How to view our/the universe

Abstract

View Large Image | Download PowerPoint SlideThree previous books by the same trio of authors have explored a multitude of scientific topics, including plenty of biology, using chapters of real-science interspersed with illustrative and enjoyable nonscience from the fictional unreality of Discworld [1xA play on worlds. Review of Pratchett T, Stewart I & Cohen J (2002) The Science of Discworld (revised edition) & The Science of Discworld II: The Globe. Ebury Press. Hardy, I.C.W. Trends Evol. Ecol. 2002; 17: 489–490Abstract | Full Text | Full Text PDFSee all References, 2xUnholy trinity. Review of Pratchett T, Stewart I & Cohen J (2005) The Science of Discworld III: Darwin's Watch. Ebury Press. Hardy, I.C.W. Trends Evol. Ecol. 2005; 20: 429Abstract | Full Text | Full Text PDFSee all References]. There is now, after an 8-year gap, a fourth part to the trilogy. Judgement Day follows the same interspersed structure, but the science:fiction ratio is noticeably higher: the pure-Discworld chapters are short.The theme running throughout the book is that there are two fundamentally different ways to think about the world. Perhaps not super-surprisingly, these two ways are essentially ‘science’ and ‘faith’ or, more informatively put, ‘seeing the universe as the context for humanity’ versus ‘seeing the humanity as the context for the universe’. If we take the human-centred stance, this is ‘our’ universe, with us as its purpose and at the (conceptual if not actual) centre of it. Then, among other things, the universe is a resource for us to exploit. If the universe-centred stance is taken, then the universe is indifferent to our existence and we are minor players on cosmic scales of time and space. The value of the latter stance is that it steps away from the innate human tendency to rely on intuition: scientists actively try to disprove things that they would like to be true and build an analytically based understanding of ‘their’ surroundings.The authors claim that thinking without what they term ‘adequate equipment’ is often signalled in popular debates by the phrase ‘I reckon’. They are not theologians (although Cohen was once to become a Rabbi), and neither am I, so I wonder what our brethren in the humanities will make of Pratchett et al.’s reckoning that few faith-based systems advocate self-doubt as a desirable instrument of change and the associated assertion that ‘In religion, doubt is often anathema: what counts is how strongly you believe things’. I suspect that theologians ‘test their faith’ more than is suggested here, at least for a given value of ‘test’.Overall, Pratchett et al. take us engagingly and, at times brilliantly, through a slew of scientific and mathematical subjects, using sources from the ancient to the bang-up-to-date. For readers of TREE, the list notably includes: Darwinism, RNA, the importance of ribosomes, astrobiology, Bayesian neuroscience, and a memorable fridge-magnet-type phrase ‘Biology isn’t just physics and chemistry with knobs on’. In fact, by reading this book, one usefully improves and consolidates one's grasp of things such as very small physics (e.g., fundamental particles: in a nutshell, there seem to be about 17) and very big physics (e.g., the shape of the universe: it is unknown) more than one does of the life sciences.Despite it not containing all that many pages explicitly devoted to ecology or evolution, I would recommend this book to readers of TREE for two reasons. Generally, because thinking about the philosophical method of science is always useful. Specifically, because, like it or not, our discipline is connected to issues of faith [3xSee all References][3], for example, via ‘debates’ about intelligent design and religious objections to genes ‘being selfish’. This book provides a relatively conciliatory discussion, appreciative of some aspects of faith-based thinking and lacking (most of) the beagle-bite of Dawkins's God Delusion [4xThe God Delusion. Dawkins, R. See all References][4]. When reading near the beginning, I thought the authors might end up positing something akin to Gould's ‘non-overlapping magisteria’ [5xNonoverlapping magisteria. Gould, S.J. Nat. Hist. 1997; 106: 16–22See all References][5]. In fact, the book progressively becomes clear in its universe-centred, and definitely antifundamentalist, stance. Judgement Day would nestle happily next to Dawkins [4xThe God Delusion. Dawkins, R. See all References][4] in the library of the Unseen University in Discworld and it should certainly be placed in the science rather than the fantasy section (so, not next to the Bible, as finally proposed in Pratchett et al.’s Epilogue). Judgement Day will be of thought-provoking relevance to ecologists and evolutionary biologists for as long as there remain two fundamentally different views on how to see ‘our’ or ‘the’ world, or so I reckon.