What do you think?
Rate this book
Knowing our future: The startling case for futurology
The received conventional wisdom within the global futurist community is that the future is unknowable. Knowing our future outlines a full theory of how knowable the future really is. Using case studies of prescient predictions of the social future from the time of the French Revolution through to the present Michael Lee argues that there are sound theoretical grounds for establishing a science of the future and accurately predicting it time after time. Drawing on mathematics, social theory, physics, economics, social biology and philosophy and referencing great thinkers from the Marquis de Condorcet, Herbert Spencer, Newton, Einstein, George Bernard Shaw, Stephen Hawking, Bertrand Russell and Roger Penrose, amongst others, Lee brilliantly presents the argument that the future, far from being mysterious and unknowable, can be understood and predicted.
208 pages, Paperback
First published November 1, 2012
2 people are currently reading
19 people want to read
About the author
Michael Lee
314 books9 followersLibrarian note:
There is more than one author in the GoodReads database with this name.
This profile may contain books from multiple authors of this name
For other authors of this name, see:
There is more than one author in the GoodReads database with this name.
This profile may contain books from multiple authors of this name
For other authors of this name, see:
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
July 22, 2013
The objectives of the author are noble, but in my eyes he fails in getting there, on several levels. First the good points.
Lee makes a good case for adopting scientific methodology for futures studies. He does not sufficiently discuss the methods that should be used, although he mentioned some here and there.
Lee makes a good point about what he calls post-modernism, I.e the tendency to claim that we cannot make predictions.
Finally I like the examples that he presents of futurologists from the past. Some of those were unknown to me.
That what I criticize in the book:
1. Lee presents Special Relativity as the corner stone for understanding time, past, present and future. But he makes no connection between physical concepts of time and social and historical notions of time. I would hope to see a clear bridge between the two, but Lee doesn't present it.
2. As mentioned above, the book is lacking a systematic discussion on the methodology needed for futures studies. This is exactly what we need. It will be quite a big volume, discussing extrapolation, simulation, statistical methods, scenario writing etc. But that is the book I am waiting for. (Maybe I should write it myself (-;
3. Lee suggests that making predictions is special for futurology, but of course it is not: Making predictions is the validation test for all sciences, including the social sciences.
4. Lee presents and evaluates ten past predictions. He selects them - is my assumption - based on them having proven right. The problem is that for each correct prediction there were probably 100000 wrong predictions. It is a matter of large numbers. That is the trick with astrology (there are always a few people amount the thousands who read the prediction who actually meet the love of their lives) and with Uri Geller, the illusionist who was famous in the 1970s (if 100000 people take grandpa's old broken watch from the closet, at least a few will start to run again due to the shock of being picked up). So finding predictions that were sort of right is no problem, it is just a matter of selecting.
5. Evaluating the validity of a prediction also must include evaluating the method with which the prediction is derived. And this method must be repeatable, by anyone with the right technical skills. The example of Meadows (Limits to Growth) then qualifies, but the biblical example surely not, neither the prediction by Churchill.
Actually I can only recommend this book to those of you interested in research methodology. If you are interested in futures studies there are plenty of better reads.
Folkert.
Www.ExcitingTechnology.net
Lee makes a good case for adopting scientific methodology for futures studies. He does not sufficiently discuss the methods that should be used, although he mentioned some here and there.
Lee makes a good point about what he calls post-modernism, I.e the tendency to claim that we cannot make predictions.
Finally I like the examples that he presents of futurologists from the past. Some of those were unknown to me.
That what I criticize in the book:
1. Lee presents Special Relativity as the corner stone for understanding time, past, present and future. But he makes no connection between physical concepts of time and social and historical notions of time. I would hope to see a clear bridge between the two, but Lee doesn't present it.
2. As mentioned above, the book is lacking a systematic discussion on the methodology needed for futures studies. This is exactly what we need. It will be quite a big volume, discussing extrapolation, simulation, statistical methods, scenario writing etc. But that is the book I am waiting for. (Maybe I should write it myself (-;
3. Lee suggests that making predictions is special for futurology, but of course it is not: Making predictions is the validation test for all sciences, including the social sciences.
4. Lee presents and evaluates ten past predictions. He selects them - is my assumption - based on them having proven right. The problem is that for each correct prediction there were probably 100000 wrong predictions. It is a matter of large numbers. That is the trick with astrology (there are always a few people amount the thousands who read the prediction who actually meet the love of their lives) and with Uri Geller, the illusionist who was famous in the 1970s (if 100000 people take grandpa's old broken watch from the closet, at least a few will start to run again due to the shock of being picked up). So finding predictions that were sort of right is no problem, it is just a matter of selecting.
5. Evaluating the validity of a prediction also must include evaluating the method with which the prediction is derived. And this method must be repeatable, by anyone with the right technical skills. The example of Meadows (Limits to Growth) then qualifies, but the biblical example surely not, neither the prediction by Churchill.
Actually I can only recommend this book to those of you interested in research methodology. If you are interested in futures studies there are plenty of better reads.
Folkert.
Www.ExcitingTechnology.net
Read
September 11, 2015303.49 L4792 2012
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews