From the microscopic to the mundane, Miroslav Holub's first collection of observations is a delight for thoughtful readers. Holub's dry wit and scientific acumen focus on the intersection of the scientific world with everyday life, finding bemused delight in the mysteries of the universe and the often surreal details of life and politics in Prague.
Feeling for a thing, personal knowledge, and the ability to identify with the research subject attempt to fuse the sensuous experience and the scientific imagination linked to it. In a way, the process is a counterpart of philosophical insight (Anschauung). Metaphorically, it is a kind of brain economy, the right hemisphere helping the overburdened left hemisphere. In athletic terms, it is better coordination of the body, of the legs and hands in a cross-country run, not a shortcut that would illegally reduce the distance. (from The Discovery: An Autopsy)
A welcome inspiration for all the brain hemispheres and their antics. The title essay (Shedding Life) is a particularly adept example of the way science, art, and philosophy mutually enlighten and challenge each other. Hail, the poet-immunologist.
In "Shedding Life," Miroslav Holub presents a thought-provoking collection of essays that showcases his astute observations on the human condition and the role of science in society. As a defender of rational thought, Holub employs his sharp wit and incisive reasoning to dissect the follies of science that are driven by ideology rather than empirical evidence.
lovely little essays, each only a few pages. masterly explanations a layman can understand on all sorts of life's little questions. example -when and how did man determine life forms did not spontaneously arise? (ie: maggots from rotten meat, insects from dust)
Written by Czech immunologist/poet Holub is often found discussing the importance of science in a world that is too often touting how all is relative or advocating planning, a la the soviets, and taking a stand on desirable outcomes and tilting things that direction rather than where the science leads. His stance is that it is only when you don’t correctly define what science is that’s where corruption, bias, ethical lapses occur. I believe as I feel he does that we all have a responsibility to have a basic understanding of scientific method and what constitutes a valid study. In this country, probably more than most, we do appear to be fortunate to have a good system of peer reviewing scientific findings that tends to discourage blatant corruption though I’m sure there are things that slip through. It was an enjoyable collection offering a window into the thoughts of an artist/scientist.