A navalha de Ockham: O princípio filosófico que libertou a ciência e ajudou a explicar o universo

by Johnjoe McFadden, George Schlesinger (Translator)

A biologist argues that simplicity is the guiding principle of the universe
 
Centuries ago, the principle of Ockham’s razor changed our world by showing simpler answers to be preferable and more often true. In Life Is Simple, scientist Johnjoe McFadden traces centuries of discoveries, taking us from a geocentric cosmos to quantum mechanics and DNA, arguing that simplicity has revealed profound answers to the greatest mysteries. This is no coincidence. From the laws that keep a ball in motion to those that govern evolution, simplicity, he claims, has shaped the universe itself. And in McFadden’s view, life could only have emerged by embracing maximal simplicity, making the fundamental law of the universe a cosmic form of natural selection that favors survival of the simplest. Recasting both the history of science and our universe’s origins, McFadden transforms our understanding of ourselves and our world.

Genres: Science, Nonfiction, History, Philosophy, Physics, History Of Science, Biology

470 pages, Kindle Edition

First published September 28, 2021

About the author

an Anglo-Irish scientist, academic and writer. He is Professor of Molecular Genetics at the University of Surrey, United Kingdom.

Reviews

[Brian Clegg · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a really hard book to review, because it has two quite distinct parts and the chances are that if you are interested in one of these parts, you may well find the other part less engaging. The first section concerns the development of Occam's razor - the idea of keeping your explanation of something as simple as possible while it still works - and the impact this would have on philosophy (and proto-science) in the Middle Ages. The second part treads very familiar ground in taking us through some of the major developments in science from Galileo onwards, occasionally tying back to Occam's razor to show that the impact of the idea continued.

As it happens, I love the first bit as I find the medieval development of science and its intertwining with religion and philosophy fascinating. Jonjoe McFadden brought in a lot of material I wasn't familiar with. Of course I was aware of Occam's razor itself, but I knew nothing about William of Occam as a person, or the way his idea radically changed the philosophy of the period. (If I'm picky, as someone who has written a book on Roger Bacon, I think McFadden plays a little fast and loose in this bit of history - he describes Bacon's Opus Majus pretty much as a treatise on optics, where it's strictly a book proposal not a treatise, and only 164 pages out of its 840 in my edition are on optics.)

I find the angels-dancing-on-the-head-of-a-pin-ishness of the period a delight and would give it five stars, but I think many popular science readers will find it less inspiring than I do. By comparison, I found the second half, post Boyle and his transitional position on the cusp of modern science, told me nothing really new in a summary way that wasn't very engaging.

I think in many ways it would have been better if McFadden had limited himself to the first half and filled it out more - the rest we can pretty much take for granted, and it has been covered vast numbers of times elsewhere. Life is Simple is definitely of interest if the early rumblings of philosophy towards science, and the impact of Occam's razor on philosophy and theology grab your attention, but otherwise less so.

Incidentally, the book's title gives you no clue as to what it's about, making it necessary to rely on the subtitle, never a good move. At first glance, I thought it was a biology book on the origins of life.

[Books and margaritas · Rating 5 out of 5]

Life is Simple is an amazing book about the history of scientific discoveries through the lenses of Occam’s Razor, a rule which states that, in layman’s terms, the simplest explanation that correctly describes the phenomenon is usually the best one. The author takes us on a journey through time and walks us through the most important scientific discoveries: from the acceptance of heliocentrism to quantum mechanics, natural selection and DNA. It’s is a dense read, but yet it’s extremely informative and simply fun to read. The amount of research that went into writing this summary of the history of science is impressive, to say the least.

One of my favourite chapters was the last one, in which the author talked about Cosmological Natural Selection, a theory that states that black holes ultimately create new universes with mutations as compared to its parents. The new universes that aren’t good in creating matter and black holes die without reproducing, so it’s basically natural selection principle but applied to the whole cosmos. Mind blowing! A big part of this book deals with theology (which I personally didn’t enjoy as much as the rest of the book), but you can’t separate early science from that. Still, I felt like I learned so much about a topic that I had very little knowledge of.

Highly recommend this book to anyone who is passionate about science.

[Emanuela · Rating 5 out of 5]

Bellissimo saggio dalla lettura molto gradevole e chiara che dà a Guglielmo di Occam l'impulso iniziale, con la sua intuizione filosofica del "rasoio", della nascita della Scienza.

Non bisogna moltiplicare gli enti oltre il necessario

Questo strumento pragmatico, teso a studiare le leggi che regolano la fisica e anche la biologia, ha infatti scardinato nel tempo concezioni piuttosto complicate e astruse, permettendo la formulazione di leggi piuttosto semplici (Copernico, Keplero, Galileo, Boyle, Bayes - che adoro, il cui rasoio della probabilità sta alla base del Machine Learning nell'Intelligenza Artificiale- , Newton, Mendel, Darwin, Einstein, ...) rendendo essenziale la loro formulazione. Basti ricordare F = m*a o E = mc2.

