Reviews from Amazon

Reviews elsewhere on the web:

John Horgan

The end of science

Can science keep going on at an ever accelerating rate, or will the flow of new ideas dry up in the near future? Horgan asks plenty of well known scientists but doesn't listen to their answers - he's already decided in his own mind, in which science seems to be a form of post-modernist literary criticism. Science is called naïve when dealing with something which is well known, ironic when it's more speculative, so you can't win either way. There's not much here if you want a map of how science will progress in the coming decades, but the book is worth reading for the interviews with such a diverse range of scientists - Horgan manages to get them to answer some awkward questions without being thrown out of the door.

The book covers a wide range of subjects, starting with philosopy and moving through physics and cosmology to evolution, social science and neuroscience. In the later chapters on chaos and artificial intelligence there's more scope for Horgan's criticism of excessive speculation. There's also a chapter on the 1994 Santa Fe conference on the Limits to Scientific Knowledge. In the final chapter, in his responses to his critics, Horgan's arguments seem much more cogent than at the start of the book. Unfortunately the end of the book is reached before this new mode of reasoning makes much progress.

Amazon.com info

Paperback 322 pages
ISBN: 0553061747
Salesrank: 448169
Weight:0.7 lbs

Published: 1997 Broadway Books

Marketplace:New from $4.49:Used from $0.01

Buy from Amazon.com

Amazon.co.uk info

Hardcover 320 pages
ISBN: 0316640522
Salesrank: 1352269
Weight:1.23 lbs

Published: 1997 Little, Brown

Marketplace:New from £2.95:Used from £0.01

Buy from Amazon.co.uk

Amazon.ca info

Paperback 322 pages
ISBN: 0553061747
Salesrank: 283504
Weight:0.7 lbs

Published: 1997 Broadway

Marketplace:New from CDN$ 5.75:Used from CDN$ 0.01

Buy from Amazon.ca

Product Description
As staff writer for Scientific American, John Horgan has a window on contemporary science unsurpassed in all the world. Who else routinely interviews the likes of Lynn Margulis, Roger Penrose, Francis Crick, Richard Dawkins, Freeman Dyson, Murray Gell-Mann, Stephen Jay Gould, Stephen Hawking, Thomas Kuhn, Chris Langton, Karl Popper, Stephen Weinberg, and E.O. Wilson, with the freedom to probe their innermost thoughts?In The End Of Science, Horgan displays his genius for getting these larger-than-life figures to be simply human, and scientists, he writes, ”are rarely so human...so at ther mercy of their fears and desires, as when they are confronting the limits of knowledge.”This is the secret fear that Horgan pursues throughout this remarkable book: Have the big questions all been answered? Has all the knowledge worth pursuing become known? Will there be a final ”theory of everything” that signals the end? Is the age of great discoverers behind us? Is science today reduced to mere puzzle solving and adding detains to existing theories?Horgan extracts surprisingly candid answers to there and other delicate questions as he discusses God, Star Trek, superstrings, quarks, plectics, consciousness, Neural Darwinism, Marx’s view of progress, Kuhn’s view of revolutions, cellular automata, robots, and the Omega Point, with Fred Hoyle, Noam Chomsky, John Wheeler, Clifford Geertz, and dozens of other eminent scholars. The resulting narrative will both infuriate and delight as it mindles Horgan’s smart, contrarian argument for ”endism” with a witty, thoughtful, even profound overview of the entire scientific enterprise.Scientists have always set themselves apart from other scholars in the belief that they do not construct the truth, they discover it. Their work is not interpretation but simple revelation of what exists in the empirical universe. But science itself keeps imposing limits on its own power. Special relativity prohibits the transmission of matter or information as speeds faster than that of light; quantum mechanics dictates uncertainty; and chaos theory confirms the impossibility of complete prediction. Meanwhile, the very idea of scientific rationality is under fire from Neo-Luddites, animal-rights acitivists, religious fundamentalists, and New Agers alike.As Horgan makes clear, perhaps the greatest threat to science may come from losing its special place in the hierarchy of disciplines, being reduced to something more akin to literaty criticism as more and more theoreticians engage in the theory twiddling he calls ”ironic science.” Still, while Horgan offers his critique, grounded in the thinking of the world’s leading researchers, he offers homage too. If science is ending, he maintains, it is only because it has done its work so well.

