Wants to read To Paradise
book
Rated Bath Haus 6/10
The second half was better, but I really struggled to get into this in the beginning
Edited 44d ago
Wants to read Race and Reunion: The Civil War in American Memory
Wants to read Guerra do Velho
Rated The Stranger 10/10
Edited 30d ago
Wants to read A History of Higher Education in Canada 1663-1960
Rated Automatic Noodle 10/10
I enjoyed this, a good look at what might happen not too far in the future. The robot characters are sympathetic.
Rated The Coral Merchant: Essential Stories 6/10
Rated The Knowledge Machine: How Irrationality Created Modern Science 8/10
The best thing about the book is the summing up of the major Popper vs. Kuhn debate of the 20th century over the "method" of science. This is done in an engaging and clear way, and for that reason alone I would recommend it to any practicing scientist who wants to understand a bit more about epistemology and sociology of science. <br/><br/>I don't like Strevens' treatment of those who came after Popper&Kuhn, however. Scholars as diverse as Paul Feyerabend, Bruno Latour, and Harry Collins, are summed under a broad banner of social epistemologists and presented as a foil against Popper&Kuhn. Strevens tacitly endorses the view of this group about the essential subjectivity of science, yet I feel doesn't do their arguments justice or represent them as equals in the wider methods debate. <br/><br/>Finally, Strevens outlines his own idea of a scientific method, based around an "iron rule" of scientific communication demanding arguments-by-evidence, at least in public forums, and a sort of natural consensus-making among scientists that directs them towards conducting more tests and crafting and accepting theories with more explanatory power. I'm unsure how much I agree with this as a universal method of science; it leaves lots of things out; are non-empirical theorists and mathematicians, not scientists? Are lawyers who employ similar strategies in court scientists? Would conspiracy theorists, who often attempt a kind of "iron rule" in their arguments also qualify as scientists too? His argument makes sense, yet although I have some experience with the history of science & epistemology, I don't have enough to take a side on whether Strevens' version of the scientific method holds water. <br/><br/>Most of his arguments are supported with historical examples of episodes in science, with a particular interest in the the observations of solar eclipses by Edington necessary for testing Einstein's theories, and the fuzziness and messiness of the data involved. There are also some interesting parts about Louis Pasteur and Charles Darwin. At times, however, Strevens' uses metaphors when he should default to simpler terms or more historical examples; for example, he for some reason refers to the Popperian & Kuhnian camps as "Monegues" and "Capulets", which while cute, forces the reader to keep track of another set of names, and the metaphor itself contributes little. <br/><br/>Overall, a decent book. I have personal issues with the argument, but that's fine. I think the intended audience is practicing scientists with less interest in deep epistemological arguments; for those readers, I readily recommend it, and it will certainly teach them something about science. For anyone with more than passing interest in the debates over the philosophy of science, much of the book will only serve as a refresher, and the description of the "Iron Rule" framework will likely feel too vague to really evaluate; I am sure that Strevens' academic works develop the argument more fully. Give it a read if you're interested!<br/>
Rated The Algebraist 6/10
Edited 30d ago
Finished reading There Will Come Soft Rains
Edited 44d ago
Rated Bluebeard 10/10
Bluebeard is only the second Vonnegut book I've read, immediately following Slaugherhouse 5, and reading it has convinced me to go through every last one of the author's books. <br/><br/>This book resembles Slaughterhouse 5 (S5) in its structure, except whereas s5 uses a sci-fi concept about non-linear time to jump throughout a person's life, Bluebeard instead does so through the autobiographical account of the fictional protagonist, Rabo, as he writes a memoir about his life. The book jumps back and forth through points in Rabo's life. While the structure is scattered, it maintains a sense of linearity by the careful withholding and revelation of details as the novel progresses, at times giving information seemingly at random points, and at others following story threads more sequentially though of course with many interjections. <br/><br/>But where S5's themes of trauma and PTSD lend it a more sardonic tone, Bluebeard is instead strongly optimistic. Don't get me wrong, there is still plenty of cynicism, anti-war discussion, and discussion of possible trauma, but Bluebeard offers a kind of acceptance of life. Rabo's story is tragic, and his story visits his early years as the child of poor Armenian immigrants, his years as an artist during the great depression, his time as a soldier in WWII, his rocky marriage, and his membership with the Abstract-expressionist art movement, and ultimate shortcomings within it. Throughout this, Rabo interjects with moments from the present day, where he is 71, lonely, and through luck, rich, and which serves as another source of linearity in the story as it progresses. In contrast to S5, Rabo experiences noticeable character development, and the characterizations of everyone, while not necessarily complex as Jane Austen's characters, are much more complex than the archetypes used in S5. <br/><br/>The payoff, too, is simple yet satisfying, though I won't provide any details. <br/><br/>I wasn't sure what to expect with this book, and I was a little skeptical at first. But I got way more than I thought I would, and really enjoyed the experience reading it.