|
The Scientist as Rebel (New York Review Books) | 
 enlarge | Author: Freeman J. Dyson
Publisher: New York Review Books
Category: Book
List Price: $17.95
Buy New: $12.21
You Save: $5.74 (32%)
New (31) Used (5) from $10.69
Rating:  9 reviews
Sales Rank: 53624
Media: Paperback
Number Of Items: 1
Pages: 400
Shipping Weight (lbs): 1
Dimensions (in): 8.3 x 5.8 x 0.8
ISBN: 1590172949
Dewey Decimal Number: 500
EAN: 9781590172940
ASIN: 1590172949
Publication Date: September 9, 2008
Shipping: Eligible for Super Saver Shipping
Availability: Usually ships in 24 hours
| |
| Also Available In:
|
| Similar Items:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Product Description
From Galileo to today’s amateur astronomers, scientists have been rebels, writes Freeman J. Dyson. Like artists and poets, they are free spirits who resist the restrictions their cultures impose on them. In their pursuit of nature’s truths, they are guided as much by imagination as by reason, and their greatest theories have the uniqueness and beauty of great works of art.Dyson argues that the best way to understand science is by understanding those who practice it. He tells stories of scientists at work, ranging from Isaac Newton’s absorption in physics, alchemy, theology, and politics, to Ernest Rutherford’s discovery of the structure of the atom, to Albert Einstein’s stubborn hostility to the idea of black holes. His descriptions of brilliant physicists like Edward Teller and Richard Feynman are enlivened by his own reminiscences of them. He looks with a skeptical eye at fashionable scientific fads and fantasies, and speculates on the future of climate prediction, genetic engineering, the colonization of space, and the possibility that paranormal phenomena may exist yet not be scientifically verifiable.Dyson also looks beyond particular scientific questions to reflect on broader philosophical issues, such as the limits of reductionism, the morality of strategic bombing and nuclear weapons, the preservation of the environment, and the relationship between science and religion. These essays, by a distinguished physicist who is also a prolific writer, offer informed insights into the history of science and fresh perspectives on contentious current debates about science, ethics, and faith.
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 4 more reviews...
 Mistitled November 20, 2008
Freeman Dyson is a scientist. He is also a very competent and thoughtful essayist. I first came across his writings in The New York Review of Books, which are what led me to read this book. I see that several long reviews have already been posted on the subject, so I will not rehash the contents of this book. Let me just say that I think this book would have been better titled The Scientist as Human. Because that is basically what this book is, an explication of the human side of many of the greatest scientists of the twentieth century. We non-scientists tend to think of scientists as little robot-like creatures playing with various versions of fire in their private black boxes, but what this book brings out is that they are actually people like you and me with all of the same quirks and foibles. I like that. Thank you Freeman Dyson for sharing that with us. Let me also point out that you do not have to be a scientist to enjoy this book. It is written, and well-written at that, for the general public. You may not agree with all of his conclusions -- I myself think he puts far too much faith in the power of biological engineering to solve our future problems -- but he is always interesting. The only reason I gave this a four-star instead of a five-star rating is because if you are like me you read the four-stars first.
Freeman Dyson - stimulating as always November 2, 2008
An organised collection of earlier review pieces by Freeman Dyson, carefully selected and lightly edited. Almost a biography, at least in the light it casts on several of his many facets in a long career, both sides of the Atlantic. FD is a clear communicator, and conveys through these lively essays a good sense of what it means to be a scientist, and how intimately we all depend on science, even when little aware of this dependence. Strongly recommended, although not his best book - which I would still consider to be "Disturbing the Universe".
Modeling intellectual integrity. March 7, 2008
1 out of 1 found this review helpful
Dyson holds high credentials as an innovative mathematician and theoretical physicist, and has known, or, in many cases worked with, most of the leading scientists of the past six decades. He has spent the larger portion of his life as professor of physics at Princeton's Institute for Advanced Studies. His analysis of issues confronting disciplines other than professional science has defied the rigidly predictable partisan polemics of the typical commentator. These other areas of interest notably include history, politics, the arts, religion, culture and technology, ethics, and military technologies and strategies. Part of what makes his analysis so interesting is his tendency to cut across the grain of the ubiquitous partisan polemic in which our world wallows. He is obviously an informed and interested student of many issues, and highly articulate and logical. Of course the fact that he is not a narrowly definable polemist virtually assures that many ideologues will dislike aspects of his thought. Dyson is easily up to the task of defending his views.
Dyson has long been a contributor of reviews of books written by scientists and others, for The New York Review of Books. This book is a collection of Dyson's essays and reviews written and published between 1964 and 2006, and includes essays from some of his own books. If anything stands out as much as does his freewheeling intellect, it is the fact that he is no one's sycophant, no ideologue's dutiful foot soldier. For example: (1) Dyson is a strong, articulate champion of international arms control and disarmament, notably of unilateral disarmament (that beyond any international agreements, the U.S. should reduce weapons stockpiles, which he argues is particularly effective at speeding arms reduction generally); and he argues that nuclear weapons hold a threat to the country that holds them that exceeds any threat they present an enemy. He is hopeful that a day will come when all nuclear weapons have been destroyed and outlawed worldwide. Based on the above, you may be prepared to "pigeon hole" Dyson as being a `dove' who would oppose everything about nuclear weapons, whether in practice or principle. But your expectation would be too simplistic, as this is merely what we've come to expect from typical dogmatic ideologues. Dyson is not one of them, as we see: (2) He argues that nuclear weapons have probably prevented large scale conventional wars, particularly in the 1950's and early 60's, by keeping the Cold War "cold," and that the eventual elimination of all nuclear weapons is a goal that must be pursued with great caution and pragmatism. To cast Dyson as being either a simple 'dove' or a simple `hawk' would be an error. A similar consideration might be his views on climate change, where again, his views cannot be neatly packed into either of the standard polemic boxes.
There are points on which I disagreed with Dyson, and points on which he was wrong (his `updates' following most of the essays often admit of being wrong). Dyson's views are important in large part because he is the model of disciplined but un-boxed intellectual integrity. While there may be points on which one may not agree with Dyson, we can benefit greatly from the gentle intellectual integrity which he models, especially when too many ideologues, whether in science, politics, or culture at large, are given to bullying opposing, or less dogmatically strident, voices from the public forum. Dyson is, I believe, a fine picture of what a scientist should be--one who honestly engages the great questions of the world, rather than trying to force dogmatic doctrine upon it.
Poetic Science August 23, 2007
1 out of 1 found this review helpful
Dyson is a beautiful craftsman with words. His book translates the emotion of science as portrayed by the endeavors of the well known pioneers. He literally walks the reader through the influences of each pioneers time to reflect the energy they found to perservere in their endeavor. I am truly happy to have read this book and it will FOREVER impact the way I look at life.
THIS BE THE BOOK May 13, 2007
5 out of 5 found this review helpful
And I paraphrase Mr. Dyson; at Chapter 13, pp 133-38:
"In January 1939 a meeting of physicists was held at George Washington University in Washington, D.C. The meeting had been planned by George Gamow long before fission was discovered. It was one of a regular series of annual meetings. It happened by chance that Neils Bohr arrived in America two weeks before the meeting, bringing from Europe the news of the discovery of fission. Gamow quickly reorganized the meeting so that fission became the main subject. Bohr and Enrico Fermi were the main speakers. For the first time, the splitting of the atom was publicly described, and the consequent possibility of atomic bombs was widely reported in the newspapers. Not much was said at the meeting about atomic bombs. Everyone at the meeting was aware of the possibilities, but nobody spoke up boldly to suggest that questions of ethical responsibility be put on the agenda. The meeting came too soon for any consensus concerning ethical responsibilities to be reached. Most of the people at the meeting were hearing about fission for the first time. But it would have been possible to start a preliminary discussion, to make plans for an informal organization of physicists, and to prepare for further meetings. After several weeks of preparations, a second meeting might have been arranged with the explicit purpose of reaching an ethical consensus.
...(By 1941, the) fear of Hitler was so pervasive that hardly a single physicist who was aware of the possibilities of nuclear weapons could resist it. The fear allowed scientists to design bombs with a clear conscience. In 1941 they persuaded the British and American governments to build the factories and laboratories where bombs could be manufactured. It would have been impossible for the community of British and American physicists to say to the world in 1941, "Let Hitler have his nuclear bombs and do his worst with them. We refuse on ethical grounds to have anything to do with such weapons. It will be better for us in the long run to defeat him without using such weapons, even if it takes a little longer and costs us more lives." Hardly anybody in 1941 would have wished to make such a statement. And if some of the scientists had wished to make it, the statement could not have been made publicly, because all discussion of nuclear matters was hidden behind walls of secrecy. The world in 1941 was divided into armed camps with no possibility of communications between them. Scientists in the Soviet Union were living in separate black boxes. It was too late in 1941 for the scientists of the world to take a united ethical stand against nuclear weapons. The latest time that such a stand could have been taken was in 1939, when the world was still at peace and secrecy not yet been imposed.
...In October of 1995, I was giving a lunchtime lecture to a crowd of students at George Washington University about the history of nuclear weapons. I told them about the meeting that had been held in a nearby building on their campus in January 1939. I told them how the scientists at the meeting missed the opportunity that was fleetingly placed in their hands, to forestall the development of nuclear weapons and to change the course of history. I talked about the nuclear projects that grew during World War II, massive and in deadly earnest in America, small and halfhearted in Germany, serious but late-starting in Russia. I described the atmosphere of furious effort and intense camaraderie that existed in wartime Los Alamos, with the British and American scientists so deeply engaged in the race to produce a bomb that they did not think of stopping when the opposing German team dropped out of the race. I told them how, when it became clear in 1944 that there would be no German bomb, only one man, of all the scientists in Los Alamos, stopped. That man was Joseph Rotblat. I told how Rotblat left Los Alamos and became the leader of the Pugwash movement, working indefatigably to unite scientists of all countries in efforts to undo the evils to which Los Alamos gave rise. I remarked how shameful it was that the Nobel Peace Prize, which had been awarded to so many less deserving people, had never been awarded to Rotblat. At that moment one of the students in the audience shouted, "Didn't you hear? He won this morning." I shouted, "Hooray," and the whole auditorium erupted in wild cheering. In my head the cheers of the students are still resounding."
|
|
|
Copyright 2006 - CD Shopper | |
