So this book is a couple of decades old, and I don't know enough to know if string theory still has the hold over the world of physics it did when thiSo this book is a couple of decades old, and I don't know enough to know if string theory still has the hold over the world of physics it did when this book was written, or if the author's criticisms have been largely addressed, or even at all. Also the first half of the book was dense dense dense and a bit over my head, but he convinced me that string theory is a beautiful framework that is made up and untestable and doesn't seem to match reality very well.
I read Brian Greene's books and loved them, and he convinced me that 11 dimensions, all but 4 of which are so tiny they can't be detected, and the requisite amount of energy in empty space being off by several orders of magnitude, and 105 constants needing to be created to hold up the framework, none of which is testable, was beautiful. Now I'm less sure.
I guess I should look that stuff up. At the very least, this book reminded me that science should always be questioning, and be guided by the philosophy "guilty until proven innocent" "false until proven true." I'm glad I read it, although it was tough going....more
Smil uses real numbers and objective analysis to see where we're going.
It's pretty bad.
It's not extinction (for us), but we're not getting away from fSmil uses real numbers and objective analysis to see where we're going.
It's pretty bad.
It's not extinction (for us), but we're not getting away from fossil fuels anytime soon. There's just no way. And even if there were a way, the countries of the world couldn't cooperate to get it done.
We're causing a mass extinction, but the only realistic way to avoid going over the climate cliff is for each human to use a lot less energy.
A great quick read on how subtle but important math can be in our daily lives, and how hard randomness is to properly assess.
I think my favorite topicA great quick read on how subtle but important math can be in our daily lives, and how hard randomness is to properly assess.
I think my favorite topic in the book was the 1968 conviction of Malcolm Collins, based on probabilities that a pair of suspects would fit all attributes given as less than one in a million. The probability was flawed, because the math professor that the prosecutors used ignored that separate events have to be independent to calculate probabilities the way he did, but more importantly, even assuming the calculation was correct, in a metro area of ~7 million, a one in a million chance means there's only about a 1 in 7 chance the guy you picked up is the one who committed the crime.
My second favorite is that the author himself got a positive result on a medical test that has a false positive rate of 1 in 1,000, so his doctor told him there was a 999 in 1,000 chance he would die soon. The doctor didn't understand that because the author was in a low-risk group, and because the low-risk group was so much larger than the high-risk group, that a given positive result excluding any other information amounted to about a 1-in-11 chance the author actually had the disease (and, yay, the author didn't have the disease).
Learn Bayes' Theorem, people. It sounds so simple as to be too obvious to bother retaining, but people get it wrong all the time....more
Wow. In the beginning, he asks seemingly unanswerable questions about what could make people believe the crazy stuff they do, and by the end of the boWow. In the beginning, he asks seemingly unanswerable questions about what could make people believe the crazy stuff they do, and by the end of the book, he actually answers them.
And I don't feel the need, so much, to strangle people who believe such harmful and obvious insanity as one sees every day in social media.
To become a better species, everyone in the world should read this book....more
I sought this out because the title made me laugh, and 14 seconds of research made it sound entertaining and educational.
And it is. Both of those. My I sought this out because the title made me laugh, and 14 seconds of research made it sound entertaining and educational.
And it is. Both of those. My one nitpick is that it doesn't seem to cohese; there's no gestalt takeaway.
Still, it's a quick read about a lot of interesting topics. Would recommend.
P.S. For me, the most interesting (depressing) thing was the explanation for how much the 5%/2-standard-deviation threshold standard fails science, and the various reasons why many (MANY) more of published studies with significant results aren't reproducible. It's not 5% of them - false positive outnumber the 'real' positives....more
We may have a rare instance where the movie is better than the book. However, given that the movie was exceptional, that doesn't mean the book was badWe may have a rare instance where the movie is better than the book. However, given that the movie was exceptional, that doesn't mean the book was bad.
In fact, it's pretty good. The women Shetterly chose to chronicle knew each other less well in real life than was portrayed in the movie, so it makes the story a tiny bit less cohesive. And there are a couple more women in the book. Also I'm pretty sure Kevin Costner's movie character represented about 5 people in real life. But a nonfiction book sets higher expectations for accuracy, so her hands were kind of tied on that point.
I got lost a few times with the various names and how they fit in, but life is a bit messy. It's a compelling read and we should have known about these people all along....more
Ellenberg explains lots of real-world situations that math can help understand, and he does it really well.
I'm sure lots of people have compared this Ellenberg explains lots of real-world situations that math can help understand, and he does it really well.
I'm sure lots of people have compared this to Nate Silver's The Signal and the Noise and I will too. Both of these need to be required reading for everyone.
Don't be intimidated - he's a great writer and tailors this toward a non-mathy audience.
Somehow I missed that he's been writing for Slate for many years, too. I've got a lot of catching up to do....more
In an imaginary world where people self-motivate to become better people, and to spend each day moving toward substance and moving away from fluff andIn an imaginary world where people self-motivate to become better people, and to spend each day moving toward substance and moving away from fluff and appearance, this book would be read by every person in the world.
That's frustrating, but at least the people who do read this book can make the world a little better. Seriously. Reading this book will make the world a better place.
Understanding that employing probabilities is wise, and that a demonstration of confidence in knowledge is usually a sign of self-delusion, can help everybody.
Silver looks at baseball, weather, earthquakes, terrorism, poker, chess, Bayes' theorem and a few other things but makes it all easy to follow. No hard math.
Thank you, Nate Silver - you're making the world better....more
Loading...