Il testo è scritto molto bene, soprattutto nei processi cognitivi, storici e delle difficoltà sociali che hanno portato questi scienziati ad imporre una propria, originale lettura del mondo e oltre il mondo, della fatica che hanno avuto ad imporsi contro una visione dettata più da miti e religioni, scoprendo via via la razionalità scientifica.

Certamente una buona integrazione ai testi di Storia della Scienza.

[Mr. Kun · Rating 3 out of 5]

3/5

Es un libro de divulgación científica desde una perspectiva distinta, pues no divulga sobre un tema en específico, sino que habla sobre como la utilización de la navaja de Occam (ante la vida, siempre elegir la solución más sencilla) ha hecho avanzar la ciencia a lo largo de la historia.

Personalmente, siento que el libro es interesante, cuenta algunas anécdotas y datos curiosos que yo no conocía, y del que me llevo alguna enseñanza de cultura general. Sin embargo, había partes un poco aburridas y en ocasiones complejas de entender para una mente bióloga como la mía: el 80% de los datos se centra en descubrimientos y teorías físicas, así que me daba un poco de pereza porque era todo demasiado abstracto. De hecho, el capítulo que más me ha gustado (y de hecho me ha encantado y me lo devoré) fue cuando habló de la teoría de la selección natural (un poco cliché, I know).

En resumen, libro ok, si te gusta la divulgación científica, creo que es un buen libro, pero si no, siento que no es nada super enganchante (de ahí que me haya tirado meses leyéndolo), pero puede que sea porque en general a mí los libros de divulgación ni fú ni fa, soy más de novela (sorry not sorry).

Hasta el próximo libro, guau out

[Jorge Zuluaga · Rating 4 out of 5]

Un excelente ejercicio de reescritura de la Historia de la ciencia -una brevísima versión naturalmente- usando como eje la obra del teólogo medieval Guillermo Occam y su archiconocido principio racional, el principio de la navaja de Occam.

"La brevedad es el alma del ingenio" decía William Shakespeare cerca a los 1500. Después de leer "La vida es simple", donde encontré esta ingeniosa y breve cita, podría decir que si el Bardo hubiera vivido años después de la revolución científica de los 1600, tal vez habría escrito "La brevedad es el alma del universo".

Más o menos de esa manera puedo resumir el sentimiento de descubrimiento y asombro que me dejo leer este libro.

Soy científico (físico y astrónomo); conozco desde las trincheras cómo funciona la ciencia -o eso creo-; he leído, tanto por afición como por ser parte de mi formación académica, las suficientes páginas de historia de la ciencia para afirmar que el sello de esta obra es definitivamente la originalidad, así como la identificación sin ambages del sello distintivo del pensamiento científico: la simplicidad.

No dudo por lo tanto en recomendar "La vida es simple" a todas aquellas personas que, como yo, hacen ciencia o tienen que ver con ella. Naturalmente la invitación es extensiva a todas las personas que, aún sin ser científicas, aman también la ciencia.

Conocía muy poco sobre la vida y la obra de Guillermo de Occam (1285-1347). Peor aún, no sabía casi nada sobre el impacto que esa obra produjo en la revolución científica que se desarrollo en los siglos sucesivos. Tampoco estaba al tanto del impacto que ella tuvo en distintos ámbitos del intelecto humano, la filosofía en general, la teología y hasta el derecho. Esto es justamente lo primero que descubrirán en "La vida es simple". En alrededor de sus 350 páginas, conocerán detalles sobre la increíble historia personal de Occam y sus revolucionarias ideas, algunas de las cuales pusieron en jaque el "dogma" aristotélico y platónico que dominó el pensamiento occidental por cerca de 1000 años.

El libro tiene de todo. Desde las aventuras de Occam huyendo de la persecución de la iglesia católica por sus ideas "heréticas", pasando por una revisión rápida a los principios de la teología tardomedieval, breves historias sobre el origen de la física, la biología y la física moderna, hasta llegar a algunos temas de las ciencias de frontera, el multiverso, la teoría de cuerdas o la síntesis moderna de la evolución darwiniana. Hay páginas para todos los gustos.

Ya había tenido la oportunidad de leer otro libro de McFadden, "Biología al límite" (mi reseña por aquí). Como sucedió en aquel, en la "Vida es simple" he encontrado ingeniosas y bien pensadas analogías para explicar conceptos complejos de los temas de los que habla. Para ilustrar lo que digo, su ejemplo de cómo funciona la probabilidad Bayesiana me pareció excelente y muy ilustrativo. Demuestra de forma simple la manera como en la ciencia nos inclinamos por los dados con pocas caras (los modelos más simples); y lo hacemos tanto por razones Occamistas como por razones Bayesianas.

