大轉折：百年科學匯流史，扭轉人類文明的關鍵融合

by Peter Watson, 彼得·沃森, 蔡承志 (Translator)

科學從來不在單一軌道上運行發展，而是編織在一塊、並時發展的宏大敘事。

擅長書寫繁複、龐雜脈絡大歷史的彼得·沃森，藉由焦點人物、事件、學科間的碰撞，擘畫出科學發展史上點、線、面交錯纏繞且相輔相成的進程。

科學並非各領域獨立發展，而是跨領域連續不斷的交會、整合。1850年代的關鍵十年，正是物理、化學等領域的飛躍性發展的最開端。能量守恆首次為人公認，熱力學、光學、電學、磁學等學門的新近發展獲得整合，達爾文的演化論也彙整了天文、地質、古生物學、人類學、地理學和生物學。而這十年的經驗也是一次重大的知識突破：我們首次發現要理解一門知識，須先熟知另一門知識，這種相互支持的新知識形式，這正是彼得·沃森所言，促使科學發展的最根本力量。能做出重大突破，真正造就進步、新發現，甚至扭轉世界走向的科學家，他們的共通點即是不閉門造車，不將焦點放在各門學科的差異，而是看到它們「相似性」的慧眼。

奠基我們現今所知世界的科學大轉折，並沒有戲劇性、爆炸性的大發現，而是藉由一群科學家在同一時代、不同地點、不同領域提出相似、相輔看法，點滴增補、累積而成的。這些知識的會聚、融合看似平凡、樸實無華，但幾乎包含了人類建構、理解這世界的所有基本概念。正是這些細小、紮實的匯流，為人類構築了一個得以探索出更廣闊世界的舞台，讓我們能夠更深入地探詢生命的起源、宇宙的歷史，並瞻望未來。

Genres: Science, Nonfiction, History, Philosophy, History Of Science, Collections, Technology

576 pages, Paperback

First published July 28, 2016

About the author

Peter Watson was educated at the universities of Durham, London and Rome, and was awarded scholarships in Italy and the United States.

After a stint as Deputy Editor of New Society magazine, he was for four years part of the Sunday Times ‘Insight’ team of investigative journalists. He wrote the daily Diary column of the London Times before becoming that paper’s New York correspondent. He returned to London to write a column about the art world for the Observer and then at The Sunday Times.

He has published three exposes in the world of art and antiquities and from 1997 to 2007 was a Research Associate at the McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research at the University of Cambridge. He has published twelve books of non-fiction and seven novels, some under the pen name of Mackenzie Ford. He lives in London where his interests include theatre, opera and fishing.

Awards, Etc.

Psychology Prize
Durham University, 1961

Italian Government Music Scholarship
Rome University, 1965

United States Government Bursary “for future world leaders”
To study the psychiatric profession and its links to the administration of justice

Books of the Year

Psychology Today Magazine, 1978, for War on the Mind
Daily Mail, 1990, for Wisdom and Strength
Independent on Sunday, for A Terrible Beauty, 2000
Times Literary Supplement, for Ideas, 2005
Time Magazine, for The Medici Conspiracy, 2006
Queen’s Pardon
Copy from Patrick Meehan after I had written a series of articles which brought about his release from prison after he had been wrongly convicted of murder, 1976.

Gold Dagger – Crime Writers’ Association of Great Britain
For The Caravaggio Conspiracy, 1983

Beacon Award – SAFE Award – Saving Antiquities for Everyone
For The Medici Conspiracy, 2006

US Library Association
The Great Divide.

Emmy Nomination
‘The Caravaggio Conspiracy, 1984.

Best sellers

The Caravaggio Conspiracy
Crusade
Landscape of Lies
Sotheby’s: The Inside Story
Nureyev
Lectures

Peter Watson has lectured at the following venues:

Universities

Cambridge
Berkeley
London
UCLA
Birmingham
Georgia
Georgia
Chicago
Birmingham
Santiago de Chile
York
Madrid
Harvard
Tufts
Military Bases

Fort Bragg
Private Institutions in

Cleveland
Berlin
Chicago
Belfast
Los Angeles
New York
Washington
Boston
Palm Beach
Other venues

Smithsonian Institution
National Museum, Copenhagen
Royal Society of Arts
Rugby School
Royal Library, Copenhagen
Festivals

Edinburgh
Oxford
Dartington
York

Reviews

[Peter Tillman · Rating 2 out of 5]

Very cool idea, but the mid-19th century historical sketches drag a bit. Well, we'll see. Not quite a doorstop, but at 575 pages, a substantial commitment. I think I'll jump ahead to a chapter where I have some expertise....

