Rating: 
Summary: It turns out mediocrity isn't so wonderful.
Review: The book is a logical and quantitatively supported advancement of the implications of the so-called anthropic cosmological principle. Not only must a precise array of specific values be implemented if a universe that is stable on a large scale and materially complex is to exist, these same "fine tuned" values are necessary for life, for technological (intelligent) life, and for a viable "platform" for scientific discovery. Such a platform is our home, the planet Earth and its calculably favored location in space-time. "Our argument is subtle," say Gonzales and Richards, "Earth's conditions allow for a stunning diversity of measurements, from cosmology and galactic astronomy to stellar astrophysics and geophysics; they allow for this rich diversity of measurement much more so than if Earth were ideally suited for, say, just one of these sorts of measurement." If, as Fred Hoyle famously said, a super-intellect has "monkeyed" with the physics (and chemistry and biology) of our material world, then it likewise appears that this super-intellect has also presented us with unique opportunities for discovering this same precise array of specific values. The particular values that support intelligent life also provide the opportunity for knowledge of these particular values. Thus another in the growing number of "cosmic coincidences". The theological implications are, in a general sense, obvious to anyone who isn't pre-committed to excluding them. (Gonzalez is an astrophysicist, Richards a theologian and philosopher).
The first section broadly quantifies the remarkable "habitability" of our host planet, treating such issues as the role of Earth's plate tectonics in maintaining the carbon cycle; the highly specific advantages of a rotating iron core (meteorological, magnetic, etc); the type and age of our star, the unique advantages of having a "twin" body with the parameters of Earth's moon; the protective function of the neighboring gas giants like Jupiter, and so forth. Also treated are Earth's surprising array of "data recorders" and their importance to scientific discovery. If intelligent beings are to ask questions about the nature of nature, Earth is a strangely ideal place for these questions to be asked.
The second section considers the larger cosmos, quantifying the privileges of being between the spiral arms of a large (Andromeda and ours are the largest of the Local Group) and old galaxy, and well removed from the perils of a galactic center. Here also we consider the stunningly precise values required for stellar nucleosynthesis, the necessary advantages afforded to our location in time, the necessity of the fundamental force values being very narrowly "tuned", and so forth.
Building on the quantification considered to this point, the third section examines "anthropic" and design implications, thoroughly debunks the Mediocrity Principle popularized by Drake and Sagan, and presents some general and specific predictions arising from a 'design' interpretation of the measurements and discoveries of the past century (and especially of the past three decades). The authors go on to anticipate and answer contradicting arguments, and in making their predictions they clearly challenge those who won't like their hypothesis. To be sure, some won't like it (the 'purposelessness' and 'mediocrity' faithful). But the inevitable detraction (and outright whining) will arise from personal psychological commitments and not from science.
A fascinating book, highly recommended.
Rating:
Summary: Practically Perfect: Good-bye SETI!
Review: The book's chief argument is that we are not living on an ordinary world circling around an ordinary star in an out-of-the way part of an unremarkable galaxy. The authors provide convincing evidence against this so-called "Copernican Principle" (which Copernicus would be horrified to learn was named for him), beginning with the perfection of the solar eclipse. The authors discuss why a world much warmer or much colder, with just a little less or a little more gravity, would not be the spectacular "data-recording device" it in fact is, allowing us to discover the earth's past in exquisite detail. They show why our world had to be as far as it, and no further than it is, from the sun; why a Jupiter-size planet further from the sun protects us from frequent cometary and asteroidal impacts; and why a large, single moon is important to the earth's stability. They present reasons why the earth, in its position in our solar system and in our galaxy, is a "practically perfect" platform for scientific discovery, and why other earths are likely to be rare, and perhaps nonexistent, in the universe. An excellent chapter toward the end of the book rebuts the claims of those who espouse the "Copernican Principle." For those who are tired of being told that humanity is an unimportant species on an meaningless speck in the vast universe, this is the book for you!
