The collapse of chaos

The final third of the book also fall a little flat, IMHO. The authors' grand insights seem trivial and unoriginal. One idea in particular seems to be 'borrowed' without acknowledgement from Douglas Hofstadter's amazing "Godel, Escher, Bach" : that a message and its context are inseparable (remember the dialogues with records and record players ?) I came away feeling distinctly un-enlightened.

One aspect that really annoyed me is the use of the awful hybrid words "simplexity" and "complicity", used to describe two quite different concepts. Every time they're used, the reader is left struggling to remember which word is which. I wish the authors had aimed for clarity, rather than playing silly word-games.

And finally, I have to mention the appalling design of the UK edition of this book. The type is far too small, and the cover (white text on bright yellow) is unreadable. There's a quote on the cover from Terry Pratchett, and his name is so prominent it honestly looks as though HE wrote the book. It is possibly the worst jacket design I've ever seen.

I really admired Ian Stewart's earlier books, but my advice is to avoid this one.

TO prove their point, the authors embark on a dazzling tour of biology, chemistry and physics. But something is missing say the authors. What we know, they claim, are tiny islands in a sea of ignorance; it is self limiting as the larger questions get neglected. It is the causes of simplicity, they say - the order that suddenly emerges - that researchers should explore.

So, they conclude, it is time for a new set of questions. Unfortunately, just when we expect something new, it is here that the book gets a bit vague, with the authors falling back on anecdotes and speculation. They try to coin a new vocabulary ("simplexity" for the old and "complicity" for theirs); offer some diagrams of what they want, including an odd picture of mixing smoke with a unicorn head; and they harp on strange and abrupt conclusions, such as the importance of squid fat to the evolution of the human brain. But they do not offer a coherent new paradigm.

An uneven effort, but fun and very funny at times.

The first half of the book is a quick romp through 'conventional' science, as they would have it, which is ok, but marred by the regular snidey asides at science and scientists. I think they are supposed to be jokey, but in fact it justs put your back up.

A lot of the science described is baldly stated and therefore not terribly interesting to read, especially as you know they are about to 'debunk' it. This is unlike Bill Bryson's 'Short History of Everthing', for example, which is a far more detailed and enjoyable overview of Science's achievements thus far. I would recommend Mr Bryson's book in place of this first half of the 'Collapse of Chaos'.

And then the 2nd half is indeed muddled and confusing. We certainly get the impression that they think 'reductionism' is limited, but they don't half have trouble trying to explain why. They seem unable to explain their ideas without a myriad of odd analogies to 'prove their point', which do more to obfuscate than clarify. Talking endlessly around a subject is no substitute for a clear point rationally argued.

For a more rigourous and intellectually stimulating discussion of how consciousness can arise from simple rules, and whether a conscious being can ever 'know' itself, Hofstadter's 'Godel, Escher, Bach' is still lightyears ahead.

There is much in science that is asserted without there being real evidence, and many theories which are accepted by science as proven when there are fundamental questions still remaining. If you have read "The Selfish Gene", and despite the brilliance and persuasiveness of the arguments still feel (as I do) that something is wrong you will like this book.

If you like to think, to be intellectually challenged and stimulated, to explore ideas, or to look at science in different ways than the conventional, I don't think you will be disappointed with this book.

In fact the first half of the book is a guided tour of biology, chemisty and physics. Covering how these great sciences got where they are today, from Newton to Darwin, DNA to the lattice structure of diamonds.

The second half then presents a new way to look at science. Rather then delving inside something to find underlying rules, we should view things in context.

For example, traditionally the law of gravity is seen as the underlying principle that explains planetary motion. Cohen and Stewart argue that it is just a rule (of thumb?) that fits the facts, and that there is no LAW of gravity, no grand design. Gravity is just the way it is, and our 'Law' of gravity suits our needs.

It seems a subtle distinction, but on reading this book it is quite an important one, and it has certainly given me a different view of the world.

Very intelligent and always interesting, this book is written for the layman and is always at pains to explains matters thoroughly and use every possible analogy to help get ideas across.

This book is worth twice the money for the first half alone - a perfect primer for those interested in science, but who dont want to get technical.

Cohen and Stewart are high level experts in their respective fields, and yet they write simply and lucidly, resulting in a desire to read further.

I certainly did like Dawkins' "The selfish gene", but, somehow I had difficulty believing that something that fundamental as our evolution could be explained by the selfishness of (rather complex) molecules that act as selfish replicators.

Cohen (a molecular biologist) and Stewart (a mathematician) take another approach. By looking at most contemporary science, and its history, ranging from Newton to Einstein to Darwin and Dawkins they describe in the first part of their book the reductionalist approach to explaining the world. In the second part they take the reverse approach, looking at the same 'features' (their word) from a more 'holistic' view point (although they rightly object to the word 'holistic').

They point out, in a way, where both approached flaw. It is, essentially, about explaining not why the world is so complicated and complex, but more why, on earth!, does it display so many simplicities? A fascinating approach that was new to me when I read it. Cohen and Stewart introdue two new concepts: simplexity and complicity to approach this, both looking through a different 'funnel' to the same features.

Their book is challenging and also very witty, with as a 'case study' a nice alien case study from the planet Zarathustra.

After having read this book I have adjusted the way I looked at the world. Therefore I also bought their latest book 'Figments of Reality' (Sep 1999). I have high hopes.

In fact the first half of the book is a guided tour of biology, chemisty and physics. Covering how these great sciences got where they are today, from Newton to Darwin, DNA to the lattice structure of diamonds.

The second half then presents a new way to look at science. Rather then delving inside something to find underlying rules, we should view things in context.

For example, traditionally the law of gravity is seen as the underlying principle that explains planetary motion. Cohen and Stewart argue that it is just a rule (of thumb?) that fits the facts, and that there is no LAW of gravity.

It seems a subtle distinction, but on reading this book it is quite an important one, and it has certainly given me a different view of the world.

Very intelligent and always interesting, this book is written for the layman and is always at pains to explains matters thoroughly and use every possible analogy to help get ideas across.

This book is worth twice the money for the first half alone - a perfect primer for those interested in science, but who dont want to get technical.

Cohen and Stewart are high level experts in their respective fields, and yet they write simply and lucidly, resulting in a desire to read further.