Jacques Monod

Chance and Necessity

The philosophy of biology is a fast moving subject, as new biological discoveries are coming thick and fast. Hence even a classic like Jacques Monod's 'Chance and Necessity' looks pretty dated after 35 years. But sometimes it's good to go back to see what the important issues were at an earlier time. The book requires a little knowledge of biology, but anyone who has read a few popular science books should have no problem with this one. It's a short book, but a wide range of topics are discussed - vitalism, the second law of thermodynamics and the philosophy of mind are just a few. The reader can also see the beginnings of the idea of the electronic computer as a metaphor for biological processes.

Monod contrasts the scientific view with earlier pre-scientific ideas. Previously the purpose of life was clear but the knowledge of how it worked was pretty vague. Now the detail of the working of living things is becoming more and more precise (Necessity), but the sense of purpose seems to be receding (Chance). A recipe for despair? Monod's answer is that we do have to invent our own sense of purpose, but the scientific worldview and the quest for knowledge give us an obvious choice.

Amazon.com info

Mass Market Paperback 199 pages
ISBN: 0394718259
Salesrank: 170260

Published: 1972 Vintage

Marketplace::Used from $14.94

Buy from Amazon.com

Amazon.co.uk info

Hardcover 192 pages
ISBN: 0002151189
Salesrank: 1137412
Weight:1.74 lbs

Published: 1972 Collins

Marketplace::Used from £4.00

Buy from Amazon.co.uk

Amazon.ca info

Mass Market Paperback 199 pages
ISBN: 0394718259
Salesrank: 615900

Published: 1972 Vintage

Marketplace::Used from CDN$ 65.82

Buy from Amazon.ca

Does not really prove anything **
This book is a strange hybrid. Although Monod refers to it as an "essay", it lacks the continuity of ideas that characterize what we think of as "essay structure". This is partly due to its origin as a series of lectures, and partly due to his attempt to deliver more than he is capable of. When he speaks as a biologist, Monod's thinking and power to communicate are very impressive. He summarizes many of the major findings of molecular biology (up to 1970) brilliantly and in a remarkably short space. Very humbly, he does not even mention his own eminent role in elucidating these principles. However, Monod the philosopher is another matter. In these sections his explanations have a more bombastic sound, his language and his sentence structure are more pretentious, as if he is trying to convince the reader that he really knows what he is talking about. This is also obvious when he speaks of the crucial question of the origin of life. It is astonishing that so many reviewers claim Monod has succeeded in showing that life and intelligence have arisen by chance. It is true that he claims to be able to do this, but his failure is shown by the uncertainty that overshadows the whole work, and particularly this section, with an abundance of uncertainties such as: * "Three presumptive stages..." * "While uncertainty remains, and will doubtless continue, as to the paths actually followed by prebiotic chemical evolution..." * "Remarkably enough, under certain altogether plausible sets of conditions..." * "And so it may be considered as proved that at a certain moment in the earth's history certain bodies of water could have contained... * "In the laboratory, under `plausible' conditions, some polypeptides and polynucleotides similar in general structure to `modern' macronucleotides might have actually been obtained." * "But the decisive step from the first stage to the second has yet to be taken..." * "...we have no idea what the structure of a primitive cell might have been." * "This difficulty does not seem insurmountable." * "Still, one would like at least to try to suggest a plausible hypothesis..." * "But the major problem is the origin of the genetic code and of its translation mechanism. Indeed, it is not so much a `problem' as a veritable enigma." * "It is exceedingly difficult to imagine..." * "Here speculation must take over, and many very ingenious ideas have been put forward: the field is only too open." While it is commendable that Monod has the honesty to admit when his claims are lacking in evidence, it is also clear that his "proofs" are, virtually from start to finish, mere speculations. The other disturbing fact is his inconsistency. He repeatedly claims that the great virtue of science is its objectivity, but he refuses to be objective. He is so determined to push a materialistic philosophy that he will not even consider the alternatives. Instead of tyring to rebut opposing points of view, he takes refuge in his own arbitrary definitions, such as the word "animism", by which he combines everything from primitive nature worship to modern Christianity to Marxism! Of course it is easy to disparage such a broadly defined group. Throughout most of the book, Monod gives the impression that it is leading to some sort of conclusive justification of his exaltation of the power of chance, but it never happens. Instead, in the last chapter, he changes topics and ends with a rousing call for trust in science as the arbiter of all truth and values. Apparently his stated aim was just too difficult.