Product Description

As staff writer for Scientific American, John Horgan has a window on contemporary science unsurpassed in all the world. Who else routinely interviews the likes of Lynn Margulis, Roger Penrose, Francis Crick, Richard Dawkins, Freeman Dyson, Murray Gell-Mann, Stephen Jay Gould, Stephen Hawking, Thomas Kuhn, Chris Langton, Karl Popper, Stephen Weinberg, and E.O. Wilson, with the freedom to probe their innermost thoughts?In The End Of Science, Horgan displays his genius for getting these larger-than-life figures to be simply human, and scientists, he writes, ”are rarely so human...so at ther mercy of their fears and desires, as when they are confronting the limits of knowledge.”This is the secret fear that Horgan pursues throughout this remarkable book: Have the big questions all been answered? Has all the knowledge worth pursuing become known? Will there be a final ”theory of everything” that signals the end? Is the age of great discoverers behind us? Is science today reduced to mere puzzle solving and adding detains to existing theories?Horgan extracts surprisingly candid answers to there and other delicate questions as he discusses God, Star Trek, superstrings, quarks, plectics, consciousness, Neural Darwinism, Marx’s view of progress, Kuhn’s view of revolutions, cellular automata, robots, and the Omega Point, with Fred Hoyle, Noam Chomsky, John Wheeler, Clifford Geertz, and dozens of other eminent scholars. The resulting narrative will both infuriate and delight as it mindles Horgan’s smart, contrarian argument for ”endism” with a witty, thoughtful, even profound overview of the entire scientific enterprise.Scientists have always set themselves apart from other scholars in the belief that they do not construct the truth, they discover it. Their work is not interpretation but simple revelation of what exists in the empirical universe. But science itself keeps imposing limits on its own power. Special relativity prohibits the transmission of matter or information as speeds faster than that of light; quantum mechanics dictates uncertainty; and chaos theory confirms the impossibility of complete prediction. Meanwhile, the very idea of scientific rationality is under fire from Neo-Luddites, animal-rights acitivists, religious fundamentalists, and New Agers alike.As Horgan makes clear, perhaps the greatest threat to science may come from losing its special place in the hierarchy of disciplines, being reduced to something more akin to literaty criticism as more and more theoreticians engage in the theory twiddling he calls ”ironic science.” Still, while Horgan offers his critique, grounded in the thinking of the world’s leading researchers, he offers homage too. If science is ending, he maintains, it is only because it has done its work so well.

Grand goal but flawed premises ***
Horgan's "The End of Science" is thought-provoking, engaging, and an interesting read. It is well-written in terms of prose, but as an argument it is rather weak. Initially, Horgan intended to write a more objective book that provide information from prominent thinkers in fields of philosophy, science, social science, theology, etc. so that the reader could make informed but unbiased judgment on their own on whether or not the suggestion as put forth by Gunther Stent in Stent's work "The Coming of the Golden Age" that the end of science might be close at hand. If that was the case than the book would be much more valuable and far more neutral and thus with less distorted reportage. However, as Horgan dive deeper and deeper into the well of diverging and conflicting sea of opinions of experts, he came to a conclusion of his own on the subject and ultimately found it only fitting that the book should be opinion (his) driven, rather than facts-and-views driven. Thus, every opinion and observation is skewed towards a favorable angle for advancing Horgan's own beliefs and assumptions. As a result, the reader is left to either agreeing with Horgan or disapproving him. This is science writing at its worse; the objectivity that is expected of blissful science writing has been compromised. Further, too much emphasis is put on non-science disciplines -- a great part, at least one-third, is on fields outside the domain of science. If the argument is to be more convincing, then more background in science is necessary, but not on philosophy, theology, and social science. Generally, there is a flow to the ideas, but the focus of each section can be off-focused sometimes. In some sections, there is the discussion surrounding only one thinker, but this number can greatly multiplied into more than three in some sections, which tends to lead the reader off-track and thus the weakness of exposition in some sections. The most ironic observation about the publication is that the author suggests the end of science with absolute conviction, while rebuffing many scholars of their "ironic" (obstinately held) views and opinioins. Many fundamental ideas are introduced in the book, which makes it useful for the beginning science student. It has been more than a decade since the title was first published, so a great portion of the book is out-dated. However, for the entertainment factor of the work, it is still worth reading it for some serious fun.

Grand goal but flawed premises ***

Horgan's "The End of Science" is thought-provoking, engaging, and an interesting read. It is well-written in terms of prose, but as an argument it is rather weak. Initially, Horgan intended to write a more objective book that provide information from prominent thinkers in fields of philosophy, science, social science, theology, etc. so that the reader could make informed but unbiased judgment on their own on whether or not the suggestion as put forth by Gunther Stent in Stent's work "The Coming of the Golden Age" that the end of science might be close at hand. If that was the case than the book would be much more valuable and far more neutral and thus with less distorted reportage. However, as Horgan dive deeper and deeper into the well of diverging and conflicting sea of opinions of experts, he came to a conclusion of his own on the subject and ultimately found it only fitting that the book should be opinion (his) driven, rather than facts-and-views driven. Thus, every opinion and observation is skewed towards a favorable angle for advancing Horgan's own beliefs and assumptions. As a result, the reader is left to either agreeing with Horgan or disapproving him. This is science writing at its worse; the objectivity that is expected of blissful science writing has been compromised. Further, too much emphasis is put on non-science disciplines -- a great part, at least one-third, is on fields outside the domain of science. If the argument is to be more convincing, then more background in science is necessary, but not on philosophy, theology, and social science. Generally, there is a flow to the ideas, but the focus of each section can be off-focused sometimes. In some sections, there is the discussion surrounding only one thinker, but this number can greatly multiplied into more than three in some sections, which tends to lead the reader off-track and thus the weakness of exposition in some sections. The most ironic observation about the publication is that the author suggests the end of science with absolute conviction, while rebuffing many scholars of their "ironic" (obstinately held) views and opinioins. Many fundamental ideas are introduced in the book, which makes it useful for the beginning science student. It has been more than a decade since the title was first published, so a great portion of the book is out-dated. However, for the entertainment factor of the work, it is still worth reading it for some serious fun.

Nothing new in the book - just a populistic book to make money *
How come that the author Horgan misses to refer to Derek J. De Solla Price - maybe the most important science historian? In his book "Little Science, Big Science", Columbia University Press (1963) De Solla Price already predicted and discussed a form of saturation of knowledge. I would recommend to read De Solla Price's books. Horgan's book is just a tabloid press book which doesn't explain anything and just ain't worth your time and money.

