Scan barcode
A review by theomnivorescientist
The End of Science: Facing the Limits of Knowledge in the Twilight of the Scientific Age by John Horgan
adventurous
challenging
informative
inspiring
slow-paced
5.0
The End of Science was published in 1996. John was then an editor with the Scientific American. He picked a bone in the scientific community declaring with exhilarating chutzpah that all the burning questions about science have already been answered. With Einstein and Darwin science had ended. What the present scientific community does are more or fewer applications. There are no more big theories to postulate or prove.
As a non-expert and someone who hasn't spent a day in a lab, John was disliked by many. Eventually, he had to leave the Scientific American. But he had the courage and scepticism to point out some crucial problems faced specifically by particle scientists and the importance of string theory. Those interested can read this book's reviews by Peter Woit and Sabine Hossenfelder on their respective blogs. Horgan's problems lie when he starts stretching his end of science mantra to various other subjects like philosophy, biology, etc. As a biologist I can say nothing ever is original but what we do is adding one tiny detail that nobody has done before. It may not be 'The Theory of Everything' but science is not just about finding a unifying explanation. There is also a growing discussion about how modern science is more complex and beyond the grasp of common sense. In defence of tough concepts, science does not follow the limits of human perception but it follows empirical paths. That being said the argument that there might be far-fetched questions like 'what is the true nature of reality?' is beyond the capability of the human brain to process is tough to rebuttal. Maybe the human brain has physical limitations to answer certain questions and that is the ultimate limit there is.
Despite these reservations, I gave the book 5 stars simply because of Horgan's interviews with some of the greatest minds in their fields here. It's quite a treat to hear arguments of the importance of scientific enquiry or its demise from Nobel laureates. Is this a necessary reading for students? I think it is if you really want to open your mind to new ideas and perspectives.
As a non-expert and someone who hasn't spent a day in a lab, John was disliked by many. Eventually, he had to leave the Scientific American. But he had the courage and scepticism to point out some crucial problems faced specifically by particle scientists and the importance of string theory. Those interested can read this book's reviews by Peter Woit and Sabine Hossenfelder on their respective blogs. Horgan's problems lie when he starts stretching his end of science mantra to various other subjects like philosophy, biology, etc. As a biologist I can say nothing ever is original but what we do is adding one tiny detail that nobody has done before. It may not be 'The Theory of Everything' but science is not just about finding a unifying explanation. There is also a growing discussion about how modern science is more complex and beyond the grasp of common sense. In defence of tough concepts, science does not follow the limits of human perception but it follows empirical paths. That being said the argument that there might be far-fetched questions like 'what is the true nature of reality?' is beyond the capability of the human brain to process is tough to rebuttal. Maybe the human brain has physical limitations to answer certain questions and that is the ultimate limit there is.
Despite these reservations, I gave the book 5 stars simply because of Horgan's interviews with some of the greatest minds in their fields here. It's quite a treat to hear arguments of the importance of scientific enquiry or its demise from Nobel laureates. Is this a necessary reading for students? I think it is if you really want to open your mind to new ideas and perspectives.