OK, chapter 14, "Big History," gives extensive weight to a 1998 book by a British pediatrician: "Eden in the East", which proposes a pretty radical revision in the melt-off of the last ice age as it affected SE Asia. Not my area of expertise, but certainly sets off the BS detector. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs", not a book by an an enthusiastic amateur. Mind, he could be right, but Watson is using a dubious source for a major argument here. Also a long discourse on the possible historic roots of tribal myths. Proceed with caution!

Ah, here's the NY Times review, by J.L. Heilbron, a science historian at UC Berkeley:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/10/bo...
"Watson’s apparent mastery of the ingredients and recipes of all the sciences might stagger a general reader used to the works of mortals. What will stagger the knowledgeable is the confidence with which he presents nonsense. ..."

"The main reason Watson has been able to compile so much varied material is that he has perfected the journalist’s art of epitome. Whether accurately or not, he can boil a book down to a striking sentence or two and an article to a sound bite. When he has read the primary material himself, he can make a very good job of it. But in areas where he lacks time or competence, he relies on secondary literature, and that not always of the best." E.g., the British pediatrician's flood book, and the hash Watson makes of the supposed astronomical causes of glaciation, and de-glaciation, which is a controversial topic and not at all settled. I'm a geologist, and know the topic pretty well.

So, read Heilbron's review first, before you make any major commitment to Watson's book. Skimming ahead, I see more instances of easy generalizations from dubious sources.

Watson (and others) may be right about convergence. But his book really doesn't demonstrate it, or at least not nearly so well as Watson thinks.

Caveat: my review is based on reading and skimming maybe a quarter of the book, and careful rereading of the NY Times review. The problems in Watson's book are fundamental, and I'm not going to spend more time on it.

[Marc Lamot · Rating 2 out of 5]

Watson's erudition, his knowledge of the sciences, and his ability to weave a compelling story around them is undeniable and impressive. I haven't read everything in this hefty book (how many people have?), but almost everything I did read was compelling and enticing. Only, after a while you realize that Watson has done quite a bit of cherry picking, has selected the bits that fit in his convergence-theory and sometimes also relies heavily on less reliable theories and studies. For the latter I’m not referring to the exact sciences (physics and mathematics first), because I am not sufficiently versed in that. But I did read thoroughly the pieces where he talks about, for instance, Big History, or early human history, because I think I know something about that.

Big History is presented by Watson as proof of his claim that the sciences have been converging since the mid-19th century. I'm not sure. The publications of a David Christian (strangely Watson does not refer at all to him) make it clear that Big History can offer an attractive narrative of the evolution of our universe, but you will not find a real integration of physical, biological and social sciences in it. Big History sticks to the surface a little too much for that.

And in the chapter on early human history, Watson relies on highly controversial and often very preliminary recent publications to launch speculative theories. For example, he talks about the prehistoric Venus figurines, citing the highly controversial publications like the ones of Gimbutas Maria, and refers to isolated articles, published just before his book, and in the meanwhile clearly outdated (like the ones on paleogenetics). He elaborates quite extensively about how mankind after the domestication of animals, about 12 to 10,000 years ago, realized that there was a male input in the onset of pregnancies; quite speculative, really, but for Watson is a sufficient explanation for the sudden disappearance of female fertility statues. The latter is not even true (fertility statues kept on being made at least until the 4th millenium BCE); just to indicate on what loose sand Watson builds his claims.

It is also striking that Watson does not only want to prove that sciences are evolving towards each other, but above all wants to defend their reductionist approach. For him, that reductionism is even the core of the success of those sciences. Well, to a certain extent this is justifiable: many breakthroughs, especially in the physical sciences, are the result of focusing on very limited research objects, strictly distinguishing phenomena, etc. But that there are great risks involved, and that this approach does injustice to reality as a whole, by now is generally accepted. None of that with Watson, who continues to ardently defend reductionism, also in the social sciences, and who attacks mainly non-scientists who point to phenomena such as chaos, complexity, emergence, etc. The title of this book would therefore better be: “reductionism. The idea at the heart of science”.