Nothing new in the book - just a populistic book to make money *

How come that the author Horgan misses to refer to Derek J. De Solla Price - maybe the most important science historian?
In his book "Little Science, Big Science", Columbia University Press (1963) De Solla Price already predicted and discussed a form of saturation of knowledge.
I would recommend to read De Solla Price's books.

Horgan's book is just a tabloid press book which doesn't explain anything and just ain't worth your time and money.

John Horgan is the Judas of Science: the enemy of fact *****
He pretty much knew that he was writing tripe. John Horgan mistakes his popularity and scientific political power for knowledge and wisdom. I suppose that ethics is dead as well, so that he is allowed to be this evil. By talking with all these great men he had a chance for real knowledge and instead he made verbal cartoons and ridiculed all their ideas. He would definitely be the lawyer for the devil if one could exist. I don't think we need to be Spartan about this fox eating our insides out: he probably deserves the fate of a Judas. At the end of the book he congratulates himself for his hatchet job on science and it's scientists. You will notice that like a good English major he hasn't included one equation: not even Rossler's that he probably didn't even copy down ( page 236). Rossler named what he had done: distortion. I think that maybe science deserves to be so served as it stands today.

John Horgan is the Judas of Science: the enemy of fact *****

He pretty much knew that he was writing tripe.
John Horgan mistakes his popularity and scientific political power for knowledge and wisdom.
I suppose that ethics is dead as well, so that he is allowed to be this evil.
By talking with all these great men he had a chance for real knowledge
and instead he made verbal cartoons and ridiculed all their ideas.
He would definitely be the lawyer for the devil if one could exist.
I don't think we need to be Spartan about this fox eating our insides out:
he probably deserves the fate of a Judas.
At the end of the book he congratulates himself for his hatchet job on science and it's scientists.
You will notice that like a good English major he hasn't included one equation:
not even Rossler's that he probably didn't even copy down ( page 236).
Rossler named what he had done: distortion.
I think that maybe science deserves to be so served
as it stands today.

Journalists are not scientists!!! *
"The End of Science" is a stupid book written by a stupid science fanboy journalist with a big case of envy for Francis Fukuyama's "The End of History and the Last Man." "The End of Science" is what happens when journalists spend so much time hanging out and fawning over scentists that they start believing they're scientists themselves.

Journalists are not scientists!!! *

"The End of Science" is a stupid book written by a stupid science fanboy journalist with a big case of envy for Francis Fukuyama's "The End of History and the Last Man." "The End of Science" is what happens when journalists spend so much time hanging out and fawning over scentists that they start believing they're scientists themselves.

Time is a good judge: this book was complete crap *
John Horgan is one of those intellectually challenged journalists who only want to write about big things because they are too proud to be interested in any particular "small" question that science tries to solve. So many of these journalists choose a truly big theory - namely that there is something seriously wrong with the scientific method and with science and that science may be ending. Of course, the scientists consider all such journalists and "thinkers" to be cranks, for a very good reason. The very existence of our civilization - something that distinguishes most of us from the monkeys - is based on certain general principles that also underlie science and these principles will never be given up unless the whole humankind is really doomed. Careful thinking that is as quantitative as possible and the elimination of ideas that have turned out not to be viable are two examples of such principles. John Horgan, is his attempt to earn his 15 minutes of fame - plus some bucks - has written this nasty book that not only offered a whole sequence of possible theories how science can finally be killed and how horrible science is. This book was also full of personal attacks against the scientists, their appearance, their voice, and all of their other superficial and unimportant characteristics. John Horgan was - and still is - just far too dumb to be able to look into the scientists' thoughts, the entities that make the scientists important. At least, he could analyze their "quirkiness" and write confusing stories about the scientists and aliens that have nothing to do with the essence of the research done by the actual scientists. Such crappy books have always found a lot of readers who eagerly buy them. However, the books have no lasting value. It's been almost 10 years since the book was released, and all of its predictions look even more absurd now than they looked 10 years ago. The science hasn't ended, Edward Witten is still the most respected physicist, and John Horgan is still just a despicable nobody. Also, this book is the 360,000th most successful book at amazon.com; compare with The Elegant Universe that has been among the top 1,000 books more or less for the whole time. Nevertheless, the big doomsayers and science-haters will never close their mouth. So they still flood the book market with many new crappy books that are very similar to Horgan's book - Troubles with Physics, Not Even Wrong, and various feminist diatribes against the male science - books that will surely share the fate of this nonsense written by Horgan. But before the time will speak, thousands of new stupid consumers will buy these books and they will say how terribly inspiring the content is.

Time is a good judge: this book was complete crap *

John Horgan is one of those intellectually challenged journalists who only want to write about big things because they are too proud to be interested in any particular "small" question that science tries to solve. So many of these journalists choose a truly big theory - namely that there is something seriously wrong with the scientific method and with science and that science may be ending.

Of course, the scientists consider all such journalists and "thinkers" to be cranks, for a very good reason. The very existence of our civilization - something that distinguishes most of us from the monkeys - is based on certain general principles that also underlie science and these principles will never be given up unless the whole humankind is really doomed.

