The Periodic Table- Central Ideas

Unfortunately for anyone hoping to learn about the elements, there are much more lines spent talking about Primo Levi’s life than the properties of materials in the book The Periodic Table. Despite its name, it is not so much a book about the elements, but about the life and times of its author. It explores how events and people in his life could be tied to the properties elements and spends a chapter on each of the elements (although he only titles 12).

The Periodic Table does describe some chemistry related facts, but does not go into substantial detail. The ideas in it however, tie together nicely and follow a roughly chronological timeline. Primo Levi starts with possibly the least scientific chapter of all, Argon. He briefly describes the non-reactive elements and how “They are indeed so inert, so satisfied with their condition, that they do not interfere in any chemical reaction”. He then goes on to describe how this can be related to the Jewish people of his ancestry, in his family in particular “They were never much loved or much hated; stories of unusual persecutions have not been handed down”, relating this to the un-reactiveness of Argon. All of the chapters follow this sort of format, though the topics vary from his family and friends, to a brief mention of his time in Auschwitz, to a fictional work relating to mercury he wrote himself.

Primo Levi

Levi finishes with the ‘most scientific’ of all chapters: Carbon. In this chapter he describes a fictional journey of a carbon atom through the atmosphere, plants, and multiple animals. Again only briefly, he does mention Photosynthesis, respiration and other scientific-y subjects, although one would require previous knowledge of these concepts to gain a full appreciation of these references.

This, I found, is the case with most of the scientific concepts described- to gain a full understanding of what Levi is talking about, one must really have known about the concept first. Without the understanding much of the scientific concepts become worthless and the whole book becomes about Primo Levi. Therefore, I would recommend this book not to someone who is looking to learn about chemistry, but to someone who is interested in chemistry AND willing to read an autobiography of sorts, albeit a very interesting one.

Flatland by Edwin Abbott- 4c’s

You may want to read some of the other posts on Flatland as well.

Connection
I have pondered the idea of a two-dimensional world before, as it is mentioned in the book Albert Einstein and His Inflatable Universe (no plug intended :). It is an interesting idea that poses many logical problems that are sometimes un-answerable by one self’s pondering. Reading Flatland answered some of these questions- though sometimes in creative non-scientific ways. Some of these included how the 2d shapes see each other, because two dimensions is completely flat- which is answered in a creative way by Edwin Abbott- by “essence of vision”, they “just do”.

Challenge
One idea from the book that I did not agree with, and so in accordance with the sub title of this section must challenge (even though it is not a scientific concept I am challenging), is that our place is society is predetermined at birth by our parent’s actions. I am not sure whether the values held in flatland reflect those held by Edwin Abbot; however I do think it is a rather unfair idea. The narrator of the book expresses that in Flatland they believe each generation should automatically improve on his father’s class in society by one step (an added side), but cannot improve their own position no matter how hard they try. Also, if a shape does something despicable and has a side taken away, then his descendants will suffer and they can do nothing about it.

Concept
One of the most important concepts I took away from this book is one of knowledge. It is the idea that our understanding of something- physics, extra dimensions or the universe- possibly anything, could be wrong. It is the idea that we do not know which parts of science we don’t understand and that we should accept challenges to our understanding with grace and in a dignified manner. Not like the square, or the sphere or any of the shapes who met challenges with hostility.

Changes
The changes this book advocate stem from the section above. Although it does not directly state this idea, it is easy to pick up. By illustrating how not to act and the consequences for behaving that way, the book Flatland by Edwin Abbott presents a compelling argument to keep an open mind towards new ways of thinking.

The Science Delusion – Structure

Ever thought that some of the most basic scientific ideas might be wrong? If so, I might suggest you read The Science Delusion by Rupert Sheldrake because that is the underlying notion of his whole book. Sheldrake has come up with ten strongly held beliefs apparently holding back science and called them the Ten Scientific Dogmas. Reviewing this book is a group effort so I’m going to focus on how the book is structured.

