<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Sloppy publishing
Review: I have reviewed Acid Tongues in the Street Cred column of Wired Magazine (April 2001, p. 218); I won't repeat my whole review, since that is available in the magazine and at Wired's online site. I conclude that "Michael White delivers blow-by-blow accounts of the rivalries that underlay eight historical advancements, and he enriches each story with analysis, solid scientific explanation, and detailed biographies of each combatant." However, the whole never equals more than the sum of the parts. "White's principal assumption seems to be that rivalry fuels the advancement of science and technology." But he never proves the point. Edison's stubborn opposition to alternating current, for example, didn't really advance science so much as delay widespread recognition of the superior technology. "Acid Tongues' thesis begs for a comparison of competitive and noncompetitive research, but--contrary to the book's title--we encounter no 'tranquil dreamers.'" I also have other minor quibbles, but conclude that "although Acid Tongues may not deliver an overarching argument, it does prove one thing: It's fun to read about rivalries." - Edward Samuels, author of The Illustrated Story of Copyright
Rating: 
Summary: Acid Tongues is OK Science, but Boring Literature
Review: If you're really into science 'Acid Tongues and Tranquil Dreamers' is a sufficient documentary of eight fairly substantial events in the history of science. If you're not a science aficionado then I imagine it could be a pretty tedious read. I like science very much and enjoyed the scientific theme but found author Michael White's (ex-member of the 80s synthesizer band 'Thompson Twins') writing style tepid and his thesis muddled. Aside from the author's style and thesis the eight essays, ranging from the development of calculus to the Microsoft corporation, stand on their own and, hence, possess a great deal of content. White's thesis that rivalry possibly promotes great endeavor is a tautology already implied in the essays. The mundane background given on the human subjects of these stories, although probably necessary, tends to bog down the pace of the book. As a chronicle of the development of science and technology in the western world I'd say this book is useful and worth the time spent reading it. It is written, however, with the zing of a middle school textbook. Reading it is a struggle between its richness of content and lack of literary acumen. Depending on how important these two elements are to the reader is likely a good indication of how much one would enjoy reading this book.
Rating:
Summary: Sloppy publishing
Review: What a shame that spell-check can't distinguish among a and an, their and there, misplaced commas, and then and than. I found 47 such errors in this book, and find it apalling that a name publisher never had it actually "read" before printing. Shame on them. And the title? Bears no resemblance to the subject matter or treatment. White writes very well, when his ideas make it past a rudimentary grammar check. But the book seems to be a loose collection of magazine articles, with little overriding messages. Sure, we know science has rivalries, and that scientists can be prima donnas. Anything else new here? Not much. I'd pass on this one.
Rating: 
Summary: Your ringside seat
Review: White promotes an eight-round match of leading contenders to explain one of the ways science and technology produce champions. Each match in this series explains how rivalries among scientists developed and what long-term effects the conflicts had for science and for the rest of us. Some of these issues remain almost solely personality clashes, such as the priority question over calculus between Newton and Leibnitz. Others, the choice of AC over DC for electrical power distribution and which nation would be the first to build a nuclear bomb, are meaningful to us all. Offering brief descriptions of the issues and personalities, each of the essays is a good synopsis of the science. The personality sketches are given with a strong emphasis on the contender's childhood where it can be derived. Although the relevance of the childhood foundations seems contrived in most cases, the information provides a "human" background of people who often seem remote from us. The topics and personalities are so disparate that a general assessment is difficult, if not impossible for this work. To his credit, White has focussed on fundamental questions and not been distracted by side issues. He is at pains to be "fair", avoiding judgmental approaches and emphasising long-term impact of the conflict's resolution. If the personality involved is too obtuse, stubborn or devious to withstand White's scrutiny, he makes it clear that the problem lies with that individual. However, as he admits, he's not the only one doing the judging. Aristotle's views of nature inexplicably dominated Western European thinking for two millennia because his proposed "four basic elements" could be merged with nearly any philosophy. Only reason backed by empirical evidence would overcome this long tradition.