Rating:
Summary: Don¿t be tricked by reactionaries who haven¿t read the book
Review: The Privileged Planet develops an argument that, so far as I know, has never been advanced before. It differs in some ways from the well known design arguments in biology, and also from the arguments for the fine-tuning of the laws of physics (although it has certain affinities with both of those arguments). The conclusion of the argument is that the universe seems designed for discovery. Unfortunately, any argument that talks about design and purpose seems to attract critics who think they can evaluate the argument simply by concocting it in their heads and citing clichés, rather than finding out what the actual argument is. This is defensive avoidance, not intellectual engagement. I suspect the most popular avoidance strategy for dealing with Gonzalez and Richards' actual argument (and the wide ranging evidence on which it is based) will be the one-size-fits-all "selection effect" argument. But anyone who has even perused The Privileged Planet will know that the authors' fully accept the validity of this objection, and formulate their argument so it doesn't commit the fallacy described. In fact, they return to the point several times, and take account of the most recent technical descriptions of the problem. They even have an entire chapter on potential objections, and formulate the selection-effect argument in very strong terms (so as not to make it easy for themselves). One example they use is of a dandelion growing in a narrow crack in a parking lot. If it doesn't know that dandelions cast lots of seeds to the wind, so that some are bound to land in cracks in parking lots, the dandelion might mistakenly conclude that it has been intentionally planted there. In short, it would be under the illusion of a selection-effect, and should not have "inferred design." Gonzalez and Richards understand fully that if their argument were like that, it wouldn't go anywhere. So they carefully and convincingly deal with this objection, both as it applies to local conditions that produce a habitable planet, and as it applies to the fine-tuning of the universal laws of physics. In fact, they integrate the recent insights about selection-effects into their own argument. It is the most satisfying treatment of this issue that I have seen. It causes me to cringe when I see supposed "critics" repackage an objection with no awareness that the book not only describes the objection more strongly than the "critic," but also answers it decisively. Their argument builds on a wide range of generally accepted evidence that complex life, not merely life on Earth, must have certain characteristics within our universe. The universality of chemistry allows them to make an argument with appropriate generality. No objection that avoids this key part of their case has any relevance. And most importantly, the requirements for habitability are only one part of their argument. It's on the basis of a correlation between habitability and scientific discovery, which can also be generalized beyond our own setting, that allows them to argue for purpose. The argument in The Privileged Planet has another virtue: It's falsifiable. Find biochemically different complex, intelligent organisms thriving in a fundamentally different environment, without carbon or water, in a location that is hostile to scientific discovery, and the argument collapses. In fact, they actually offer a number of other ways to contradict or falsify their argument. If you're wondering what they are, read the book. But here's a hint: A panicky, a priori objection that doesn't engage their argument is not how you do it.
Rating:
Summary: I've taught college astronomy 11 years: thumbs up for book
Review: The Privileged Planet is a major contribution to science. Surprisingly, it reads like a mystery novel. You keep running into evidence for design in unexpected places. The average educated reader will find this book very accessible. It's hard to put the book down for two reasons: 1. It captivates interest by calling attention to how our place and time in the cosmos sets us up for the thrills of life and productive scientific inquiry. 2. It's arguments are based on widely accepted evidence found in leading scientific journals.
Rating:
Summary: a new way to look at our universe
Review: The Privileged Planet is a wonderful book. Relating the conditions which make our planet oasis habitable as well as best positioned for scientific discovery is as novel of an idea as it is thought provoking. While the topic itself may seem a little intimidating, their book is very readable. I felt as if I was sitting and conversing with Gonzalez and Richards. I imagine that conversation would be as equally enlightening. As a second note, many of us grew up watching shows such as Star Trek. It's refreshing to see ideas based upon scientific evidence instead of childhood hopes of finding a universe teeming with life.
Rating:
Summary: Revolutionary Book on Science
Review: There are many books about science that examine scientific revolutions. This book is going to begin one. Simply put, this is the most exciting book about science that I've read in years, and in regard to the literature about anthropism in the universe, it is certainly THE most important book since Barrow and Tipler's "Anthropic Cosmological Principle." Even more important, those who argue that the Intelligent Design Movement cannot advance science, are going to have to eat "cosmological crow." Quite clearly, the co-author astronomer and physicist Guillermo Gonzalez amply demonstrates that the Privileged Planet approach to scientific research yields a nearly endless abundance of discovery.
Rating:
Summary: A Real Privilege to Read! Get it!
Review: This book is larger than life. It is one of those rare books on which, I suspect, fundamental issues turn, like Newton's Principia or Darwin's Origin of Species. Gonzalez and Richards combine a breadth of scientific detail with philosophical sophistication and nuance. But the book still manages to be a pleasure to read! I first heard about this book during a presentation I attended in which one of the co-authors discussed its main thesis and arguments. Everything I heard souned fresh and was well-supported, and thus I have been eagerly awaiting its publication. Needless to say, this book has even exceeded my expectations! The Privileged Planet is a seminal contribution to the growing debate over purpose and intelligent design in the universe. Most of the action in the last few years has taken place in biology, with the inevitably rancorous debates over neo-Darwinian evolution. It's very refreshing to read a book on design that doesn't having anything to do with that debate. The list of endorsers for this book is truly impressive, so one need not take my word for it. The Privileged Planet will give many of our elite scientists a lot to discuss over the coming years. This is not to say that non-scientists won't be talking about it, either, since it is well-written and can be understood by a general audience.