Sheldrake writes in an easy familiar structure, one that I suppose makes presenting to the masses easier. Each of the ten concepts is covered in its own chapter that has been subdivided into small segments. The segments range from one to five pages and are written like casual mini-essays, with a point, explanation and evidence if required. The explanation is usually the longest part and Mr Sheldrake only includes evidence if he is able as some of the points are purely theoretical.

Sometimes I got bogged down in the heavy-going theoretical situations, like a confusing four page discussion on how human consciousness works. However this was soon relieved by a new segment because although the segments are related, they sometimes jump around quite a bit, or even take a whole new angle. This small segment structure makes for easier reading and allows pick up and go reading. Most of the time.

Rupert Sheldrake

In the Science Delusion chapters and segments sometimes talk about each other. Parts of chapters sometimes refer to topics covered in previous chapters, but they don’t go into much detail so one can read any chapter and still get the overarching idea plus 90% of the technical details.
Segments of the same chapter often build upon each other’s ideas though. If you are following along then this can be quite satisfying because Sheldrake doesn’t have to explain exactly what he means straight after making the point and you start to feel like you’re in the ‘zone’ of understanding.

At the end of each chapter he has included a set of questions for people who believe in the specified dogma and a summary that I found quite helpful when I was trying to consolidate the ideas presented inside each chapter.

I conclude that if the topic mildly interests you then the structure will help you make your way through this book.

Flatland by Edwin A. Abbott – Central Ideas

Published in 1884, Flatland chronicles the adventures of a 2D square who is introduced to space land- the world of the 3D. The book explores ignorance and social classes however the main concept is extra dimensions.

At 80 pages long, Edwin A. Abbott didn’t give himself much room to write this slightly scientific novella.  Indeed, he spends the first 40 or so pages explaining how life in Flatland works, them being only able to see straight lines of varying brightness. The main character, a square, then goes on to explain his dreams of lineland, a one dimensional kingdom, his brief journey into three dimensional space land and also a fleeting encounter with pointland, a no dimensional spot.

Throughout the book, whether a comment on society at the time or not, the square in the story expresses explicit understanding of societal classes. Isosceles triangles measured by the size of their angle, polygons ascending the classes as their sides grow more numerous, being born into an unchangeable class and the inferiority of women, who are merely straight lines in flatland. These are core concepts in the book and many of the explanations build upon this information as the square is constantly referring back to superior circles and inferior women.

Edwin Abbott

The main concept conveyed in this book though is understanding of dimensions and the possibility of more. After flatland, the first dimension we visit if lineland. The king of lineland is completely ignorant to anything outside moving back and forth and is mesmerised by the square’s ability to move in and out of lineland, yet he refuses to believe the square’s explanation for his ability. The square is then introduced into spaceland, first by a description from a sphere, then by being taken out of his 2D plane. At first, however, the square did not believe in the existence of three dimensions and denied it with great passion, just as the king of lineland denied two dimensions existed. Through his interactions with a three dimensional sphere, the square raises the question of more dimensions, possibly four or five, or even six or seven. The sphere denies any more than three exist, just as the square and king of lineland denied extra dimensions. This is perhaps the most profound idea in the entire book of Flatland, that we ourselves may be ignorant of a fourth or even fifth dimension of space. Even though it takes about 40 pages to express this idea, it is well worth the read as the story elements and appreciable characters make it much more insightful than a plain old scientific theory.

The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins- How

Faced with this question: How does the God delusion make the abstract concrete? Make the mind boggling understandable? Make the distant / impersonal personal? The ordinary extraordinary?

I wrote the following:

Richard Dawkins is a highly controversial atheist author who really doesn’t like religion. One of his most famous books, published in 2006, is The God Delusion. In this book he argues the idea of a personal God who created the Universe and interferes with people’s lives is delusional. He categorises all traditional gods into this one label; Hindu gods, Egyptian gods, Islamic, Jewish, Christian.

In The God Delusion Richard Dawkins presents the idea that the wonders of life and the universe were not created by a supernatural power. Although the book could be considered highly offensive, Richard Dawkins has obviously put a lot thought into his points and does his best to present a case in the hope of enlightening people.