[D.L. Morrese · Rating 4 out of 5]

Carl Sagan once said that science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge. In Convergence, historian and journalist Peter Watson demonstrates one important aspect of this profound insight. Individual scientific disciplines once regarded as separate are converging, influencing and fueling one another to reveal a clearer and more detailed picture of reality. The findings of geology help answer questions in biology. Discoveries in physics shed light on issues in cosmology. Assuming the existence of an objective reality, science is how we learn about it. A fact discovered by one scientific discipline remains a fact across all. This is why the inability of quantum mechanics and general relativity to play well together is so bothersome. Each works remarkably well in its own realm. Each makes accurate predictions. But if both theories are describing different aspects of a single reality, it means that at least one of them still needs a bit of work. Watson touches on this quest for a unified theory in this book, but it is mostly a broad overview of the science of the last 150 years or so with a focus on how separate disciplines have come together. It's an informative read.

[Emma Sea · Rating 4 out of 5]

3.82 stars overall, but 5 shiny stars for the book excluding chapters 14 & 15.

[Juan Camilo Vélez Johnson · Rating 5 out of 5]

Este es otro de esos libros a los que les he pegado dos enviones. El primero hace unos cuatro años en donde a duras penas llegué a terminar el prefacio y esta, en la que literalmente conté las horas y los minutos para volver a sentarme a leer. La realidad es que el libro es el mismo, el que cambié fui yo.

Este es uno de tantos títulos del afamado Peter Watson que por cosas que he oído escribe tremendos ladrillos... o MUROS como se lo comenté recientemente a un amigo cercano. Afortunadamente Convergencias: El Orden Subyacente en el Corazón de la ciencia es una delicia de lectura... Ahh pero los detallistas me preguntarán: Si es tan deliciosa la lectura ¿por qué le tuvo que dar dos enviones?

A continuación la respuesta:

En primer lugar debo confesar que leo para hablar de lo que leo, y tenía mucha información suelta sobre ciencia, psicología y biología que mi cerebro no era capaz de hilar de manera coherente en la historia de la humanidad. Este libro logra hilar de manera sencilla, profunda y muy acertada la manera de cómo las ciencias se complementan unas a otras desde el prefacio del libro utilizando los casos de los diferentes científicos que se aproximaron al concepto de conservación de la energía y de la manera como la geología apoyó la construcción de la teoría de la evolución de las especies de Darwin.

En segundo lugar el libro es funcional, te permite entender porque la época dorada de 1850 fue el caldo de cultivo para que la filosofía natural, la biología y las matemáticas demostraran cómo la especialización de saberes y disciplinas era el camino incorrecto. Se hace referencia a una mujer, Mary Somerville quien se merece la ovación y mención en esta reseña por ser ella, una mujer de los 1800 quien se atreviera a ganarse un puesto en la conversación culta de la época gracias a su gran habilidad con las matemáticas, quien puso al frente de todos que la unidad y la convergencia de los conocimientos era el camino correcto para el avance del conocimiento de nuestra especie.

En tercer lugar el libro se deja leer porque tengo nuevamente hábito. Es un libro que no es para empezar a tomar el hábito de la lectura. Si no tiene hábito tengo varios libros que recomendarle y puede encontrarlos en mis reseñas, pero si ya tiene hábito e interés en la historia y la ciencia (sin ser científico ni historiador) este ejemplar es un boccato di cardinale.

Usted se va a dar cuenta de la genialidad de los experimentadores y teóricos es asombrosa pero muy insuficiente si es que no hubieran tejido lazos de amistad y de celos para usar los avances y sospechas de amigos y contendores. Como dicen por ahí: La ciencia avanzó de funeral en funeral. También se va a dar cuenta que lo que sabemos de ciencia, medicina, biología, astronomía, psicología, entre otras cosas que hoy en día le mejoran su calidad de vida son conocimientos recientes, que apenas estamos comenzando en estos asuntos y que la colaboración entre naciones, personas e instituciones será la clave para que los pasos sean cada vez más acelerados hacia un mundo mejor para todos.

[Tom · Rating 4 out of 5]

I found this book challenging, not because it isn't clearly written, the author is very skilled at explaining scientific concepts in an easily grasped manner. In fact, his review of inorganic and organic chemistry would have been welcome when I was in university. The challenge was more how his argument runs counter to where my reading and thinking has been tending for some time.