Aprendí a través del libro cosas sobre la historia de la física que no había leído en ningún otro libro. La idea por ejemplo de que en la obra de Occam estuviera las semillas de la teoría de la relatividad, que demuestra a través de una cita específica de uno de los escritos del teólogo inglés, y que, me atrevería a decir, casi todas las personas en el gremio, consideramos viene de Galileo Galilei, me pareció asombrosa. El hecho de que los principios básicos de la cinemática habían sido formulados matemáticamente con mucha mayor anterioridad al trabajo de Galileo -quién como señala McFadden nunca los cito- fue también una novedad para mí. El papel central de Robert Boyle en la revolución de la física de los 1600, a quién consideraré, después de leer "La vida es simple", como el Galileo de la física de la materia (McFadden lo llama, con justicia, el segundo padre de la ciencia experimental) fue muy iluminador. Y así, un sin número de datos e ideas que me resultaron bastante novedosas si no desde el punto de vista académico -no soy historiador de las ciencias y puede que estos datos sean muy conocido para ellos- al menos sí desde el punto de vista de la cultura histórica general de los profesionales rasos.

Pero naturalmente las mejores lecciones que se obtienen leyendo "La vida es simple" son lecciones de filosofía de la ciencia. ¡Y que buenas lecciones!. Algunas de esas lecciones se pueden resumir en unas pocas citas del autor o de otros que cita: "La prueba más convincente de una teoría es su capacidad de absorber y dar cabida a hechos nuevos" (Alfred Russel Wallace), "Las cosas reales deben producir un efecto en el mundo; ese debería ser nuestro criterio mínimo para definir lo real". "Las matemáticas reducen la razón al conjunto de reglas más sencillo posible y hace que las ciencias pasen de ser otro juego más a ser un lenguaje universal". "No es que la sencillez se haya incorporado a la ciencia moderna; la sencillez es la ciencia moderna". "Puede que la ciencia ni sepa a dónde se dirige, pero el viaje no deja de ser asombroso". "El universo utiliza una causa para muchos efectos". "Los modelos sencillos son frágiles en el sentido que pueden ser invalidados con datos que los desmienten". Y así.

El libro esta bien escrito, es bastante ameno a pesar de que algunos temas son bastante profundos y abstractos, y no le falta un poco de humor e irreverencia. Estos elementos van haciendo de McFadden uno de mis autores de divulgación científica preferidos (ya estoy buscando otros libros suyos).

Si todo me pareció tan excelente, ¿por qué entonces no le pongo 5 estrellas al libro?

La primera razón tiene que ver con el número de pequeños errores que encontré a través de sus páginas, por lo menos en la edición que tuve la oportunidad de leer (Paidós, 2022). No son simples errores tipográficos; son errores relativamente difíciles de detectar en una leída superficial, pero que serán evidentes para todas las personas que lo lean con algún cuidado. Ustedes lo notaran sin dificultad.

La segunda razón, y la más importante o la más grave, tiene que ver con los errores conceptuales que encontré en algunos apartes del libro. Por supuesto no puedo señalar los errores en todas las disciplinas que abarca el libro, pero si en las que tienen que ver con mi especialidad, física y astronomía. Hay afirmaciones abiertamente incorrectas y que se nota no fueron rectificadas por algunos de los expertos en física que el autor menciona en los agradecimientos. Lamentablemente esto no ayuda a darle credibilidad a otras partes del escrito y deja una sombra de duda sobre algunas de las conclusiones y afirmaciones más asombrosas que encontré en otras partes. Creo que haría falta un grupo de personas con especialidades en distintas disciplinas, filosofía, teología, historiografía, biología, química, etc. para hacer un profundo fact checking del libro.

Ahora bien, ¿tienen que ser los libros de divulgación científica absolutamente precisos?. No necesariamente; estoy convencido que la divulgación científica es una forma de invitarnos a personas que no somos expertas en una disciplina -en este caso, Historia y filosofía de las ciencias- para que nos acerquemos a libros más profundos. Las obras de divulgación no deberían usarse como referencias académicas o científicas. Aún así, tampoco deberían tener imprecisiones rampantes y esto es lo que me hace reducir la calificación del libro.

[Spice Giant · Rating 3 out of 5]

A good book, but it could've been more succinct.

[The Usual]

The Reviewish Bit.

Cards on the table: I knew a lot of this by the time I was nineteen. I went down the science route, you see – lots of process, clear right or wrong answers, no damned essays or subjective messing-about – not the humanities road. I sometimes wonder what life would be like had I turned left instead of right, but the fact is, I didn’t.