Careful thinking that is as quantitative as possible and the elimination of ideas that have turned out not to be viable are two examples of such principles.

John Horgan, is his attempt to earn his 15 minutes of fame - plus some bucks - has written this nasty book that not only offered a whole sequence of possible theories how science can finally be killed and how horrible science is. This book was also full of personal attacks against the scientists, their appearance, their voice, and all of their other superficial and unimportant characteristics.

John Horgan was - and still is - just far too dumb to be able to look into the scientists' thoughts, the entities that make the scientists important. At least, he could analyze their "quirkiness" and write confusing stories about the scientists and aliens that have nothing to do with the essence of the research done by the actual scientists.

Such crappy books have always found a lot of readers who eagerly buy them. However, the books have no lasting value. It's been almost 10 years since the book was released, and all of its predictions look even more absurd now than they looked 10 years ago. The science hasn't ended, Edward Witten is still the most respected physicist, and John Horgan is still just a despicable nobody.

Also, this book is the 360,000th most successful book at amazon.com; compare with The Elegant Universe that has been among the top 1,000 books more or less for the whole time. Nevertheless, the big doomsayers and science-haters will never close their mouth. So they still flood the book market with many new crappy books that are very similar to Horgan's book - Troubles with Physics, Not Even Wrong, and various feminist diatribes against the male science - books that will surely share the fate of this nonsense written by Horgan. But before the time will speak, thousands of new stupid consumers will buy these books and they will say how terribly inspiring the content is.

After the end, then what? **
I would have preferred to have heard more from the scientists. Verbatim transcripts of Horgan's interviews with these major scientists would have been welcome - instead of descriptions by Horgan of the scientists' appearances and manners, and lots of paraphrasing of what they had to say. It is remarkable how many great scientists Horgan has had the opporunity to speak with in serious dialogue. No behaviorist is interviewed. Horgan says Nohm Chomky's book "Syntatic Structures" helped to "rout behaviorism once and for all..." Skinner's own book on language, "Verbal Behavior" didn't assume an innate and rather complete grammatical ability, but speculated how operant conditioning might help in explaining language acquisition. Chomsky reviewed that book...with a vicious attack. Skinner never replied and some saw that as a win for Chomsky. Years later Skinner revealed that when he began to read Chomsky's review, he felt it so serverely misunderstood what Skinner was doing that he never bothered to finish it or reply. Was behaviorism routed once and for all? In a March 2004 article, Roddy Roediger, president of the American Psychological Society and himself a cognitive psychologist, in the APS's Observer entitled "What Happened to Behaviorism", writes of Chomsky's review of Skinner that it is "rather effectively refuted in a commentary by Kenneth MacCorquodale". Roediger goes on in that article to note the ongoing contributions of behaviorism. Why couldn't "Syntactic Structures" help to rout behaviorism? The behaviorist William Baum says it plainly in his book "Understanding Behaviorism": "No matter how precise...a grammar tells us nothing about how and why people come to say the things they do. Once we recognize that speaking and writing are forms of operant behavior, we can begin to explain them." Horgan may also have avoided including a behaviorist among his interviewees because behaviorists, although very mindful of limits, are making constructive progress: they're not focusing on any end to their science. Behaviorism has proven effective in helping with autism. Skinner's own appeal in "Beyond Freedom and Dignity" suggested consideration of major ways of improving our social organizations. What if we've reached the "end of science"? There are still huge environment and social problems to be adressed, problems which I didn't see Horgan addressing. Instead, he devotes his epilogue to a mystical experience that led him to consider whether God is chewing his fingernails! Even if we've reached the end of science, there is much to do, so I'd suggest you instead read B.F. Skinner's "Beyond Freedom and Dignity". Behaviorism was hardly routed and, in learning how we can carry on in the difficult years ahead, you may well find Skinner a more constructive read than Horgan. Unless, like Horgan, you find the question of whether God chews his fingernails more engaging. I would hope Horgan would give Radical Behaviorism a second look and, if he remains opposed to it, state just how it is that he (Horgan) and not Chomsky understands Radical Behaviorism to have failed. P.S. I have learned that Horgan has a more recent book "Rational Mysticism" and other more recent writings. Although he is decidedly a science writer, at least his work since "End of Science" on mysticism impresses me a great deal for willingness to challenge authorities and general honesty. It may seem like an entirely different kind of thing than what he is dealing with in "The End of Science" but if mysticism [ and the problems with some forms of mysticism] intrigue you, I recommend Horgan for that.

After the end, then what? **

I would have preferred to have heard more from the scientists. Verbatim transcripts of Horgan's interviews with these major scientists would have been welcome - instead of descriptions by Horgan of the scientists' appearances and manners, and lots of paraphrasing of what they had to say. It is remarkable how many great scientists Horgan has had the opporunity to speak with in serious dialogue.

No behaviorist is interviewed. Horgan says Nohm Chomky's book "Syntatic Structures" helped to "rout behaviorism once and for all..." Skinner's own book on language, "Verbal Behavior" didn't assume an innate and rather complete grammatical ability, but speculated how operant conditioning might help in explaining language acquisition. Chomsky reviewed that book...with a vicious attack. Skinner never replied and some saw that as a win for Chomsky. Years later Skinner revealed that when he began to read Chomsky's review, he felt it so serverely misunderstood what Skinner was doing that he never bothered to finish it or reply.