Watson is a confirmed reductionist. All will eventually be explained by further advances in our understanding of the underlying material of matter. Beginning with the marriage of physics (the queen of the sciences) to chemistry and progressing up the hierarchy of the universe, we will come to understand even anthropology, psychology, consciousness, the arts etc. To Watson, understanding, means mathematizing these domains. He considers that describing human behavior in mathematical terms to represent the 'hardening' of psychology for example. In this, and elsewhere, he seems to occasionally part ways with those aspects of science that emphasized empirical verification. If mathematical formulations could be derived for a phenomenon that hasn't yet been observed (e.g. subatomic physics), but fits existing concepts, it is tacitly accepted. There seemed to be a tendency to not treat these as hypotheses to be tested. Since some of them cannot be tested they fail Karl Popper's stringent criteria, however. Does finding a mathematical description of natural phenomena actually explain it?
Watson considers "...science itself ..the basis for comprehending other forms of knowledge" p313. In this while acknowledging that there are other forms of knowledge (one might consider for example self-knowledge), he gives primacy to science. This is where I was disappointed. He criticizes those who he considers 'anti-reductionists' such as Ernest Nagel, Richard Rorty, Peter Galison, but we don't learn too much about them. No where does he mention Ken Wilber's work.
Several times he describes his book as a narrative and I think that is an apt description. Like all narratives or stories, there is selection in what is included and what is not. Whatever adds to the story line is given more credence and some other material is left out. In the end, Watson sees. the sciences and the humanities coming together....converging. When you stand looking down a railroad track the rails seem to converge in the distance too. Sometimes lines that appear to come together are actually parallel and that too needs to be respected. What appears to be an end, is actually the means to another end altogether. In pursuit of his story, Watson seems to have left out critical self examination of one's beliefs. He has made me re-examine my views and so I'm pleased to have read the book.

[Joseph M. O'Connor · Rating 3 out of 5]

Disappointed...

Is the only term i can use, having reached almost the midpoint of this book. I was going along full speed just lapping up Watson's accounts of convergence of disciplines in the early days of chemistry and physics and mathematics. It was mesmerizing. Dry as the subjects were, he made them interesting and brought together advancements in parallel fields as they merged and melded.

Then he came to the DNA part and something seemed a little off from what I had heard and read about in the 1960s as I started my fledgling career as a biologist. When Mr. Watson got to Wegener and continental drift he just missed the mark completely, never completing the transition of scientific thinking from "continental drift" to Plate Tectonics. (Which is VERY different.)

Then on to biology. Oh, boy. Misunderstanding, misinterpretation, overstatement, understatement, fatal errors and on occasion, a brilliant deduction dominate these sections. An uninformed reader is likely to emerge from reading these sections MISinformed rather than informed as to the biological history of our planet.I

Sad to say, these sections lead me to question the validity of some of Mr. Watson's accounts related in earlier chapters. Do I trust him? Has he actually added anything to previous accounts of scientific progress that I love to read about? Had he muddied the waters? Are his characteristics of the players accurate? Thinking back on it I can see little cracks in the seams that don't make sense. Can I write off the inconsistencies to style, rather than to accuracy? If he can be SO far off on Wegener and father and son Alvarez and extinction patterns, am I being misled, ever so slightly, throughout the book?I

I don't know if pre-completion reviews are allowed. Perhaps Mr. Watson will redeem himself later on. After all, I am only At 49%. But I wonder if I'm being fed a line from faulty reasoning. To write an exposition on something so profound as the ultimate convergence of the sciences seems to me to require the most careful research, the most fastidious personal characterizations, the most embracing reductions.

Mr. Watson... You had me At "convergence!" You lost me at " continental drift. "

More to follow At completion.

JMOC



At this point I just urge prospec

[Mishehu · Rating 4 out of 5]

Overall, a very interesting synthesis of research crosscutting the natural and the social sciences. The first half of the book -- which dealt mostly with key developments in the history of physics and with the advent of modern biology -- was tightly and compellingly argued. The second half of the book -- in particular, the protracted discursus on the origins of human beings, society, and culture -- were less so, not because these are any less fascinating topics but because the treatment was a) somewhat slipshod, and b) seemed intended for a different book. The connection between the author's musings on developments in human history and on the phenomenon of convergence in the sciences at large seemed forced. Despite theae flaws, however, Converge is, by and large, a fascinating and inspiring read. I highly recommend it for pop science enthusiasts and champions of reasoned inquiry.

[Veysel Kaya · Rating 2 out of 5]

Büyük umutlarla başlayıp yaklaşık yüzde 30'unu okuduktan sonra bıraktığım bir kitap oldu. Kitap için yapabileceğim en sade yorum gereksiz bilgilerle dolu olduğu olur. Bu da kitabı okumayı oldukça zorlaştırıyor. Bununla ilgili örneklere geçmeden önce kitapla ilgili diğer yorumlarda da özellikle Biyoloji ve Jeoloji alanlarında yanlış bilgi ve yorumların yer aldığının belirtildiğini söylemeden geçemeyeceğim.

Yazarın neredeyse okuduğu her dergi veya internet makalesine atıfta bulunarak alıntıladığı ve konu bütünlüğünü fazlasıyla bozan kısımlara da şöyle örnekler verebiliriz (kitaba dair daha fazla zaman kaybetmemek adına sadece iki örnek vereceğim):

Başlık: Atomun Yapısı
...Rutherford, müdürü ünlü bir kriket oyuncusu olan Nelson Koleji'nde okumuş ve son sınıfta okul temsilcisi olmuştu; bu nedenle de okulun en iyi öğrencilerine verilen ve en üstün anlamına gelen dux, lakabı haline gelmişti; ona bu şekilde seslenenlere sürekli olarak şu cevabı verirdi: Vak vak.

Başlık: Matematik ve Atom Yapısı Arasındaki Bağlantı
Wolfgang Pauli'nin bilimsel çalışmalarına geçmeden hemen önceki satırlar: Diğer taraftan geceleri sinsi sinsi genelevlerin bulunduğu mahallelerde dolaşır ve kaba saba müşterilere hizmet veren gece klüplerine sıkça giderdi. Arkadaşına yazdığı bir mektupta, 'yeraltı dünyasında duyduğu aşk hatta insanlık olmaksızın yaşanan geceden, cinsel heyecandan' zevk aldığını itiraf etmişti.

Kısacası, eğer amacınız bilim tarihi üzerine bir şeyler okumak ve hatta 'Yakınsama' fikri hakkında biraz daha bilgi edinmekse başka kitaplara yönlenmenizi tavsiye ederim.

[Murray · Rating 3 out of 5]

Convergence is another example of Peter Watson's ability to write an accessible and excellent synthesis of intellectual history. In this case, Watson turns to the history of science over the past 150-years, atypically arranging developments by their converging insights, ending in a crescendo of the inspiring emerging order in quantum biology.

My challenge; a fascinating thesis of convergence was largely left until the end. A history of scientific discoveries needs weaving with this thesis if it is to potentially reveal any converging order. And further; there is a portion of the work that provides a 'big history' narrative of the Earth and civilization, that was a resurfacing of some of Watson's best syntheses from earlier works, which ultimately did not fit into a history of science and its emerging order... Even if it was a beautifully passionate digression/backdrop.

[Lloyd Downey · Rating 5 out of 5]