The variety of topics forces some selectivity in evaluating White's effort, but one essay may be exemplary. In describing the Monkeys and Men debate as a clash between Charles Darwin and Robert Owen, White stumbles badly. There was little "rivalry" in this so-called debate, since Owen simply flatly refused to accept species "transmutation". Since this concept was held by many educated people, Owen was already out of his time. White notes Owen's strategy of remaining anonymous, but doesn't criticise it. Since that was Darwin's chief objection to Owen, this is an amazing omission. Darwin's real problem, natural selection applied to humanity, was the major stumbling block to universal acceptance to his concept. White deals with that issue only in passing, and that incorrectly [Darwin mentioned "man and his beginnings" but once in Origin, not White's "few"]. He lauds Owen as England's "leading biologist", a questionable claim at best. Yet in his description of the clashes between Owen and Huxley, he avoids their confrontation over the hippocampus in ape brains, in which Huxley demonstrated his superior research abilities in Owen's own field. In dealing with Darwin's community of supporters, White mis-names Joseph Hooker as "John Hooker", even in the Index. How a biographer of Darwin could make this gaffe remains an enigma. Why, when Daniel C. Dennett has published the finest analysis of Darwin's Idea, White turns to an obscure work on science ideas for a quote from this eminent scholar is almost a greater mystery. White's collection targets a few direct confrontations since the Enlightenment to show how important of science has become to us. The "current wars", "reaching for the moon" and "the race for the prize" which revealed how DNA is structured [not "discovered" as White puts it] have impacted how meaningful science is to us. Except for some terrible editorial sloppiness ["prevarication and "procrastination" are not synonyms] the book is a readable and important work in that regard. White demonstrates how clashes over how natural forces work doesn't invalidate science. Instead, it is the root of the scientific method - postulation, examination and refutation or acceptance. He shows well the struggle science must engage in to reveal nature's secrets. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]
Rating:
Summary: Your ringside seat
Review: White promotes an eight-round match of leading contenders to explain one of the ways science and technology produce champions. Each match in this series explains how rivalries among scientists developed and what long-term effects the conflicts had for science and for the rest of us. Some of these issues remain almost solely personality clashes, such as the priority question over calculus between Newton and Leibnitz. Others, the choice of AC over DC for electrical power distribution and which nation would be the first to build a nuclear bomb, are meaningful to us all. Offering brief descriptions of the issues and personalities, each of the essays is a good synopsis of the science. The personality sketches are given with a strong emphasis on the contender's childhood where it can be derived. Although the relevance of the childhood foundations seems contrived in most cases, the information provides a "human" background of people who often seem remote from us. The topics and personalities are so disparate that a general assessment is difficult, if not impossible for this work. To his credit, White has focussed on fundamental questions and not been distracted by side issues. He is at pains to be "fair", avoiding judgmental approaches and emphasising long-term impact of the conflict's resolution. If the personality involved is too obtuse, stubborn or devious to withstand White's scrutiny, he makes it clear that the problem lies with that individual. However, as he admits, he's not the only one doing the judging. Aristotle's views of nature inexplicably dominated Western European thinking for two millennia because his proposed "four basic elements" could be merged with nearly any philosophy. Only reason backed by empirical evidence would overcome this long tradition.
The variety of topics forces some selectivity in evaluating White's effort, but one essay may be exemplary. In describing the Monkeys and Men debate as a clash between Charles Darwin and Robert Owen, White stumbles badly. There was little "rivalry" in this so-called debate, since Owen simply flatly refused to accept species "transmutation". Since this concept was held by many educated people, Owen was already out of his time. White notes Owen's strategy of remaining anonymous, but doesn't criticise it. Since that was Darwin's chief objection to Owen, this is an amazing omission. Darwin's real problem, natural selection applied to humanity, was the major stumbling block to universal acceptance to his concept. White deals with that issue only in passing, and that incorrectly [Darwin mentioned "man and his beginnings" but once in Origin, not White's "few"]. He lauds Owen as England's "leading biologist", a questionable claim at best. Yet in his description of the clashes between Owen and Huxley, he avoids their confrontation over the hippocampus in ape brains, in which Huxley demonstrated his superior research abilities in Owen's own field. In dealing with Darwin's community of supporters, White mis-names Joseph Hooker as "John Hooker", even in the Index. How a biographer of Darwin could make this gaffe remains an enigma. Why, when Daniel C. Dennett has published the finest analysis of Darwin's Idea, White turns to an obscure work on science ideas for a quote from this eminent scholar is almost a greater mystery. White's collection targets a few direct confrontations since the Enlightenment to show how important of science has become to us. The "current wars", "reaching for the moon" and "the race for the prize" which revealed how DNA is structured [not "discovered" as White puts it] have impacted how meaningful science is to us. Except for some terrible editorial sloppiness ["prevarication and "procrastination" are not synonyms] the book is a readable and important work in that regard. White demonstrates how clashes over how natural forces work doesn't invalidate science. Instead, it is the root of the scientific method - postulation, examination and refutation or acceptance. He shows well the struggle science must engage in to reveal nature's secrets. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]
<< 1 >>
|