Having gone down the science route… the science is familiar. There’s a surprise, eh? And because the teaching of science recapitulates its history, a lot of the names are familiar as well. The general outline is one I’ve seen before.

Then, too, the underlying philosophy – though I couldn’t have put words to it – was also drummed into me by that age. It’s just… obvious. I’m a product of that kind of thinking. And I was the weird kid who rummaged through encyclopaedias, so some of the extras had found their way into my skull. Classic nerd, me, and happy to identify as such.

So, taking that into account, I might not be the best person to assess how well McFadden explained his material. I think I get what he was trying to do, though. He was trying to write a four-part exploration of the influence of Occam’s Razor on the progress of modern science, with at least one slightly dubious detour into art-history. It slightly over-extends itself, as it happen, and plays a solid game but falls apart in the second half. That’s largely down to structure.

Structure? Yes, structure.

Because the first half of this book takes the well-trodden, heroes of science tourist-route, and does it well. It traces the shift from cluttered, ancient and mediaeval models of the universe through to classical physics. It demonstrates well how the ideas of William of Occam – or at least the preference for elegance that Occam’s Razor exemplifies – found their way into the foundations of scientific process. There’s smooth thematic and chronological progress. It may be more history than philosophy of science, but it makes its point, and does it pretty well.

And then the whistle goes for half time.

And when the team shuffles back onto the pitch, they’re playing a different game. We’ve gone from physics to biology – and it’s a jump. It shatters the structure. You don’t have the same lineage of ideas any more – you’ve hopped branches of the family-tree. And because that happens, there’s a lunge back in time and a hasty back-fill of Aristotle. It suddenly feels gappy. It feels perfunctory. That’s very strange given McFadden is a professor of molecular genetics; possibly he’s too familiar with the material.

But… fine. It’s still a familiar track, we’ve just switched rails.

And then we switch back. Particle physics, relativity, quantum theory, cosmology, Bayesian probability… bit of a tall-order for under 100 pages. I don’t think he quite pulls it off.

So that’s… that, really.

Niggles Section.
(because yes, I am that person)

Minor niggle: A dice is something you do in a kitchen; a die is a thing you roll. I know it’s petty, but I can’t help it. Dice is the plural of die.

Major niggle: Equations and formulae. There’s a truism that to include equations in a book is to scare off part of the readership. I understand that. I but I also want it on the record that to try to explain equations without using them is like doing calligraphy in boxing-gloves. And that’s exactly what McFadden attempts here. In a book extolling clarity and simplicity, that’s insane.

End of Niggles Section.

[Hendrik Dejonckheere · Rating 5 out of 5]

McFadden heeft met dit werk in zijn beperktheid een juweel afgeleverd waarin een groot deel van de wetenschapsgeschiedenis zoals we die kennen vanuit één perspectief tegen het licht wordt gehouden.
De wijze waarop hij de stromingen presenteert en in kort bestek de kern van de verschillen in benadering weet te duiden, maakt dit een zeer toegankelijk werk.
Door steeds ook een levensbeschrijving van de belangrijkste protagonisten toe te voegen wordt ook duidelijk wat de mate van intrinsieke motivatie van sommige van deze wetenschappers moet zijn geweest om te presteren wat ze in die tijd en in die omstandigheden deden. Hij demonstreert met zijn voorbeelden de schizofrene relatie tussen religie en wetenschap in de loop van de afgelopen millennia.
Ockham en Wallace zijn twee namen uit de lange rij die langs komen die er wat mij betreft uitspringen bij de mannen, waardoor Darwin ook in een ander licht is komen te staan. Een speciale plek is er voor de mij onbekende Emmy Noether, een wiskundig fenomeen dat hier een plaats in de wereld wetenschapsgeschiedenis krijgt.
Dit boek is een echte aanrader voor iedereen die iets meer achtergrond wil krijgen in de wetenschapsgeschiedenis.

[Lynn · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great book about important figures in scientific history and development.

[Robyn · Rating 3 out of 5]

LIFE IS SIMPLE
Johnjoe Mc Fadden

If there is one thing simple about life, it isn't this book. Caution advised.

3 stars

Happy Reading!

[Richard · Rating 5 out of 5]

My wife often tells me that how we see the world depends on the lens through which we choose to look. In Life Is Simple: How Occam’s Razor Set Science Free And Shapes The Universe, Johnjoe McFadden tells the history of Western Science through the lens of William of Occam (1285 - 1347).

William was an English Franciscan friar who turned the world upside down with a simple philosophy that “entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity”. In this book we learn how these few words forever changed the worlds of both religion and science.

While you may have never heard this exact phrase chances are you have heard it paraphrased as; “the simplest explanation is usually the best one”, “simpler is always better”, and my favorite, KISS (keep it simple stupid).

As an example, consider the differences between the geocentric model of the sun and the planets revolving around the Earth and the heliocentric model where the earth and the rest of the planets revolve around the sun. With the technology of the 1200s both models worked equally as well when predicting the changing seasons, eclipses, etc. The difference is that the geocentric theory had about eighty different components, subsections, and modifications to make it work while the heliocentric has basically one - gravity. Occam’s Razor “shaves” the explanation of the universe down by getting rid the unnecessary entities that bog down the geocentric theory.

Unfortunately for William of Occam his razor also cut deeply into the teachings of the church and
Pope John XXII and William was summoned to face charges of heresy. The book starts off with the strange story of how William managed to escape the pope’s dungeon and continue his heretical writings.

I absolutely loved this book and I highly recommend it to all readers. Not only is the story of William of Occam quite interesting, McFadden manages to employ Occam’s Razor to condense eighteen hundred years of scientific discoveries into three hundred and forty-two pages. Rather than writing a dense tome, McFadden has sprinkled his scientific history with mini-biographies, philosophical questions, strange but true beliefs, and more. His goal, like William of Occam, is to show that “life is indeed simple”.

[Andrea Wenger · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a fascinating look at the history of science through the lens of Occam's Razor. For centuries, even millennia, thinkers responded to new information by adding complexity. But as Occam's belief in simplicity spread through the scientific community, new breakthroughs were made that allowed for the rise of our current technological society. Easy to read and understand, this book is a treat for science buffs.

Thanks, NetGalley, for the ARC I received. This is my honest and voluntary review.

[Tobias · Rating 2 out of 5]

In Life is Simple, the author attempts to argue that simplicity (more than falsifiablity or something else) is the defining feature of (modern) science, and that all advances in science have moved us towards simpler models for our understanding of the world and universe, and lastly that these simple models are more likely to be true than complex ones. The final claim is obviously complete bogus, and the author even says himself that we cannot attain knowledge of truth or falsehood of models for the universe, so how could he possibly argue for such a statement's validity? Well, he argues on the grounds of an extremely simplified version of Bayesian statistics (actually, everything presented in the book is oversimplified, but this happens when you try to cover so much material in a reasonable page count) -- but of course, the Bayesian paradigm is itself just a model for how probability works, so the argument is circular. Taking a look at the second claim of the book, since the author never gives a clear or precise definition of "simplicity" (or "entity"), he can always make any model seem more simple than any previous one, even though it may appear a lot more complicated. Let us just look at the example of the motions of the planets in our solar system. Some would say that a model with only circular orbits and uniform speed is quite simple than a model with elliptical orbits and non-uniform speed. It is at least not obvious which is more simple (since the former requires more circles), especially since "simple" lacks a clear definition, but for the author, it is: the latter is more simple because it is disconnected from religious interpretations (even though these are not even part of the actual "model"). And when the author in some cases cannot in any reasonable way argue that a more recent model is simpler -- as in the case of there being a bunch of fundamental particles that seemingly "do nothing" -- he resorts to arguing that, in the future, there will be new insights which show us why the said model was indeed simpler, and in some cases he ventures a guess as to what this explanation might be. For this purpose we are treated to some truly crazy ideas about the universe in the end of the book, but of course I cannot comment on whether these claims turn out to be true or not. It is ironic: the author forces a certain narrative unto the reader, and because the claims are so loose and not clearly formulated, he can always bend the explanations and change the perspective such that his theory fits -- exactly the kind of reasoning he is trying to debunk with this book!

There is also the red flag with this book that the high praise printed on the cover comes from his good friend and co-author of some of his other books (which seemingly contain even more extraordinary claims than the ones in Life is Simple, although I have not read those books so I can't say for sure -- but at least the other books are about topics that are actually related to the author's education in molecular genetics).

Also, the author's "pocket razor" is just plain idiotic. The idea is, that you can assign a probability for a given model being correct by taking 1/2 raised to the power of the number of words in an explanation for the model. This makes no sense: first of all, what constitutes a valid explanation of a given model? What prior knowledge may be assumed? What level of detail is required? And the formula for calculating the proability seems to be taken out of the authors a** thin air. And as I mentioned above, it does not even necessarily make sense to talk about the probability of a model being true. Lastly, I challenge anyone to finder a shorter explanation of any phenomenon than "God made it so". Using my trusty pocket razor, I conclude that God must have made everything in the universe the way it is!

I will end by saying that there actually are a lot of interesting stories and good points in Life is Simple, but they would be better presented without the forced and reductionist narrative currently present in the book.

[Italo Aleixo De Faria · Rating 2 out of 5]

Quem foi Guilherme de Ockham? É a pergunta que se faz, tanto quem pretende ler, quanto aquele que já leu o livro de  Johnjoe McFadden. De um livro chamado, A Navalha de Ockham, espera-se pelo menos uma entre duas abordagens: uma biografia do filósofo ou uma análise filosófica sobre suas ideias, mas não encontramos isso aqui.

A escrita de Johnjoe McFadden é boa, dinâmica, porém muito rasa e desconectada daquilo ao qual se propõe. Para ser mais justo com o leitor, o livro atenderia melhor pelo nome de Cosmos (sim, já existe outra obra com esse nome) ou até algo como, Uma História Concisa da Ciência, também cairia bem. O livro utiliza aquela velha narrativa de Cosmos, para contar como se desenvolveu o conhecimento sobre o universo através dos inúmeros avanços científicos do passado e como essas descobertas ecoaram no pensamento intelectual: McFadden narra como a filosofia medieval, fundamentada em Aristóteles e Platão, mudou com o uso da navalha de Ockham e como isso interferiu no avanço das descobertas sobre o universo. Mas quem foi Ockham e o que era sua navalha?

Como não fazer uma biografia! Ockham é um mero coadjuvante numa obra que deveria ser sua, o personagem aparece durante poucas páginas (umas três ou quatro) e tem sua importância dividida com os outros cientistas que surgem ao longo da crônica. Em momento algum é possível entender quem foi Ockham! O personagem só é mencionado durante uma rápida (e até interessante) contextualização histórica, mas com exceção à isso, não descobrimos mais nada sobre o filósofo nem como ele viveu.

Nesse caso, restaria a outra abordagem, um livro sobre a filosofia de Ockham, o que também não ocorre. McFadden consegue contextualizar muito bem o pensamento da época e sintetizar as filosofias vigentes de maneira clara, mas falha em falar sobre a navalha. Assim como o próprio personagem, sua doutrina aparece em poucos parágrafos e muito superficialmente, com apenas uma ou outra citação direta, e mesmo assim, a partir disso, McFadden começa a utilizar a navalha indiscriminadamente em todos os momentos da história.

A Navalha de Ockham não é portanto, nem uma biografia e nem um livro de filosofia da ciência, apenas um livro de história raso e é aí que mora o grande problema. A tal navalha seria um princípio fundamental do método científico, que é o de sempre escolher o modelo explicativo mais simples em detrimento de modelos mais complexos, mas em momento algum fica explícito qual foi o impacto desse pensamento em outros autores. Sem entender de fato qual é a proposta da navalha e como ela debateu com outras formas de pensar, é difícil sentir seu impacto no desenvolvimento do pensamento científico. A história da epistemologia só faz sentido, quando analisada através do debate dos autores, de forma que fiquem explícitas suas influências, mas aqui em momento algum é possível determinar de fato, onde está o impacto de Ockham na ciência. O que McFadden faz é enxergar a navalha em todo e qualquer lugar e replicar seu argumento exaustivamente sem nenhum um tipo de embasamento.

Nem todos os conceitos filosóficos precisam ser inventados necessariamente por alguém ou serem inventados uma única vez. Por exemplo, a noção de que existem limites para o que o conhecimento pode alcançar — ideia que McFaddden também credita à Ockham — que separa a física da metafísica, é discutido por todos os filósofos da ciência pois é inerente à própria discussão; a noção de que os organismos se modificam, e que culminou na Teoria da Evolução de Charles Darwin, também já era discutida séculos antes por outros autores, mas que nunca tinham chegado à um mecanismo ideal. Quão importante ou influente de fato Ockham foi, não fica evidente, o que temos são apenas exemplos forçados e sem embasamento de como ele teria influenciado todo mundo em todo lugar. A ideia de optar por modelos explicativos simples é de fato sensacional, mas se ela é algo inerente ao debate científico ou se é de fato uma inovação intelectual cunhada por Ockham, o livro não deixa claro!

[Russell O. Redman · Rating 4 out of 5]

Life has never been simple for anyone, but mostly because we make it difficult for ourselves. The greatest minds of the western world (there are no eastern approaches discussed here) have struggled to explain this complexity. Usually, their explanations were as complex as the world they tried to describe. The history of modern science is the process of discarding one complicated fantasy after another in favour of much simpler explanations that could be verified experimentally. McFadden starts the story with William of Occam, a controversial theologian in the fourteenth century who was nearly burned at the stake for insisting that the preferred explanation should be as simple as the phenomenon allowed. This put him in conflict with centuries of religious speculation and scholarly obfuscation, but started a school of thought that brought clarity to almost everything.

McFadden gets a few details wrong, especially in the discussion of black holes, quantum mechanics and cosmology. He is aware of his limitations and apologizes in advance. With that as a warning, I found the book delightful and insightful. Highly recommended.

[Gustavo Siqueira · Rating 3 out of 5]

O livro é interessante e consegue retratar as ideias de uma forma única e extremamente interessante com um diálogo com o leitor que ocorre de uma forma única na maior parte do mesmo sendo muito interessante o fato de como o mesmo “Humaniza" as ciências e até mesmo as exatas como um todo mostrando todo o caminho para produção da ciência na mesma e todos os acontecimentos que ocorrem para tal explorando bem grandes nomes Eisten, Heisenberg (Me pegou desprevenida esse nome), Isaac Newton e até mesmo o famigerado Guilherme Okham
Sendo assim o livro conseguiu comprir bem seu propósito e trazer uma leitura extremamente importante e gratificante ao longo das páginas com a única falha de que o mesmo se torna cansativo a partir de um certo ponto e necessita de alguns pré conhecimentos para o mesmo que não tornam sua leitura tão acessível para os mais leigos (É uma ciência relacionada a física realmente complexa)
Outra pauta forte aqui esposta é a teologia aliada a ciência que conseguiu sem bem demostrada.
Logo conclui-se que o livro é extremamente interessante e uma leitura que vale a pena porém apenas para aqueles que realmente estão dispostos a ir atrás de compreender a mesma
Nota:7/10

[Joseph · Rating 4 out of 5]

Life is simple; the beginning and ending of this book; but how simple it is said to be and how complex we are taught, Johnjoe McFadden sets out to right by using the "razor", William of Occam devised to cut through an ocean of ideas, weighted theories, misguided thoughts, religious beliefs and more in this highly readable book ( for the most part) how the Medieval world was turned on its head and the wrath of the church made him a refugee, at times on the run.
How his theory, as it were, has followed us into the modern day in trying to understand life and the universe in which we are an actual part of.
There is much to ponder here and quite a bit which opens the eyes to new insights of understanding. So in short; Mr. McFadden does William of Occam a great service by showing us how simple this life can truly be if we take a razor to the curtains which cloud our vision and not that it is a simple task because it is not but that it can be done with the right tools of learning and logic.
Highly recommend. Not for the faint but enjoyable none-the-less.

[WannaRead · Rating 4 out of 5]

The idea of “keeping it simple” has probably been around long before the time of the Medieval theologian -- William of Occam. But William of Occam was more persistent in pointing out the necessity of this concept when dealing with finding correct answers. Thus, Occam’s Razor was named in honor of William of Occam. Occam’s Razor helped to separate science and theology by stating that entity beyond necessity should be eliminated from science. This seemingly simple belief/idea would rumble through time and ultimately play an important role in the development of science.

The author provides many examples of how great scientists from Copernicus to Albert Einstein had adopted Occam’s Razor in finding their ways to explain their scientific phenomena. The writing is good and a lot of information provided in this book are quite interesting to me, especially the parts about William of Occam and Charles Darwin vs Alfred Russel Wallace. However, there are a lot of info-dumps as well (in my opinion) which often rendered me to lose connection with the main point of the book.

[Michael Holm · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a science history book which claims that Occam's Razor is instrumental in the progress of science. McFadden portrays Occam's biography and then reviews Occam's influence of subsequent thought. The development of the heliocentric theory, Kepler's theory, Newton's gravitation laws, atomic theory, physics of motion and heat. Then he recounts the development of the theories of biological cells, genetics and evolution. Finally he describes a little of the theory of relativity before speculating on the nature of the cosmos considering black holes and multiverses. He credits Occam's Razor for the development of the current ideas. In every case, nature and the universe is simple. Current ideas are the simplest explanation possible.
The arguments for simplicity are not always convincing. It may be that his interest in Occam is in part due to living and working close to the locations in Occam's early life.
McFadden is professor of molecular genetics at the University of Surrey, which is in the district of Surrey where Occam was born in the village of Ockham.

[Tommy Cassiani · Rating 5 out of 5]

This essay is like a diesel engine: it starts slow but steadily builds momentum, unveiling layers of fascination and depth as it traverses the history of science. The journey culminates in a majestic finale, introducing the concept of cosmic evolutionism—a stunning, scientifically sound theory that left me in awe.

The central theme, Occam's Razor, acts as the fil rouge, guiding readers through centuries of scientific progress and showcasing its profound impact on simplifying science and logical reasoning. McFadden manages to explain these complex ideas with remarkable clarity, crafting a narrative that is not only intellectually stimulating but also highly enjoyable.

Despite its seemingly niche subject, the book far exceeded my expectations. It’s a masterful blend of historical overview and thought-provoking insights, making it a standout read for anyone curious about the evolution of scientific thought. A truly great and entertaining book that deserves the highest praise!