Does not really prove anything **

This book is a strange hybrid. Although Monod refers to it as an "essay", it lacks the continuity of ideas that characterize what we think of as "essay structure". This is partly due to its origin as a series of lectures, and partly due to his attempt to deliver more than he is capable of.

When he speaks as a biologist, Monod's thinking and power to communicate are very impressive. He summarizes many of the major findings of molecular biology (up to 1970) brilliantly and in a remarkably short space. Very humbly, he does not even mention his own eminent role in elucidating these principles.

However, Monod the philosopher is another matter. In these sections his explanations have a more bombastic sound, his language and his sentence structure are more pretentious, as if he is trying to convince the reader that he really knows what he is talking about.

This is also obvious when he speaks of the crucial question of the origin of life. It is astonishing that so many reviewers claim Monod has succeeded in showing that life and intelligence have arisen by chance. It is true that he claims to be able to do this, but his failure is shown by the uncertainty that overshadows the whole work, and particularly this section, with an abundance of uncertainties such as:

* "Three presumptive stages..."
* "While uncertainty remains, and will doubtless continue, as to the paths actually followed by prebiotic chemical evolution..."
* "Remarkably enough, under certain altogether plausible sets of conditions..."
* "And so it may be considered as proved that at a certain moment in the earth's history certain bodies of water could have contained...
* "In the laboratory, under `plausible' conditions, some polypeptides and polynucleotides similar in general structure to `modern' macronucleotides might have actually been obtained."
* "But the decisive step from the first stage to the second has yet to be taken..."
* "...we have no idea what the structure of a primitive cell might have been."
* "This difficulty does not seem insurmountable."
* "Still, one would like at least to try to suggest a plausible hypothesis..."
* "But the major problem is the origin of the genetic code and of its translation mechanism. Indeed, it is not so much a `problem' as a veritable enigma."
* "It is exceedingly difficult to imagine..."
* "Here speculation must take over, and many very ingenious ideas have been put forward: the field is only too open."

While it is commendable that Monod has the honesty to admit when his claims are lacking in evidence, it is also clear that his "proofs" are, virtually from start to finish, mere speculations.

The other disturbing fact is his inconsistency. He repeatedly claims that the great virtue of science is its objectivity, but he refuses to be objective. He is so determined to push a materialistic philosophy that he will not even consider the alternatives. Instead of tyring to rebut opposing points of view, he takes refuge in his own arbitrary definitions, such as the word "animism", by which he combines everything from primitive nature worship to modern Christianity to Marxism! Of course it is easy to disparage such a broadly defined group.

Throughout most of the book, Monod gives the impression that it is leading to some sort of conclusive justification of his exaltation of the power of chance, but it never happens. Instead, in the last chapter, he changes topics and ends with a rousing call for trust in science as the arbiter of all truth and values. Apparently his stated aim was just too difficult.

Teleonomy *****
Life has purpose and direction. How a thing of such perfection as an eye could have arisen of its own in a directionless universe (or even one which favors the dispersion of order) will require an entirely new discipline to explain, a physics of biology. The results in this field are tremendously exciting, and Monod's is among the most exciting books to be read. Read his chapter on Maxwell's Demons before beginning the study of bacteria movement or ATP transfer. Incidentally, please don't adopt Monod's use of language without a firm grasp of the nature behind it.