As the whole concept of his book is theoretical, I think he has tried to fill it with lots of interesting stories and events to keep readers interested. Along with thought experiments to prove his points he also uses personal anecdotes, news stories and events; sometimes to prove a separate point or sometimes in conjunction with a theoretical concept.

These are stories that hold some sort of relevance to his point and provide evidence for his arguments. I see Dawkins’ use of stories, which we may recall happening or even personally relate to, as the main way he tries to make his thesis more understandable and relevant to our everyday lives. For example, he uses a story about his wife that we can probably all relate to. When she was a child, she hated her school but never told her parents. As an adult, she told them this and when asked why she did not tell them she simply said “but I didn’t know I could”. He translates this experience into religion and children feeling they don’t have a choice, or that they ‘just are’ apart of one.

Although they work well, I think he goes a bit too far with the anecdotes sometimes. Sometimes Dawkins’ points get lost in between the stories. In the introduction I found that the explanation of what the book is about was scattered through the whole chapter in between stories and descriptions of events. Some of the stories are also a bit informal, such as personal anecdotes about his wife’s childhood that he easily could have fabricated. He does present a good argument for his cause otherwise, though, and his effort is evident in his writing.

Cosmic Dreaming- Colin Legg

This image was taken by Colin Legg. It is roughly a square.

Imagine a desert, completely flat with only a few large pebbles to disrupt the flatness. A vast flat desert made of dark red-slightly greyish sand. It’s very late in the afternoon and there is a man, he is lying down flat with his knees bent and his hands under his head. His head is resting on a backpack. His shadow is about twice his length stretching along the dark red sand to the left. He is a small part of the picture but very centrally placed on the ground.

The horizon is only a fifth of the way up the photograph. Resting on the horizon is a large hill; it’s a bit redder than the ground and covered in what looks like many small bushes. It forms a flat triangle and stretches up a bit more than another fifth of the image. It is placed centrally, however its width is only about three quarters of the photograph. The left side of the hill is quite straight and comes to a rounded top, the right side is slightly longer and has a gentle dip in it half way up.

The horizon is a pale yellow colour but quickly fades to blue half way up the hill. The blue is also a bit pale, but only a little bit, and it is covered in hundreds of stars. Hundreds upon hundreds of stars. The thick milky way is visible running down the sky just left of the hilltop. There are two parallel shooting stars just above the hilltop also. The sky and the land are both very bright, too bright for each other.

Here is the image: http://www.iceinspace.com.au/scripts/calendar-competition/voting.2014/nightscape2/58-web.jpg

And the page it’s from: http://www.iceinspace.com.au/index.php?id=73,733,1,0,1,0

The Science Delusion- 4c’s

The Science Delusion by Rupert Sheldrake.

What connections can you make between the text and your own life and learning?

What ideas, positions or assumptions do you want to challenge or ague with in the text?

What key concepts or ideas do you think are important and worth holding on to from the text?

What changes in attitudes, thinking or action are suggested by the text?

CONNECTIONS

I read only the introduction and first chapter. Rupert Sheldrake discussed how we should not take everything as truth, even if it is a widely accepted fact. I think most people have been told this before but I believe he intended us to not criticise ideas but ponder them instead. This was an expansion on what I previously thought.

CHALLENGE

When I read it, I didn’t like the idea that most scientists uncritically accept what he calls the ten dogmas. I think most people, especially scientific people, like to make their mind up on things after they have gathered facts about it. Maybe the idea that nature is mechanical seems logical to lots of people, even though they can’t describe it properly.

CONCEPTS

I think a good concept from chapter 1 is that ideas like mechanism are only theories and that other theories like vitalism are often just as valid. Some things may be facts but we should not start treating ideas that seem good like facts.

CHANGES

I think he wants us to stop accepting ideas as facts and to not swing to the other extreme of criticising everything, but to find the middle and ponder ideas and the facts behind them more.