Rating:
Summary: Are We Alone in the Universe?
Review: This books works on the eternal question: Are we alone in the Universe. It's clear that a tremendous number of things had to happen just exactly right for life to develop as it has. Just the right temperature, the amazing characteristics of water at this temperature range, exactly the correct amount of oxygen, carbon dioxide, and other elements and compounds necessary for life. There was a school of thought centered around the late Carl Sagen that there must be a lot of life in the Universe. He estimated that there were as many as a million civilizations in the Milky Way alone. Since then a revisionist school has come about. The authors of this book have collected a massive amount of knowledge about the nature of life on our planet, much of it just developed in recent years. Their conclusion is that the circumstances surrounding life on earth make it more rare than previous studies might have believed. Does it prove that we are alone in the universe, absolutely not, it is theoretically impossible to prove a negative. You can only prove a positive, and this question will remain until we receive a signal from outer space or perhaps when a UFO joins the flight pattern at the airport in Washington, London or where ever.
Rating:
Summary: Copernican Principle or Coprnican Dogma?
Review: We are often advised to "think outside the square". Well, once in a while a book is published that does just that. The Privileged Planet by Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards is such a book!
It has long been the contention of this reviewer that the "official" version of the Copernican Principle (CP) is in serious trouble, but that it has become so "dogmatised" that most scientists are blinded to its failures. I have written on this myself, and so was greatly encouraged to hear someone with a louder voice than mine shouting that the emperor has no clothes!
Over the years, as the authors point out, CP - based predictions at one time or another have included the more or less earth-like nature of the other Solar System planets, intelligent inhabitants on these planets, (then, when the latter became untenable) abundant non-intelligent life on Mars, planetary systems closely resembling our own around most stars and an infinite, eternal, steady state universe. Not one of these predictions has survived the advance of knowledge. Yet, so entrenched has the CP dogma become that this failure is seldom even noticed. One is reminded of the story about Galileo's critics' refusal to look through his telescope at the moons of Jupiter, preferring instead to believe that the instrument was bewitched.
Contrary to the popular and dogmatic interpretation of the CP, the authors convincingly argue that the earth, sun, solar system and galaxy are all anomalous in a number of ways. In one sense, this statement is trivial. Every individual will be "anomalous" in some sense, just because it IS an individual. There will be no two absolutely identical peas in the same pod. The authors readily admit this, but the real force of their argument is the growing realisation that the anomalies to which they refer all conspire (though sometimes in subtle ways) to render our position in the universe unusually - and possibly uniquely - suitable for the habitation of complex forms of life. This is becoming a growing conviction amongst many who look dispassionately at the evidence, but here the authors take a further step and demonstrate that the same factors which ensure this anomalous property of habitability, also ensure the equally anomalous property of providing a planetary platform from where the nature of the universe can be discerned by creatures with the intelligence to do so and with the curiosity to so desire. There is no logical or physical necessity why these two properties should occur together. But if they did not, our intellectual life would be much poorer and our curiosity would never find adequate fulfilment.
I believe that the authors' argument could also be extended to include aesthetics and (in a broad sense) spirituality. It seems to me that many of the most awe-inspiring phenomena either are, or are consequences of, the very factors which rendered our planet habitable. Great mountain ranges, for example, inspire feelings of awe in just about everybody. They awaken within us appreciation of the beautiful and the sublime. Yet ours is the only known planet which has true mountain ranges; the consequence of continuing plate tectonics - a process which is also vital in maintaining earth's habitability.
Some other examples are volcanoes, the large moon, perfect solar eclipses, meteors, comets, meteor storms, earthquakes, storms and lighting. The march of discovery has shown that a world without any of these would be a world without life, yet the connection with habitability is often subtle and is in no way associated with the awe that these events have aroused throughout history. We may also point out that this awe has often been sublimated into the sphere of the religious, as these events have often been seen as (or as intimately associated with) supernatural beings. Ultimately, some of these phenomena have even played a role in arousing a sense of divine transcendence.
Other phenomena which arouse similar (though perhaps not so extreme) sensations seem to be associated more specifically with the property of our world as a platform of discovery. Two good examples are rainbows and the Milky Way band, as readers of the book will be quick to see.
Perhaps a future monograph by the authors will develop this line of thought further.
The authors conclude that the convergence of features which enable both terrestrial habitability and scientific discovery are too improbable to be merely results of random accidents. We are here, in short, because some greater Intelligence planned it. Not only that, but this Intelligence has also placed us where we can gain the greatest knowledge of the universe. Perhaps this is why we are willing to expend so much time, effort and finance on scientific endeavour, much of which has no obvious survival value for the species. This makes sense though, if we have been "made" for it - if we have been specially endowed with the emotion of curiosity and placed in a region of the universe where this can best be sated.
But may this appearance of design be only illusory?
The authors conclude against this alternative, arguing their case largely through the use of William Demski's concept of "specified complexity" and the intuitively apparent but difficult-to-define concept of "value".
This could, I think, have been beneficially expanded by incorporating the design argument of philosopher, the late Richard Taylor. Very briefly, Taylor argued that if something appears to be purposeful and does actually fulfil that purpose, it is irrational to deny the presence of design in that object.
This proves fatal to the popular argument by Richard Dawkins and others that, given sufficient time, an appearance indistinguishable from design will inevitably emerge. For example, he argues that a sufficiently large number of apes playing with computer keyboards will eventually come up with an encyclopaedia. Dawkins' argument fails however, to appreciate that an encyclopaedia is more than a complicated ensemble of words. Its real significance lies not in its complexity, but in its role as a store and transmitter of specific information in an intelligible manner. Thus, if I wished to learn about Charles Darwin, for example, I can open the encyclopaedia at the "Ds", go down to "Darwin, Charles" and read the article, confident that what I read is at least tolerably valid.
But I can only have this faith in the encyclopaedia article if I know that it was written by someone who had adequately researched the life of the naturalist. I could have no such confidence if there was any possibility that the article was the random product of apes playing with keyboards! Indeed, it would then be irrational to suppose that the article contained any truth whatsoever.
If I harboured any such suspicions, I could go to other (and trusted!) authorities on Darwin or even undertake my own research and if the information I gleaned through these methods corresponded to a reasonable degree with that in the encyclopaedia article, then I could conclude (indeed, I would be logically forced to conclude) that the encyclopaedia article was indeed the product of a designing intelligence and not the work of blind chance!
There is no direct causal link between Darwin's life and an article on the same. The only link possible is through the operation of an intelligent mind - the mind of the encyclopaedia article's author.
Similarly, if we and our position in the universe are simply the product of chance, there seems to be no reason why the supposed facts that we read from the study of science should be any more accurate than the printout from an ape's game with the keyboard. In other words, there would seem to be no reason why the universe should be intelligible to the human mind. Still less, would we expect that our (or any) position in the universe should be conducive to scientific discovery. But, just as we could prove that the encyclopaedia article was the product of intelligent design by "checking" its content against other research, so we can confirm the emerging understanding of the universe by comparing the findings of one line of scientific research with that of another. Significantly, we do really find that the various lines converge. Our understanding of the sub-atomic level and of cosmology (the two extreme ends of the scale) both tell the same story as to the nature of physical reality, and the "in-between" realms such as chemistry and biology all yield results that fit together like a grand jigsaw puzzle of knowledge.
Scientific curiosity seems to be a human drive almost as basic as hunger and sex, but unlike these, it is largely devoid of survival value. Certainly, knowing what plants are edible and which are poisonous has survival value, but knowing the composition of a red dwarf star has not. Curiosity at this level is (to borrow Aldous Huxley"s phrase) "a biological luxury", yet, we seem to have been set up in just the region of space where we can enjoy this "luxury" to the maximum.
I should mention that Huxley actually used this phrase to refer to our heightened sense of colour. That too is not necessary for survival, but it is beneficial to our sense of beauty and to the consequent development of art. As mentioned earlier, our place in the scheme of things also appears to have been designed for the exercise of this "luxury" as well. (Of course, both are "luxuries" only for purely biological entities. From a strictly Darwinian viewpoint they are hard to explain, but they make perfect sense if we are also "spiritual" beings in the sense of possessing intellectual, aesthetic and religious faculties, whose existence depends upon the will of an intelligent Designer).
I hope that this book will help trigger the paradigm shift that is so long overdue. If I must be critical of anything, it is merely that the copious notes were given as endnotes and not as footnotes. This made it too easy to lose the place!
But that is hardly a serious criticism. In short, I do more than recommend this book. I appeal for it to be required reading for anyone with even the slightest interest in science or philosophy.
Rating:
Summary: Amazing Depth of Scholarship
Review: Whatever your personal feelings about the implications of this book (that our cosmos was designed by an intelligent being), there's no doubt that the authors are careful scholars. They base their correlation argument on a host of natural phenomena, and consider the work of dozens upon dozens of other reputable scientists (many of whom support, in peripheral ways, the book's premise). I had been under the impression that all leading scientists were pure naturalists; now I know that the debate rages in the sciences, and only we laypeople assume it was all settled long ago. Gonzalez himself is a NASA-funded astrobiologist, with a plethora of publications in refereed scientific journals. The argument is empirical, and Gonzalez and Richards invite other scientists to begin testing it--which will make fascinating reading, if they do.
|