Teleonomy *****

Life has purpose and direction. How a thing of such perfection as an eye could have arisen of its own in a directionless universe (or even one which favors the dispersion of order) will require an entirely new discipline to explain, a physics of biology. The results in this field are tremendously exciting, and Monod's is among the most exciting books to be read. Read his chapter on Maxwell's Demons before beginning the study of bacteria movement or ATP transfer. Incidentally, please don't adopt Monod's use of language without a firm grasp of the nature behind it.

The philosophy of biology *****
Jacques Monod, the Nobel Prize winning biochemist, allies himself, in the title of this admirable treatise, to the atomist Democritus, who held that the whole universe is but the fruit of two qualities, chance and necessity. Interpreting the laws of natural selection along purely naturalistic lines, he succeeds in presenting a powerful case that takes into account the ethical, political and philosophical undercurrents of the synthesis in modern biology. Above all, he stresses that science must commit itself to the postulate of objectivity by casting aside delusive ideological and moral props, even though he enjoins, at the same time, that the postulate of objectivity itself is a moral injunction. He launches a bitter polemic against metaphysical and scientific vitalisms, dismissing them as obscurantist, as well as the animist projection in history and evolution, as represented by Teilhard de Chardin and, especially, the Marxist doctrine of dialectical materialism. He refutes teleological explanations of nature as being contrary to the postulate of objectivity, drawing attention to self-constructing proteins as teleonomic agents, followed by an explanation of the role of nucleic acids, reproduction and invariance. This leads him to dismiss Judaeo-Christian religiosity, which accords man a significant role as being created in God's image, as a nauseating and false pietism and he even goes so far as to recommend eugenic reform. Writing with great clarity and flair, and often in a forceful and idiosyncratic idiom, he puts forward a compelling case, though some knowledge of modern biology is presumed on the part of the reader. He also offers, in a truly philosophical fashion, fascinating insights and speculations on broader issues such as language, perception, the origin and nature of existence, as they are framed within his system. Generally, however, some experts and readers will contest some of his claims, such as his regarding proteins as primary, contrary to the common assumption that proteins are merely secondary to the genome. Nevertheless, a challenging, sophisticated and pugnacious treatise, which excels the work of the better-known biological writers in the English-speaking world, such as Dawkins and Gould.

The philosophy of biology *****

Jacques Monod, the Nobel Prize winning biochemist, allies himself, in the title of this admirable treatise, to the atomist Democritus, who held that the whole universe is but the fruit of two qualities, chance and necessity. Interpreting the laws of natural selection along purely naturalistic lines, he succeeds in presenting a powerful case that takes into account the ethical, political and philosophical undercurrents of the synthesis in modern biology. Above all, he stresses that science must commit itself to the postulate of objectivity by casting aside delusive ideological and moral props, even though he enjoins, at the same time, that the postulate of objectivity itself is a moral injunction. He launches a bitter polemic against metaphysical and scientific vitalisms, dismissing them as obscurantist, as well as the animist projection in history and evolution, as represented by Teilhard de Chardin and, especially, the Marxist doctrine of dialectical materialism. He refutes teleological explanations of nature as being contrary to the postulate of objectivity, drawing attention to self-constructing proteins as teleonomic agents, followed by an explanation of the role of nucleic acids, reproduction and invariance. This leads him to dismiss Judaeo-Christian religiosity, which accords man a significant role as being created in God's image, as a nauseating and false pietism and he even goes so far as to recommend eugenic reform. Writing with great clarity and flair, and often in a forceful and idiosyncratic idiom, he puts forward a compelling case, though some knowledge of modern biology is presumed on the part of the reader. He also offers, in a truly philosophical fashion, fascinating insights and speculations on broader issues such as language, perception, the origin and nature of existence, as they are framed within his system. Generally, however, some experts and readers will contest some of his claims, such as his regarding proteins as primary, contrary to the common assumption that proteins are merely secondary to the genome. Nevertheless, a challenging, sophisticated and pugnacious treatise, which excels the work of the better-known biological writers in the English-speaking world, such as Dawkins and Gould.