Was behaviorism routed once and for all? In a March 2004 article, Roddy Roediger, president of the American Psychological Society and himself a cognitive psychologist, in the APS's Observer entitled "What Happened to Behaviorism", writes of Chomsky's review of Skinner that it is "rather effectively refuted in a commentary by Kenneth MacCorquodale". Roediger goes on in that article to note the ongoing contributions of behaviorism.

Why couldn't "Syntactic Structures" help to rout behaviorism? The behaviorist William Baum says it plainly in his book "Understanding Behaviorism": "No matter how precise...a grammar tells us nothing about how and why people come to say the things they do. Once we recognize that speaking and writing are forms of operant behavior, we can begin to explain them."

Horgan may also have avoided including a behaviorist among his interviewees because behaviorists, although very mindful of limits, are making constructive progress: they're not focusing on any end to their science. Behaviorism has proven effective in helping with autism. Skinner's own appeal in "Beyond Freedom and Dignity" suggested consideration of major ways of improving our social organizations.

What if we've reached the "end of science"? There are still huge environment and social problems to be adressed, problems which I didn't see Horgan addressing. Instead, he devotes his epilogue to a mystical experience that led him to consider whether God is chewing his fingernails! Even if we've reached the end of science, there is much to do, so I'd suggest you instead read B.F. Skinner's "Beyond Freedom and Dignity". Behaviorism was hardly routed and, in learning how we can carry on in the difficult years ahead, you may well find Skinner a more constructive read than Horgan. Unless, like Horgan, you find the question of whether God chews his fingernails more engaging.

I would hope Horgan would give Radical Behaviorism a second look and, if he remains opposed to it, state just how it is that he (Horgan) and not Chomsky understands Radical Behaviorism to have failed.

P.S. I have learned that Horgan has a more recent book "Rational Mysticism" and other more recent writings. Although he is decidedly a science writer, at least his work since "End of Science" on mysticism impresses me a great deal for willingness to challenge authorities and general honesty. It may seem like an entirely different kind of thing than what he is dealing with in "The End of Science" but if mysticism [ and the problems with some forms of mysticism] intrigue you, I recommend Horgan for that.

disturbing *
Horgan obviously belongs with those blind "visionaries" who proclaimed the end of science at the end of the 19th century - pure hogwash!

disturbing *

Horgan obviously belongs with those blind "visionaries" who proclaimed the end of science at the end of the 19th century - pure hogwash!

Dreams of a final arbiter? ***
There's much to learn from this book. Horgan's Grand Tour of scientists' homes, their laboratories and conferences, including personal histories and researchers' theories is comprehensive. You will learn ideas in physics, cosmology, neuroscience, evolutionary biology - in short, nearly every aspect of basic science comes under his scrutiny and assessment. A wide-ranging book in time and topics, it is almost possible to read it selectively. Major personalities in every field have their work, publications and personalities examined, revealed and commented on. In short, Horgan takes an Olympian stance on nearly all science. As much as he tries to teach us, you come away with only one conclusion. John Horgan is the sole arbiter of the worth of science being undertaken today. And science, as an enterprise, is through - in his eyes. Horgan's theme is that empirical research has achieved its limits. Particle physics is delving so deeply into the atom that evidence can no longer be discerned, only inferred. Biology has no grand pronouncements pending about life. Even cognitive science, perhaps one of the fastest growing areas of research, foresees no "breakthrough". All future science, he contends, will be but picking out niggling details that reinforce the great conceptions of Copernicus, Darwin and Einstein. Science, he argues, has gone from empirical to "ironic". It is no longer grandiose, but petty and "not converging on the truth". Horgan struggles to bring lofty scientific figures into your lounge room. He visits Karl Popper, Richard Dawkins, Francis Crick and countless [but not nameless] others. Dress and grooming are carefully scrutinised. I lost track of the number of "khaki pants" his victims wore. And make no mistake, Horgan's approach is firmly predatory. Behaviour traits - chin rubbing, stair skipping, prolonged silences - are entertaining and sometimes informative. But it's clear that Horgan relates them only in attempting to erode whatever status these figures have achieved. His quest is simplistic and focussed - to each subject he posits The Question: "Do you have The Answer?". "The Answer" is a "final theory". The advances made by particle physics and cosmology during the last century suggested a unifying formula might tie the universe together. Realisation of the concept has brought physicists deeper into the atom in search of evidence. These depths have proven beyond our perception, says Horgan, and the cost of further penetration is too high for the public to bear. Besides, the quest may be futile. There's no indication that a Final Theory would emerge from such probing, Horgan argues. The Final Theory has implications in the other direction. Can quantum physics explain the mechanisms of the mind? Is the scope of human conception so great that it can someday interact with the mythical Creator? Horgan challenges philosophers and neuroscientists to show their work is leading to new, more fundamental, understanding. His approach is sly and disarming. While he contends science is no long searching for the truth, he really means they're not divulging The Truth, a term scorned by nearly all scientists. The distinction is important, almost overwhelmingly so in this book. Horgan, it turns out, isn't really interested in the status of science. His real quest is for personal certainty. It's a valid quest, but hardly worth the price of demolishing so many scholars. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]

Dreams of a final arbiter? ***

There's much to learn from this book. Horgan's Grand Tour of scientists' homes, their laboratories and conferences, including personal histories and researchers' theories is comprehensive. You will learn ideas in physics, cosmology, neuroscience, evolutionary biology - in short, nearly every aspect of basic science comes under his scrutiny and assessment. A wide-ranging book in time and topics, it is almost possible to read it selectively. Major personalities in every field have their work, publications and personalities examined, revealed and commented on. In short, Horgan takes an Olympian stance on nearly all science.