Convergence is a history of modern science but with a distinctive twist. The twist has been there for all to see but so far it has not been set out as clearly as it deserves. The argument is that the various disciplines — despite their very different beginnings, and apparent areas of interest — have in fact been gradually coming together over the past 150 years. Converging and coalescing identify one extraordinary master narrative, one overwhelming interlocking coherent story: the history of the universe. Among its achievements, the intimate connections between physics and chemistry have been discovered. The same goes for the links between quantum chemistry and molecular biology. Particle physics has been aligned with astronomy and the early history of the evolving universe. Paediatrics has been enriched by the insights of ethology; psychology has been aligned with physics, chemistry and even with economics. Genetics has been harmonised with linguistics, botany with archaeology, climatology with myth — and so on and so on. Big History — the master narrative of the trajectories of the world's great civilisations — has been explained and is being further fleshed-out by the interlocking sciences. This is a simple insight but one with profound consequences. Convergence is, as Nobel Prize-winning physicist Steven Weinberg, has put it, a 'the deepest thing about the universe'.
Most of the ideas collected here were not new to me but this is an impressive synthesis ....and a very large book (544 pages). Too big to try and summarise.
With Bohr: "But the real importance of Bohr's breakthrough was in his unification of Rutherford, Planck and J.J: [Thompson] confirming the quantum - discrete - nature of nature, the stability of the atom (half-quantum states were inadmissible), and the nature of the link between physics and chemistry.
Linus Pauling: unification of Chemistry and biology..."All this was important because, at the time Pauling developed his concept of resonance, he now adapted an idea from biology. Having based his chemistry for so long on quantum physics, Pauling had started attending biology seminars at Caltech in the department headed by T. H. Morgan. He was in particular interested in how geneticists identified the location of genes on chromosomes, which they did indirectly, by inference, by measuring how frequently two independent traits were inherited together. The principle established here was that the closer two genes were physically on the chromosome, the greater the probability they would stay together during genetic crossover in reproduction. Pauling now adapted this idea to resonance, to create his own scale of the relationship between pairs of elements, according to how ionic or covalent their bonds were. He found that the more ionic the bonds were between the atoms, the greater was the difference in their ability to attract electrons.
Darwin and evolution: While the great story of evolution was the main biological unification of the nineteenth century it was not, only one. The most important, certainly in the early part was the discovery of cells and, no less important, the realisation that both animals and plants are made up of cells. This idea, that forms of life are composed of independent, but cooperative units ranks as one of the seminal discoveries in biology. a fundamental link between zoology and botany, over and above the fact that they both concern living things.
Watson and Crick and DNA: "In the summer of 1953, the physicist, George Gamow wrote to Watson and Crick. 'Your article, he said, 'brings biology over into the exact sciences.
So far Peter Watson seems to be on reasonably solid ground and his arguments are factually based but he seems to slip into some much looser thinking when he indulges himself with some historical speculation....especially about the end of the last ice age and the rise in sea levels that presumably buried most of the evidence of human habitation under the sea. Here he slips into prioritising myth (and I'm not convinced that this is any more reliable than relying on the stories of Superman today might be in 1000 years time). "......then, like other powerful events, would they have been remembered and rendered coherent in myth form?" Well maybe....but how accurately? He further speculates...."There is one piece of evidence, one myth, which suggests there was just such a powerful change in human consciousness. Could it be that this all-important change in mentality is in fact contained in the very first book of the Bible? Is this why the Bible begins as it does? ....The expulsion itself, for instance, would seem to represent the end of horticulture, or the end of humankind's hunter-gatherer lifestyle and its transfer to agriculture, and the recognition, discussed earlier, that the hunter-gatherer lifestyle was easier, more enjoyable, more harmonious, than farming." Frankly, I just wish that he had stuck to his factually based stuff....especially given that the genesis story seems to actually be two stories that were patched together by the authors of Genesis with a mixture of Egyptian (Nile) myths and Babylonian myth. Maybe he's right but he certainly has lost his fact based narrative.
Stephen Wolfram...physicist-mathematician. "Found that a few simple rules can lead to both great complexity and to order....that order and complexity are different sides of the same coin."......"Throughout his book he describes the behaviour of cellular automata only, patterns in black and white, and occasionally other colours, like grey. But Wolfram finds in the patterns many analogies to real life. For example, some of the patterns resemble the order we see in nature, the stripes on tigers, for example, or the shape of sand dunes, the whorls of snails and shells. Elsewhere, he argues that space itself may well be made up of discrete units, much like the cells of cellular automata, and that this helps us explain fundamental particles, which are essentially 'tangles' in this network of units. It is the tangle that moves and interacts and this is what mass is (not a million miles from the Higgs boson". Looking at space in this way, he says, helps us understand quantum mechanics and such phenomena as 'superposition', the idea that entities can be in two places at once, because they are essentially connected via the space network. He also shows that if the basic shape of the cells or 'pixels' (for want of a better word) is, say, a hexagon rather than a square, then space will naturally be curved, just as Einstein said"....."Wolfram's ideas have had a mixed reception." Partly this is because cellular automata are analogies of life, not life itself, and he claims just too much for them. Partly it is because his book abounds in phrases like 'I strongly suspect', 'it seems possible', 'it seems like', 'if I am correct'. Speculation piled on analogy is not everyone's idea of science" Ironic that Watson should express this view when he has done precisely the same thing with his myths about Genesis etc. But one of Wolfram's main conclusions is that 'At some rather abstract level one can immediately recognize one basic similarity between nature and mathematics . . . this suggests that the overall similarity between mathematics and nature must have a deeper origin.. Most scientists seem to agree but not all.
The whole thrust of the book has been the great convergence, the growing interconnections between the various sciences but Watson does say: ..."It is important at this point to say that, in recent years; beginning in the 1970s and 1980s, but taking wing in the 1990s, a counter-movement proliferated. It consisted mainly of philosophers, historians, sociologists, and even a few computer specialists, rather than mainstream scientists themselves. This camp argues that reductionism is little short of a sin, that the sciences can never constitute a single unified project — that, in fact, the sciences are a disunity and that it is 'imperialistic' and 'patriarchal' to say otherwise. These individuals are sceptical that there is a pre-existing order to the world we see around us. They argue that the 'apparent order' is in many ways an artefact of the methods we use to study the world".
Despite his strange lapse into fantasy thinking, I liked the book. His selection of the great figures or great convergences might be argued but overall, IU found it fascinating and convincing. (He influenced me to read a biography of Pauling and I must also look into Wolfram's work). I give it five stars.

