7anooch's review against another edition
5.0
Like Sabine writes and tries to address, physics has worked itself into a state where all our experiments result in null result after another, and our cutting edge theories are mere speculations of science fiction. The way she approaches this problem, trying to figure out how we got here, what we can do to fix it, and whether what we’re doing is justified in the first place, is wonderful. This is an excellent popular work on the cusp of physics and philosophy, but it comes with a little requirement of some understanding of theoretical physics. Recommended reading for scientists or scientists-to-be.
fdterritory's review against another edition
4.0
This is not light reading at all. If you have a scientific background, you'll probably understand about 60% of the technical sections, of which there are many. But the point made is incredibly important, as we're learning in 2020--there is no "I trust Science". Because science, like every other field, has biases, dirty little secrets, and controversies that make the headlines you see in the paper misleading at best in many cases. And physics, the "purest" of fields, has loads of them. This is an excellent summary of current issues with lots of extrapolation that can be applied to the whole of science.
violethazel's review against another edition
informative
reflective
4.0
this was an interesting one because more so than any other science book i've read (and i've read a fair few) this was a reflection on science as an institute, particularly theoretical physics, and how academia works with the development of new science. as someone wanting to go into physics, it was really interesting in that regard, and it covered a lot of physics alongside this so i found it much more generally informative than lots of other science books. i also liked her authorial voice a lot, which is so necessary in reading science books.
in saying that, after around the first third it got to be a bit of a slog - it felt much longer than 250 pages (again, as many science books often feel like). this gets 4 stars because i genuinely learned a lot from it and it was really helpful, but if i try to focus on something specific from this book my brain kind of loses it because it was a definite slog and i felt like there weren't many clear takeaways.
has definitely shaped my thoughts on physics as an institution though, so is a must read for scientists!!
in saying that, after around the first third it got to be a bit of a slog - it felt much longer than 250 pages (again, as many science books often feel like). this gets 4 stars because i genuinely learned a lot from it and it was really helpful, but if i try to focus on something specific from this book my brain kind of loses it because it was a definite slog and i felt like there weren't many clear takeaways.
has definitely shaped my thoughts on physics as an institution though, so is a must read for scientists!!
titusfortner's review against another edition
4.0
Really enjoyed this as an overview of the state of the field (in 2018) from a knowledgable but relatively objective perspective. I loved hearing why certain things I see articles about online are mostly dismissed by the community and hearing discussions about what may or may not make sense in the field. If and when we make a major breakthrough, it will be interesting to see how her concerns are resolved.
sarsaparillo's review against another edition
5.0
After reading a lot about the success stories of cutting-edge science and grandly laid out theories, this book is a refreshing look behind the curtain at the messy, muddled, stumbling, confused goings-on in fundamental physics, and an increasingly dire problem therein. The theories we have are incomplete and "ugly" - full of graceless arbitrary numbers that seem to lack justification and cry out for a "deeper" explanations.
But we are reaching the limits of what experiments can practically probe about the universe. So there is a strong incentive to invent more satisfying "beautiful" theories that aren't experimentally verifiable, but are parsimonious in a way that seems elegant to our sensibilities.
But is this a scientific way to evaluate theories? Hossenfelder thinks not. Why must a fundamental theory (which are always mathematical) be constructed only of simple numbers, such as 1? I must admit it seems intuitive to me that it should.
This is less a book about math as about philosophy. It's about the unexamined philosophical beliefs held as maxims in the field of physics and the risks they pose to the scientific method as data "dries up".
This is a very well-written book. Hossenfelder's disarming blend of earnest, rigorous criticism and self-deprecating wit takes you on a tour of science's dark and bewildering "basement" - where particle physicists, cosmologists and unimaginably clever engineers chip away at the foundations of our universe.
Part travelogue, Hossenfelder visits various great minds in their home institutions, trying to understand why they aren't freaking out about the state of physics as much as she is. These encounters with eccentric geniuses can be very entertaining and she deftly walks a tightrope between awed admiration and gentle mockery.
Despite her clear intention to contradict the conventional wisdom, she seems to give very fair and sympathetic accounts of it, and Socratically reminds the reader at regular intervals of her own humble status in the pecking order, and her feelings of befuddlement. This isn't the treatise of stern old man who knows he is right. This is a plea from a young researcher who knows something is wrong and despairs for the field of study that she loves.
The book concludes with an excellent summary of human cognitive biases and their applicability to scientists in particular. Hossenfelder calls for science and philosophy to be reunited - two grand enterprises now barely on speaking terms - but which, she reminds us, really need to keep eachother honest. Hear hear.
But we are reaching the limits of what experiments can practically probe about the universe. So there is a strong incentive to invent more satisfying "beautiful" theories that aren't experimentally verifiable, but are parsimonious in a way that seems elegant to our sensibilities.
But is this a scientific way to evaluate theories? Hossenfelder thinks not. Why must a fundamental theory (which are always mathematical) be constructed only of simple numbers, such as 1? I must admit it seems intuitive to me that it should.
This is less a book about math as about philosophy. It's about the unexamined philosophical beliefs held as maxims in the field of physics and the risks they pose to the scientific method as data "dries up".
This is a very well-written book. Hossenfelder's disarming blend of earnest, rigorous criticism and self-deprecating wit takes you on a tour of science's dark and bewildering "basement" - where particle physicists, cosmologists and unimaginably clever engineers chip away at the foundations of our universe.
Part travelogue, Hossenfelder visits various great minds in their home institutions, trying to understand why they aren't freaking out about the state of physics as much as she is. These encounters with eccentric geniuses can be very entertaining and she deftly walks a tightrope between awed admiration and gentle mockery.
Despite her clear intention to contradict the conventional wisdom, she seems to give very fair and sympathetic accounts of it, and Socratically reminds the reader at regular intervals of her own humble status in the pecking order, and her feelings of befuddlement. This isn't the treatise of stern old man who knows he is right. This is a plea from a young researcher who knows something is wrong and despairs for the field of study that she loves.
The book concludes with an excellent summary of human cognitive biases and their applicability to scientists in particular. Hossenfelder calls for science and philosophy to be reunited - two grand enterprises now barely on speaking terms - but which, she reminds us, really need to keep eachother honest. Hear hear.
rlse's review against another edition
3.0
Wow, I had no idea there was push in some areas of physics to become “post-empirical.” This means not having to justify new hypotheses with data or observable phenomena, which, to me, is clearly leaving the realm of science into philosophy. The most valuable part of the book to me were the cautions on bias in all areas of science, and her specific suggestions of ways to mitigate social influence and the compounding confirmation cycle for people at all levels of science, in the appendix. I felt that all nine chapters were essentially saying the same thing, only while interviewing a different respected expert in the field.
jwpeddle's review against another edition
3.0
Grating. Served well as a warning about the self-perpetuating ruts academia can fall into, and contained interesting interviews, but feels like it utterly failed to sell the premise or present alternatives.
kahawa's review against another edition
4.0
Good, generally easy enough to follow, although I got lost in a few places talking about maths (I just realised I wrote that without thinking about the title! :)).
I've kind of been tracking this problem in physics for a while now - theories that are too beautiful, too elegant not to be true. And also too opaque, too untestable, and too naively subjective....
I have this feeling that maths is one big tautology, but not recognised as such. As for physics, I want it to be testable, but it's never going to be 100% testable by humans, because humans are part of the system. And things like multiverses just can't be tested, even if they represent reality.
I've kind of been tracking this problem in physics for a while now - theories that are too beautiful, too elegant not to be true. And also too opaque, too untestable, and too naively subjective....
I have this feeling that maths is one big tautology, but not recognised as such. As for physics, I want it to be testable, but it's never going to be 100% testable by humans, because humans are part of the system. And things like multiverses just can't be tested, even if they represent reality.