As much as he tries to teach us, you come away with only one conclusion. John Horgan is the sole arbiter of the worth of science being undertaken today. And science, as an enterprise, is through - in his eyes. Horgan's theme is that empirical research has achieved its limits. Particle physics is delving so deeply into the atom that evidence can no longer be discerned, only inferred. Biology has no grand pronouncements pending about life. Even cognitive science, perhaps one of the fastest growing areas of research, foresees no "breakthrough". All future science, he contends, will be but picking out niggling details that reinforce the great conceptions of Copernicus, Darwin and Einstein. Science, he argues, has gone from empirical to "ironic". It is no longer grandiose, but petty and "not converging on the truth".

Horgan struggles to bring lofty scientific figures into your lounge room. He visits Karl Popper, Richard Dawkins, Francis Crick and countless [but not nameless] others. Dress and grooming are carefully scrutinised. I lost track of the number of "khaki pants" his victims wore. And make no mistake, Horgan's approach is firmly predatory. Behaviour traits - chin rubbing, stair skipping, prolonged silences - are entertaining and sometimes informative. But it's clear that Horgan relates them only in attempting to erode whatever status these figures have achieved. His quest is simplistic and focussed - to each subject he posits The Question: "Do you have The Answer?".

"The Answer" is a "final theory". The advances made by particle physics and cosmology during the last century suggested a unifying formula might tie the universe together. Realisation of the concept has brought physicists deeper into the atom in search of evidence. These depths have proven beyond our perception, says Horgan, and the cost of further penetration is too high for the public to bear. Besides, the quest may be futile. There's no indication that a Final Theory would emerge from such probing, Horgan argues.

The Final Theory has implications in the other direction. Can quantum physics explain the mechanisms of the mind? Is the scope of human conception so great that it can someday interact with the mythical Creator? Horgan challenges philosophers and neuroscientists to show their work is leading to new, more fundamental, understanding. His approach is sly and disarming. While he contends science is no long searching for the truth, he really means they're not divulging The Truth, a term scorned by nearly all scientists. The distinction is important, almost overwhelmingly so in this book. Horgan, it turns out, isn't really interested in the status of science. His real quest is for personal certainty. It's a valid quest, but hardly worth the price of demolishing so many scholars. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]

But sadly, prose doesn't prove... **
In the first page of first chapter the author tells about a meeting which he says had a "provocative but misleading title, 'The End of Science?'" This is more or less my feeling about this book. I will criticize the book on three grounds: misleading title, omniscient presumptions and pretentious prose. First of all, this book doesn't come with any ideas or synthesis and doesn't even try to. The author somehow knows all along that the science has finished and with the logic of a TV advertisement he keeps repeating it probably hoping that all this chanting will make us really believe so. What is funnier, I guess he is content that he made his point and proved it clearly, because in the second half of the book end of science is almost unspoken. We are left with a carnival of leading scientists who tell us about their ideas and who each time eventually meet the big question: "Is the end of science near?" Like a witch-hunt, the poor scientists (which in fact are great minds) are left with two options: They say "Yes" and they are saved, the author is happy that someone agrees his point; or they say "No", and they are instantly blamed with wishful thinking, or too scared to admit when they attain the Truth they'll have nothing to seek... At points in the book, I have thought that I was reading a Holy Book of some sort, not because of the content but because of the high voice of the author. The author knows it all and he is not shy to give you some revelations as well. Whatever the subject is, robotics, quantum theory, consciousness, omega point, chaos, he listens to the experts with great ease, if he cannot understand them (he says) it's because they actually are hiding their stupidity behind obscurity. Then again with great ease he wraps up the subject in a few lyrical sentences and he tells us where these people were right and wrong, and what they should do. This is too much. The prosaic prose is unbearable. We are here to read about 'end of science', if not that 'science', who cares about the color of the pants and name of the wife of the guy he interviews? But I must congratulate the author, he really found an algorithmic way of writing a book: Find a bunch of leading scientists on a field. Take first one. One paragraph: Talk about the work of him. One paragraph: Visit him and talk about his pants and living room. Two paragraphs: Quote what he says. Last paragraph: Ask him about the end of science and either say he is smart or he succumbed to wishful thinking. Take the next scientist... (why are there no woman scientists interviewed?) All in all, reading this book is not a waste of time because those two paragraphs of quotations are really nice. The rest (especially the khaki pants) is probably not so relevant. Do not expect a synthesis about the end of science.

But sadly, prose doesn't prove... **

In the first page of first chapter the author tells about a meeting which he says had a "provocative but misleading title, 'The End of Science?'" This is more or less my feeling about this book. I will criticize the book on three grounds: misleading title, omniscient presumptions and pretentious prose.

First of all, this book doesn't come with any ideas or synthesis and doesn't even try to. The author somehow knows all along that the science has finished and with the logic of a TV advertisement he keeps repeating it probably hoping that all this chanting will make us really believe so. What is funnier, I guess he is content that he made his point and proved it clearly, because in the second half of the book end of science is almost unspoken. We are left with a carnival of leading scientists who tell us about their ideas and who each time eventually meet the big question: "Is the end of science near?" Like a witch-hunt, the poor scientists (which in fact are great minds) are left with two options: They say "Yes" and they are saved, the author is happy that someone agrees his point; or they say "No", and they are instantly blamed with wishful thinking, or too scared to admit when they attain the Truth they'll have nothing to seek...

At points in the book, I have thought that I was reading a Holy Book of some sort, not because of the content but because of the high voice of the author. The author knows it all and he is not shy to give you some revelations as well. Whatever the subject is, robotics, quantum theory, consciousness, omega point, chaos, he listens to the experts with great ease, if he cannot understand them (he says) it's because they actually are hiding their stupidity behind obscurity. Then again with great ease he wraps up the subject in a few lyrical sentences and he tells us where these people were right and wrong, and what they should do. This is too much.

The prosaic prose is unbearable. We are here to read about 'end of science', if not that 'science', who cares about the color of the pants and name of the wife of the guy he interviews? But I must congratulate the author, he really found an algorithmic way of writing a book: Find a bunch of leading scientists on a field. Take first one. One paragraph: Talk about the work of him. One paragraph: Visit him and talk about his pants and living room. Two paragraphs: Quote what he says. Last paragraph: Ask him about the end of science and either say he is smart or he succumbed to wishful thinking. Take the next scientist... (why are there no woman scientists interviewed?)

All in all, reading this book is not a waste of time because those two paragraphs of quotations are really nice. The rest (especially the khaki pants) is probably not so relevant. Do not expect a synthesis about the end of science.

Informative, entertaining, but still completely wrong ****
This is a very informative and entertaining book, despite the fact that I think its central thesis is completely wrong. Horgan's thesis is that there are not going to be any truly revolutionary new discoveries in science; that science has turned into an enterprise of finding more decimal points and filling out the details in well understood theories. Horgan interviewed a number of major scientists in a wide selection of fields, and he sketches their personalities and summarizes their thoughts on his thesis and related issues. Where he has gone wrong, I believe, is in his notion that even the key scientists in a field can predict true scientific revolutions; in fact, one of the hallmarks of scientific revolutions is that they can not be predicted. Thus, the fact that nobody he interviewed could see any coming doesn't mean they won't arrive. To see the fallacy in Horgan's reasoning, let's look at the fields of cosmology and neuroscience, two of the fields he considers. In cosmology, we have already had, since this book was written, the completely unforeseen discovery that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. This implies (most likely) that the universe is filled with a substance that physicists call dark energy. This makes a substantial change in our view of both the universe and fundamental theories of physics. These observations showing the dark energy, together with other observations, mean we also now know the age of the universe to an accuracy much better than Horgan ever expected would be possible, revealing the inherent conservatism of his approach. In neuroscience, it's clear that if we are ever to have a decent understanding of the brain, we need a fundamental revolution. What is Horgan's answer to this? In short, he says "we may never know." But this could also have been said about the questions of "why are we seeing so many new elementary particles?" in the 1960's, and the question of "how is genetic information inherited?" in the 1940's, and in both cases science provided a definitive and satisfactory answer. I am more optimistic: I expect fundamental insights in neuroscience are yet to come. Horgan may be right that at some point, we will know the outlines of all the scientific knowledge that is worth knowing, reducing science to the thankless task of filling in more and yet more details. However, this point is still decades or maybe centuries away; science as a whole is still enormously vital, and we scientists should now leave arguments about Horgan's thesis to the philosophers and get on with the task of discovering the next scientific revolution (or, for the less fortunate but vast majority of us scientists, to the task of filling in the still interesting, but less fundamental, details of our known theories).

Informative, entertaining, but still completely wrong ****

This is a very informative and entertaining book, despite the fact that I think its central thesis is completely wrong. Horgan's thesis is that there are not going to be any truly revolutionary new discoveries in science; that science has turned into an enterprise of finding more decimal points and filling out the details in well understood theories. Horgan interviewed a number of major scientists in a wide selection of fields, and he sketches their personalities and summarizes their thoughts on his thesis and related issues. Where he has gone wrong, I believe, is in his notion that even the key scientists in a field can predict true scientific revolutions; in fact, one of the hallmarks of scientific revolutions is that they can not be predicted. Thus, the fact that nobody he interviewed could see any coming doesn't mean they won't arrive.

To see the fallacy in Horgan's reasoning, let's look at the fields of cosmology and neuroscience, two of the fields he considers. In cosmology, we have already had, since this book was written, the completely unforeseen discovery that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. This implies (most likely) that the universe is filled with a substance that physicists call dark energy. This makes a substantial change in our view of both the universe and fundamental theories of physics. These observations showing the dark energy, together with other observations, mean we also now know the age of the universe to an accuracy much better than Horgan ever expected would be possible, revealing the inherent conservatism of his approach.

In neuroscience, it's clear that if we are ever to have a decent understanding of the brain, we need a fundamental revolution. What is Horgan's answer to this? In short, he says "we may never know." But this could also have been said about the questions of "why are we seeing so many new elementary particles?" in the 1960's, and the question of "how is genetic information inherited?" in the 1940's, and in both cases science provided a definitive and satisfactory answer. I am more optimistic: I expect fundamental insights in neuroscience are yet to come.