[Anthony L · Rating 1 out of 5]

I gave up after reading (speeded-read or skimmed rather) through the first few chapters. It is very unfortunate that books like this are so heavily padded with words just to produce the pages for a book. For example, unnecessary biographic details are so extensive (". . . impressed by his telescopes and intrigued by his diminutive sister Caroline . . .") that most of book is not focused on its theme. The reader had to speed-read or skim to try and get to the point. I regret buying this book and will probably dump it at the library exchange corner.

[Daniela Orozco · Rating 4 out of 5]

Me gustó mucho la forma de divulgar del autor. Hace bastante tiempo ya que no leía un libro sobre historia de la ciencia y éste en particular, me gustó mucho para refrescar conocimientos que tenía y que se me habían ido olvidando. La forma de informar del autor es magistral, es concisa, clara y sin titubeos. Quizás la tesis del libro no se desarrolla muy bien a lo largo de sus páginas y por ende no se exponen congruentemente las convergencias entre las ciencias como propósito real del libro. Sin embargo, Watson me sorprendió gratamente. Su retórica es propia de un buen divulgador con un estilo fresco y ameno. Lo recomendó ampliamente para los aficionados a la historia de la ciencia

Por otro lado, muchos de los datos del libro carecen de rigor y es probable, que los lectores más aventajados de esta área encuentren errores y datos que no están fuertemente suportados, a pesar de las referencias de las cuales es poseedor el libro ¡que son muchas!. Quedé con ansias de leer otros libros de Watson porque realmente, me gustó mucho su estilo. En definitiva, es un libro que te devoras con premura de principio a fin.

[Deniz Bakkalcı · Rating 3 out of 5]

Peter Watson bu kitapta bilimin 150 yıllık tarihinin bir özetini yapmış. Fizik, matematik, kimya, biyoloji ve toplum bilimleri alanlarının ortaya çıkışı ve bu alanlardaki güncel gelişmeler hakkında aşinalığını artırmak isteyenler için bu kitap uygun. Fakat kitabın ana fikri olan tüm bilimlerin "yakınsaması"nın çok ikna edici bir argüman olmadığını ve yazarın da kitabı bu çatıda birleştirmek için çok ikna edici argümanlar sunamadığını düşünüyorum. Özellikle de günümüzde bilgide ilerlemenin alanların birleşmesindense gitgide daha kısıtlı alanlarda uzmanlaşmayla mümkün olduğunu göz önünde bulundurduğumuzda kitaptaki argüman yetersiz kalıyor. Hoşuma gitmeyen ikinci konu ise bu yakınsamanın tüm beşeri bilimlerin fizik ve matematik prensipleriyle açıklanabilmesi olarak yorumlanması. Yazar fizik ve matematik bilimlerini tüm alanların açıklayıcı prensibi olarak görüyor ve yakınsamayı bu şekilde tanımlıyor.

[Suzy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Peter Watson does a great job of making high-level science almost understandable to someone such as myself who has high interest in science in general, but only a smattering of basic college-level courses under my belt--much of which is now outdated. He writes in an even, mature style that is neither too academic nor too patronizing or folksy--just right, I'd say. I found the connections he draws among the sciences and almost-sciences very fascinating, and thought his discussions of points of convergence of which I was already aware a good review. At the end of the book, he offers his perspective on the debate over reductionism among philosophers of science. Intriguing and exciting material, sometimes a bit over my head, but I stuck with it to get out of it what I could, and I'm glad I did.

[SANTIAGO OSORIO · Rating 4 out of 5]

#convergencias, otro libro de obligada lectura del gran historiador #peterwatson (este escritor no tiene nada malo😎🤓) , una breve y entretenida narrativa de la historia de las diferentes ramas de la ciencia🧪🦠🔬, como en general estas convergen y como los seres humanos desde la racionalidad🧠, el humanismo y la ilustración interpretamos e interactuamos con nuestro mundo 🌎 .

🚩"Nos hallamos en un momento de gran convergencia en el que datos, ciencia y tecnología se aúnan para desentrañar el mayor de los misterios: nuestro futuro como individuos y como sociedad"; Albert-Lázló Barabási.

