, and we do not want to restrict the scope of science, and hence restricting our understanding of the real world, and, the real outer world is not directly knowable, but it does not mean we have to stop searching for its description.
The Scientist's Picture of the Physical Universe
Summarizing the altering progress in physical science in the past fifty years, in 3 different theories:
1. Theory of Electrons:
Problem of origin of rays and the nature of their activity. Leads to "Discovery of free electrons", which cause dispersion of light. Then discovery of bounded electrons, and at last the positive electricity.
2.The Relativity Theory:
Introduction of space-time dimension.
3.The Quantum Theory:
Computing the absolute weight of atoms, and discovering the independent existence and activity of light quota
Is the External World Real?
Starting with the sceptic attacks on science (after religion and art), we are in search of building-stones of truth. Logic in its purest form (mathematics) only co-ordinates and articulates one truth with another, therefore can not be foundation of truth. Then we turn to "physics" :
Human mind coming to a knowledge of external reality. To arrive at universal elementary laws from which the cosmos can be built up by pure deduction. Hence physics is dependent upon and controlled by the world of sense-perception, and there is no pure logical way to these laws.
"Human knowledge" 's data only come from direct sensory perception of outside world.
---Here, there is a question of reliability of human knowledge---
Hence " Positivists " (formed by Auguste Comte) entirely exclude all theory and hypothesis-building (philosophy), and exclusively describe the order observed in studying natural phenomenon. This school accepts only one's own experience as primary data. Planck critics their ideology by saying that: 1) In this way there would be no place for ideas or imagination. No meaning or interpretation from natural world or phenomenon, no mental construction out of sensory reaction, hence no place for metaphysics (examples of table, and Ptolemy vs. Copernicus). Although non-positivists admit validity of aesthetic and ethical standpoints. 2) sensory impressions can be deceptive. 3) No knowledge of other people's impressions, since they are not direct sensory perceptions.
Simply the physical world is much greater than sensory perceptions, and we have to take a jump into metaphysical realm. They bring news of another world which lies outside of ours and is "entirely independent of us". So there is a real outer world which exists independently of our act of knowledge, and we do not want to restrict the scope of science, and hence restricting our understanding of the real world, and, the real outer world is not directly knowable, but it does not mean we have to stop searching for its description.
The Scientist's Picture of the Physical Universe
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews