One is the idea that 'reflective consciousness' represents a phase change, which he claims is demonstrated by the human ability to ask the questions posed at the beginning of this review. Its agnosticism about science, as a knowledge system, won't help the general reader. More fundamentally, science has limited its domain to the empirical study of physical things and their interactions in order to differentiate its method of inquiry from that of religion, which is based on belief in divine revelation, and philosophy, which seeks answers through insight and reasoning. Origin myths ; The emergence of matter : science's orthodox theory ; What science's orthodox theory fails to explain ; Other cosmological conjectures ; Problems facing cosmology as an explanatory means ; Reasonableness of cosmological conjectures ; Evolution of matter on a large scale ; Evolution of matter on a small scale ; Pattern to the evolution of matter ; Reflections and conclusions on the emergence and evolution of matter -- Part Two. This did come as a surprise to me.
A must read for scientific wonks and committed nerds. . However, I feel like many of the complaints I had about the Cosmology section carry over here. There is not a trace of humor, and there is no effort taken to make it easy on the reader. Limitations of science ; Reflections and conclusions on human evolution as a cosmic process.
I finished it and have gone back several times and re-read portions. Moreover, as the book shows, a well-structured co-operative promotes the development of community values based on mutual aid and shared responsibility for their homes and immediate neighbourhood. Having been trained as a scientist I wanted to learn the answers revealed by systematic observation or experiment—that is, what science tells us—as distinct from religious belief or philosophical speculation or insight. John Hands is an outsider to the orthodox scientific community but possesses a sharp, critical mind, a clear writing style and unparalleled thoroughness. It's still a shame, though, and I'm always glad to see evidence of serious and agenda-free scepticism. This groundbreaking book is destined to become a classic of scientific thinking. Moreover, as Cosmosapiensreveals, there is an underlying pattern in the scientific evidence of collaboration, complexification, and convergence.
It is lucid and intelligible to the non-specialists—Hands was originally trained as a chemist, but has also published three novels. One really has to read this carefully, questioning Hands as much as he questions Richard Dawkins, et al. Here, John Hands is at his best, as he sorts out the various theories. Even with all the information on how we got here, no two scholars are likely to agree on any answers propounded. That process is called imagination, make believe, and in this case, stupidity.
His driving questions are those that have inspired all of science, religion and philosophy: What are we? I can't list all of the reasons, but here's an example: The author says there has never been an instance recorded of a creature evolving from something more complex to less complex, but this is patently false. However this is trifling compared to what the book contains and covers. Knowing that scientific understanding changes as new evidence is discovered and new thinking develops, I wanted an objective evaluation of the current evidence. The prose is stiff, academic, and it does not express either the joy or the enthusiasm for discovery that you find in some popular books on science. Instead Hands surveys the domains of cosmology, physics, evolutionary biology, philosophy — an ambition that will strike readers as impossible, ludicrous and astonishing.
A story like that is so much more interesting then the constant picking apart of the standard science which the author constantly does in the book, and the author loses the forest for the trees because he doesn't realize that even without science being perfect we can still use what we think we know and tell incredibly interesting stories and use that to see space-time itself contract and expand. The author succeeds in the extraordinary accomplishment of a narrative that surveys, summarizes, and interrogate the fractious field of paleoanthropology, and with penetrating philosophical acumen no less. Those are my words, not his, he said he submitted this to many cosmologists for review and received almost universal disdain. These are two of the most fundamental and far-reaching questions facing scientists and cosmologists alike, and have rested at the center of human intellectual endeavor since its beginning. · Evolutionary psychopathology, uncomplicated depression, and the distinction between normal and disordered sadness.
Synopsis Specialist scientific fields are developing at incredibly swift speeds, but what can they really tell us about how the universe began and how we as humans evolved to play such a dominant role on Earth? If not, should we be discouraged? As technology improves, we'll know more - It's also hard to take the author Why is this a book? If you like science at all, don't pick up this book. As an author, myself, of a book on human evolution, I found Cosmosapiens to be a valuable and extremely well researched reference on an amazingly diverse yet related set of topics. A real tour de force! Science will continuously be jolted by outside theories every now and then, but still more than 999 out of 1000 of those theories are wrong. I couldn't help but wonder what the sceptical Hands of the first two-thirds of the book would have said of the rather rushed, shallow account he gives of his favoured ideas regarding reflective consciousness, cooperation, complexification, the uniqueness of humanity, and so on. The author really needs to chill out, watch a Neil deGrasse Tyson video on the universe and put the wonder back in science instead of trying to tear it apart. The key to future discoveries is that reductionism must be complemented by an holistic approach, which many pioneers of quantum theory advocated.
Unbiased, incisive and written with enviable clarity for both the general reader and the specialist, Cosmosapiens reveals that th. He believes 'psychic energy' can explain certain natural phenomena, that entropy the second law of thermodynamics needs a fifth force to explain how it is constantly increasing, that insight should be put back into philosophy instead of only being reason based, the start of life is a near impossible event and so on. He'll quote the absurd statement that life forming randomly is on the order of a tornado sweeping through a junk yard and making a 747. This groundbreaking book is destined to become a classic of scientific thinking. The Brits, Irish, and Scots simply do the best when it comes to this kind of writing. Whereas I can appreciate the considerable effort it took to write Cosmosapiens, I can't say that it demonstrates its central thesis, and it's certainly not enjoyable. It starts with the origins of the universe and the explanatory model of the inflationary This book tackles the questions posed by your eight year old self.
They would be the same to the 17th decimal place just as some of the 'fine tuned' constants are. From his book we get that big picture he sought. He points out the ways in which humans differ from all other animals. Given how many books have been written on the subject of human evolution, what inspired and motivated you to write Cosmosapiens? Instead, he would rather concoct crazy scenarios in his mind. Cosmosapiens is a significant contribution to a new era in scientific writing. Before writing came along, I have no doubt they were a topic of conversation around the fire as our ancestors roasted their mammoth steaks. Even in cases where one might disagree, the arguments are thought-provoking.
It aims to introduce students to the typical course followed by a data analysis project in earth sciences. John Hands set out to investigate current scientific explanations for what we are, why we exist, and where we came from, right back to primordial matter and energy at the beginning of the universe. He then explores the reasonableness of cosmological conjectures and tests to which they can be subjected as well as approaches involving fine tuning and multiverses. It will become a classic. The flagella shows flexibility, not irreducible complexity. Humans have been asking these questions throughout recorded history.