Scan barcode
davidcottington's review against another edition
5.0
This blew my FUCKING MIND!!!!
It should be studied on the curriculum.
It should be studied on the curriculum.
tandemjon's review
informative
slow-paced
3.5
Interesting read, but the topic and evidence aren't extensive enough to justify a book, so it spends at least half of the book talking about science in general and Mr Loeb's concerns with how it operates. That is interesting and he writes very engagingly but I felt the title is a bit misleading.
agameofbooksblog's review against another edition
3.25
This was definitely an interesting and insightful book. I’ve never thoughts we on earth are alone. The author of this book goes a great job answering the question “are we alone?” Through his research and experiences.
adnielsen's review
4.0
While the main topic of discussion is ‘Oumuamua, the weird interstellar object that slingshotted around the Sun in 2017, Loeb uses the opportunity to push for less dogmatism in astronomy and science and in particular, challenges scientists to rediscover their childhood curiosity. Maybe ‘Oumuamua is a natural object unlike anything we’ve seen before but why not invest in “Astro-Archaeology” and the search for bio- or technological signatures of other civilizations? This was a fun read even if a bit speculative.
trid1977's review
1.0
The author has some serious self-esteem issues. Very little of this book is actually about ʻOumuamua, the first known interstellar object to pass through our Solar System in 2017. This book is an auto-biography of his growing up, and family vacations. He mentions several papers he has published. All of which sound like he formulate mathematical equations for the probability of life beyond earth. Or trying to get funding to search exo-planets for evidence of street lights.
The rest of the book is complaining the scientific community will fund things like the hadron collider, but not tiny light sails to send out into space to photograph alpha centauri. He would prefer not to have papers and ideas not go thru peer review, but just publish them everywhere on-line.
Sometimes he admits aliens will not be like us, but then explains how they will be just like us. So let's look for signs of 'us' out there.
The rest of the book is complaining the scientific community will fund things like the hadron collider, but not tiny light sails to send out into space to photograph alpha centauri. He would prefer not to have papers and ideas not go thru peer review, but just publish them everywhere on-line.
Sometimes he admits aliens will not be like us, but then explains how they will be just like us. So let's look for signs of 'us' out there.
lacyk_reads's review
4.0
Maybe I vaguely remember seeing some news articles about a strange object that passed by earth in October of 2017. It didn’t stay with me, though. Turns out, it was kind of a big deal! The author goes into much detail about what we know about this object (‘Oumuamua) as well as his interpretations of that knowledge. In the course of reading, we revisit the history of astronomy and modern telescopic advances, as well as some light physics. I actually really enjoyed the aspect of physics and it isn’t hard to imagine the author as a really good professor at Harvard - he pulls analogies from nature and life that make physics relatable. That said, I don’t know enough to know if these analogies are realistic or oversimplified.
The author also tells about his own history - his family, growing up in Israel, his passion for philosophy, how he ended up at Harvard. If the entire book had been about his life, that would have been fine with me. He’s definitely an interesting guy!
To me, his criticism of the modern scientific community seems very warranted - traditional avenues of science are rewarded and praised with funding and tenure, while non-traditional ones (like the hypothesis stating we are not alone in the universe) are shunned or laughed down. He also hits the nail on the head several times in regards to how poorly humans treat our planet and its very limited resources.
In the end, he encourages all earthlings to have an open mind, for students to explore their passions and seek answers to the big questions, rather than conform to the norms currently held in science. I liked that aspect.
The author is very full of himself, but I think you have to be in order to embrace these contradictions to the existing scientific community. It takes a lot of confidence, not to mention credentials, which he has and he talks about quite a bit. Does it make him particularly likeable? Maybe not, but I think it is important for him to establish himself as an expert to the reader.
The only real criticism that I’ll mention here is actually how he took this book as an opportunity to re-answer questions posed to him by journalists. He obviously wasn’t happy with how he answered various questions and pondered the perfect comeback until he could include it here. This happened several times throughout the book. (I totally relate - how often am I posed a question that I haven’t thought of and stumble through an answer, only to come up with the perfect response later? Often. We all do.) I’m just not convinced this book was the best avenue for the author to revisit those interviews.
All in all, an interesting read!
The author also tells about his own history - his family, growing up in Israel, his passion for philosophy, how he ended up at Harvard. If the entire book had been about his life, that would have been fine with me. He’s definitely an interesting guy!
To me, his criticism of the modern scientific community seems very warranted - traditional avenues of science are rewarded and praised with funding and tenure, while non-traditional ones (like the hypothesis stating we are not alone in the universe) are shunned or laughed down. He also hits the nail on the head several times in regards to how poorly humans treat our planet and its very limited resources.
In the end, he encourages all earthlings to have an open mind, for students to explore their passions and seek answers to the big questions, rather than conform to the norms currently held in science. I liked that aspect.
The author is very full of himself, but I think you have to be in order to embrace these contradictions to the existing scientific community. It takes a lot of confidence, not to mention credentials, which he has and he talks about quite a bit. Does it make him particularly likeable? Maybe not, but I think it is important for him to establish himself as an expert to the reader.
The only real criticism that I’ll mention here is actually how he took this book as an opportunity to re-answer questions posed to him by journalists. He obviously wasn’t happy with how he answered various questions and pondered the perfect comeback until he could include it here. This happened several times throughout the book. (I totally relate - how often am I posed a question that I haven’t thought of and stumble through an answer, only to come up with the perfect response later? Often. We all do.) I’m just not convinced this book was the best avenue for the author to revisit those interviews.
All in all, an interesting read!