[Michael Baum · Rating 5 out of 5]

I'm a clinical scientist and I'm very old but this is probably the best book to popularise science for the lay public I've ever read. I love science and the history and philosophy of science. I once was befriended by Karl Popper in his 90s. I considered myself a Popperian and delivered a Popper memorial lecture at the LSE. Well now I've changed my position to become a post Popper McFaddenian and reignited my love of the Rev Bayes. It is my intention to search for the magic number that with simplistic beauty will link the maths of the cosmos with that of quantum mechanics. I think it might be 1.618.... the golden ratio rather than 42 suggested by Douglas Adams at the restaurant at the end of the universe!

[Arshad Ahmad · Rating 3 out of 5]

Its good reasearch, a sort of primordial soup of facts and data. There are interesting anecdotes. Throughout the book, johnjoe describes a complex state A and then describes simple state B. Then simply states that the razor is responsible for the simplification. For some of these dots or facts, he takes the the time to connects them, others he wings it. It leaves the reader wondering if the author really understood it himsel. His escape hatch is "there are lots of books on the topc". i spent a lot of time trying googling in trying to fgure out the connections/reductions. Prime example is noethers law, symmetry and law of conservation. it would have benefited him a lot to take apply the zazor to his book.

[Francis · Rating 5 out of 5]

Een sublieme geschiedenis van de wetenschap! Dankzij het scheermes van William Ockham leerden we hoe de wereld eenvoudiger kunnen maken.

Grote wetenschappers als Copernicus, Kepler, Galilei, Boyle, Newton, Darwin, Wallace, Mendel, Einstein en Noether passeren de revue.

Ze legden hun vertrouwen in eenvoud en werden voor dat vertrouwen beloond met verbazingwekkende nieuwe wetenschappelijke inzichten, vorderingen en een eenvoudiger heelal dan ze ooit voor mogelijk hadden gehouden.

Ik ben een grote fan van wetenschap, en dit boek maakt me een nóg grotere fan! Absolute aanrader voor iedereen met een hart voor wetenschap! Dit boek brengt nieuwe, "eenvoudige" inzichten!

[Darien Tebbe · Rating 5 out of 5]

The most intellectually dense book I've ever read outside an engineering class. Reading it was like that crazy workout series that kicks your ass most days. But at the end of every day you at least feel gratitude and pride for sticking with it. And by the end, you know you're stronger and healthier than when you started.

For me, it was a fascinating way to connect some of the great scientific thinkers, from Plato to Kepler, Newton to Boyle, and Doppler to Darwin. If I retain 5% of what I read I'll be amazed. Regardless, I'm glad I put eyes on this incredible book.

[Groucho42 · Rating 3 out of 5]

Life may be simple, but this book is not. It is supposed to be about William of Occam's famous razor, looking to simplicity to explain science. It's in there. The first part focuses on Occam, and isn't too bad. The problem is the rest of it is so overwritten as to be opaque and dull. The author describes different science discipline in far too much detail, even as he claims he's skipping over things. Occam's Razor is linked, but rarely and it's almost hidden in the rest of the dense text.

Strongly considered two stars, but ended up giving three.

[Rayfes Mondal · Rating 4 out of 5]

Started slowly for me and I skipped portions of the first several chapters but enjoyed his later analysis of how simplicity (occam's razor) accompanied our advancement of scientific knowledge. Later chapter addresses places where it doesn't seem to apply (like the subatomic particle zoo). Ends with how simplicity could even explain the anthropic principle of why the universe seems uniquely suited to us. At times I felt he was shoehorning Occam's Razor in places it doesn't work but he makes a convincing argument and I feel like I have a deeper understanding our world because of this book.

[Lloyd Fassett]

10/21/21 Found it through the Wall St. Journal. Their review is here: ‘Life Is Simple’ Review: A Blade to Shave Away Error - A 14th-century friar challenged the idea that archetypal forms lay behind material things. That led to trouble.

[Armen Shirvanian]

My interview with Professor Johnjoe McFadden about "Life Is Simple" on The Armen Show Podcast:

Episode 327 of The Armen Show with Professor Johnjoe McFadden

[Eric · Rating 5 out of 5]

I’d place this as one of my top ten books! Why? Simple! Because the simplest solution is usually the correct one, or more simply, “Don’t multiply entities beyond necessity.”
McFadden explains the evolution of Occam’s Razor and its application to science over the centuries, since it was first articulated by the medieval friar, William of Occam.

[Robert A. Salazar · Rating 5 out of 5]

Hard start but worth finishing. Much science history around the theme of simplicity. Practical application probably not for most people but worked for me since I am interested in complexity and simplicity in how things work. Gave a different perspective about how the institutions in power behaved (mostly poorly) when things did not fit their worldview.