Amazing clarity and intelligence *****
A powerfully convincing demonstration of what we probably are and a probable key to why we behave the way we do. A seminal book, easy to read. Goes much farther than The Egostical Gene. Will definitely change the way you think about humankind.

Amazing clarity and intelligence *****

A powerfully convincing demonstration of what we probably are and a probable key to why we behave the way we do. A seminal book, easy to read. Goes much farther than The Egostical Gene. Will definitely change the way you think about humankind.

It is time to accept the truth! *****
Denying reality never has helped mankind's progress. So instead on complaining about reality one ought to read this book, best combined with "The blind watchmaker" written by Richard Dawkins, and accept reality, even though it might be painful: No "god" ever has "created" man (btw: who would have "created" the "creator" then?) but man developped through billions of years of evolution. It may hurt, but face it!

It is time to accept the truth! *****

Denying reality never has helped mankind's progress. So instead on complaining about reality one ought to read this book, best combined with "The blind watchmaker" written by Richard Dawkins, and accept reality, even though it might be painful: No "god" ever has "created" man (btw: who would have "created" the "creator" then?) but man developped through billions of years of evolution. It may hurt, but face it!

Not good *
I thought that this book showed how far people can go using words. If people think they evolved from cosmic dust rather than being perfectly designed, well let them speak for themselves. This book got one star cause it was short and there wasn't a lower mark.

Not good *

I thought that this book showed how far people can go using words. If people think they evolved from cosmic dust rather than being perfectly designed, well let them speak for themselves. This book got one star cause it was short and there wasn't a lower mark.

The Evolution of Life Explained *****
What Dawkins does for the evolution of complexity, Monod does for the very start of life. Creationists like to believe that life is too complex, too perfect to have begun by chance. Monod shows, in excruciating detail, exactly how they are wrong. Dead wrong. This is a landmark, crucial book.

The Evolution of Life Explained *****

What Dawkins does for the evolution of complexity, Monod does for the very start of life.

Creationists like to believe that life is too complex, too perfect to have begun by chance. Monod shows, in excruciating detail, exactly how they are wrong. Dead wrong.

This is a landmark, crucial book.

The biologists 'brief history of time' and comprehensible! *****
When it came out in 1970 this book caused a sensation. As well as explaining better for the general reader than ever before or since the revolutions in molecular biochemistry and genetics, Monod introduced the concepts that flowered into evolutionary socio-biology, Dawkins theory of memes,Dennett's and Ruse's philosophy of Darwinism and much more. One reads this short essay for enlightenment and stimulation; it is also shocking and crushing in its evaluation of the animisms(Monods word for religions) that have ruled human thought and behaviour. Although the conclusion is bleak and austere it is also exhilarating. Theists have attempted to respond, notably Mark Ward with 'God, Chance and Necessity' Even with 20 years to polish his arguments Ward loses lamentably in direct comparison to Monod's masterpiece of clear prose and devastating argument. Not a comfortable read but part of facing up to reality in the post religious era. A new edition with a forward by Maynard Smith has just come out in the UK.

The biologists 'brief history of time' and comprehensible! *****

When it came out in 1970 this book caused a sensation. As well as explaining better for the general reader than ever before or since the revolutions in molecular biochemistry and genetics, Monod introduced the concepts that flowered into evolutionary socio-biology, Dawkins theory of memes,Dennett's and Ruse's philosophy of Darwinism and much more. One reads this short essay for enlightenment and stimulation; it is also shocking and crushing in its evaluation of the animisms(Monods word for religions) that have ruled human thought and behaviour. Although the conclusion is bleak and austere it is also exhilarating. Theists have attempted to respond, notably Mark Ward with 'God, Chance and Necessity' Even with 20 years to polish his arguments Ward loses lamentably in direct comparison to Monod's masterpiece of clear prose and devastating argument. Not a comfortable read but part of facing up to reality in the post religious era. A new edition with a forward by Maynard Smith has just come out in the UK.