🚩"Que maravillosa sensación la de reconocer la unidad en un conjunto de fenómenos que a la observación directa se muestran como cosas distintas"; Albert Einsten

🚩 "A la naturaleza le place la simplicidad"; Isaac Newton

[Jeffrey · Rating 3 out of 5]

The main thing I liked about this book was the excellent future reading list it provided me in the form of the notes & references section. The thesis of the book is not particularly interesting or well argued, but the first few hundred pages of the book are a very nice capsule history of science from the mid-19th to mid-20th centuries, incorporating interesting little micro-biographies of many of the scientists involved in major developments. The quality of the book steeply declines as it moves into the late 20th century and the present. This is where Watson starts pushing his argument for convergence especially hard, but his rhetorical skill is thin and largely rests on invoking Mary Somerville's name at every possible instance.

[Tansel Erdem Yılmaz · Rating 3 out of 5]

Adı güzel kendi güzel Peter Watson "Hitabetim iyi, cebimde de bol bol bilim ve tarih bilgisi var, yaşım da ilerlediği için anektodal hikayeler anlatmayı sevmeye başladım" diyerek bilgisayarının başına oturmuş anlaşılan.

Neden böyle diyorum? Bir mucidin yaptığı çalışmayı anlatmaya o mucidin kız kardeşinin başından geçen tüberküloz hastalığıyla başlamak mantıklı değil. Watson da böyle düşünmüş olacak ki mucidin kardeşini de yeterli görmeyerek tüberküloz için çözüm üreten şifacıyı anlatmak istemiş. O esnada geçen beş sayfa sonunda yine yaşından dolayı bitap düşen yazarımız mucidin çalışmasına da bizi kırmamak için şöyle birkaç satırda değinmiş.

İyi bir çıkış noktası olan ancak tökezlemekten sonuca bir türlü ulaşamaya esere gidiş yolundan 3 yıldız.

[Nguyen Hoang Phong · Rating 4 out of 5]

The author is not a scientist. Let me preface with that. He is a science historian. So some of the scientific explanations in the book are not entirely correct, more like pop-science versions of the true ideas (especially regarding more esoteric subjects such as quantum mechanics). The last few chapters do get slightly incoherent, as the science gets more cutting-edge, philosophical, and the link across discoveries more tenuous. However, the first 80-or-so% of the book is solid, entertaining, mind-expanding history of science.

[John Everard Griffith · Rating 5 out of 5]

This history of the developments of science since 1850 was thorough and fascinating. It shows how the various disciplines in science have contributed to the one story of the evolution of the universe and the evolution of the human species. It also shows how the different disciplines have been influencing each other as well. For anyone who is interested in more specifics as to how our understanding of the universe is evolving this is an excellent book. It is not just about one discipline but all of the disciplines and how they influence each other.

[Guillermo · Rating 5 out of 5]

Un libro que es a la vez estimulante, denso y entretenido. No siempre me fue fácil avanzar en la lectura y en varias ocasiones lo dejé reposar. Un material enriquecedor y sugerente pensado para acicatear la curiosidad intelectual.

[Volker · Rating 3 out of 5]

Surely, this book has some flaws and some major wrong statements (electrons made out of quarks ?!) but in the long run, it gets quite some stuff right. In particular the 19th century is a nice read.

[Cop Deb · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellente book.

[Dinithi · Rating 4 out of 5]

One of the most interesting things I've ever read, the book is rife with facts you can pull out in any kind of discussion. Lots of physics though, so a bit hard to get your head around the details.

[Sean · Rating 4 out of 5]

WOW the 20th century waa certainly an impressive one in terms of advances in scienific discoveries.

Worth reading.

[Raúl · Rating 3 out of 5]

Una buena historia de la ciencia desde 1850. Desde perspectiva de la convergencia entre las distintas disciplinas. No os resultará difícil encontrar una más completa.

[Anna G · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is so incredibly eye opening and an excellent summary of the direction in which science is progressing. I often come back to it to remind myself of all that I seem to forget hahaha!

[Carl · Rating 3 out of 5]

A good read for anyone interested in the history of science. I did not find it a "big idea" book like others do.

[Bjorn Delbeecke · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great book. Very enjoyable. However, skip chapters 14 and 15; they are kinda ... speculative, to say the least.

[John Bleasdale · Rating 3 out of 5]

Basically all knowledge and science begins as one discipline; then splinters into many and then gradually they come back together again. Chemistry becomes physics biology becomes chemistry and everything becomes maths.