Horgan may be right that at some point, we will know the outlines of all the scientific knowledge that is worth knowing, reducing science to the thankless task of filling in more and yet more details. However, this point is still decades or maybe centuries away; science as a whole is still enormously vital, and we scientists should now leave arguments about Horgan's thesis to the philosophers and get on with the task of discovering the next scientific revolution (or, for the less fortunate but vast majority of us scientists, to the task of filling in the still interesting, but less fundamental, details of our known theories).

I'm glad I didn't see the reviews before I read the book! *****
Maybe "The End of Science" deserves only four and a half stars, but after seeing some of the older reviews that rated it far less, I'm sure that five stars is merited. I've never submitted a review to Amazon but some reviews of the book I read here just seem to represent the people who have written hundreds of reviews rather than the book itself. With 50 years of scientific expertise and knowing people who knew more than one Nobelist characterized by Horgan, I trust the accuracy of his evaluations because they coincide with what I had independently known. As important as accuracy to a reader, from the insights that Horgan develops as a result of each interview, to the plan of the whole book, to its span across such huge areas of science, to the unusual content -- this is the ultimate in fascinating and stimulating reading. Of course, I do not agree with all of his interviewees nor with all of his conclusions, but time and time again he was brilliant in opening me up to ideas that I had not before thought about. What more than that can a book be? A great read.

I'm glad I didn't see the reviews before I read the book! *****

Maybe "The End of Science" deserves only four and a half stars, but after seeing some of the older reviews that rated it far less, I'm sure that five stars is merited. I've never submitted a review to Amazon but some reviews of the book I read here just seem to represent the people who have written hundreds of reviews rather than the book itself.

With 50 years of scientific expertise and knowing people who knew more than one Nobelist characterized by Horgan, I trust the accuracy of his evaluations because they coincide with what I had independently known. As important as accuracy to a reader, from the insights that Horgan develops as a result of each interview, to the plan of the whole book, to its span across such huge areas of science, to the unusual content -- this is the ultimate in fascinating and stimulating reading. Of course, I do not agree with all of his interviewees nor with all of his conclusions, but time and time again he was brilliant in opening me up to ideas that I had not before thought about. What more than that can a book be? A great read.

Dream of a final arbiter? ***
There's much to learn from this book. Horgan's Grand Tour of scientists' homes, laboratories and their conferences, including personal histories and researchers' theories is comprehensive. You will learn ideas in physics, cosmology, neuroscience, evolutionary biology - in short, nearly every aspect of basic science comes under his scrutiny and assessment. A wide-ranging book in time and topics, it is almost possible to read it selectively. Major personalities in every field have their work, publications and personalities examined, revealed and commented on. In short, Horgan takes an Olympian stance on nearly all science. As much as he tries to teach us, you come away with only one conclusion. John Horgan is the sole arbiter of the worth of science being undertaken today. And science, as an enterprise, is through - in his eyes. Horgan's theme is that empirical research has achieved its limits. Particle physics is delving so deeply into the atom that evidence can no longer be discerned, only inferred. Biology has no grand pronouncements pending about life. Even cognitive science, perhaps one of the fastest growing areas of research, foresees no "breakthrough". All future science, he contends, will be but picking out niggling details that reinforce the great conceptions of Copernicus, Darwin and Einstein. Science, he argues, has gone from empirical to "ironic". It is no longer grandiose, but petty and "not converging on the truth". Horgan struggles to bring lofty scientific figures into your lounge room. He visits Karl Popper, Richard Dawkins, Francis Crick and countless [but not nameless] others. Dress and grooming are carefully scrutinised. I lost track of the number of "khaki pants" his victims wore. And make no mistake, Horgan's approach is firmly predatory. Behaviour traits - chin rubbing, stair skipping, prolonged silences - are entertaining and sometimes informative. But it's clear that Horgan relates them only in attempting to erode whatever status these figures have achieved. His quest is simplistic and focussed - to each subject he posits The Question: "Do you have The Answer?". "The Answer" is a "final theory". The advances made by particle physics and cosmology during the last century suggested a unifying formula might tie the universe together. Realisation of the concept has brought physicists deeper into the atom in search of evidence. These depths have proven beyond our perception, says Horgan, and the cost of further penetration is too high for the public to bear. Besides, the quest may be futile. There's no indication that a Final Theory would emerge from such probing, Horgan argues. The Final Theory has implications in the other direction. Can quantum physics explain the mechanisms of the mind? Is the scope of human conception so great that it can someday interact with the mythical Creator? Horgan challenges philosophers and neuroscientists to show their work is leading to new, more fundamental, understanding. His approach is sly and disarming. While he contends science is no long searching for the truth, he really means they're not divulging The Truth, an expression scorned by nearly all scientists. The distinction is important, almost overwhelmingly so in this book. Horgan, it turns out, isn't really interested in the status of science. His real quest is for personal certainty. It's a valid quest, but hardly worth the price of demolishing so many scholars. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]

Dream of a final arbiter? ***

There's much to learn from this book. Horgan's Grand Tour of scientists' homes, laboratories and their conferences, including personal histories and researchers' theories is comprehensive. You will learn ideas in physics, cosmology, neuroscience, evolutionary biology - in short, nearly every aspect of basic science comes under his scrutiny and assessment. A wide-ranging book in time and topics, it is almost possible to read it selectively. Major personalities in every field have their work, publications and personalities examined, revealed and commented on. In short, Horgan takes an Olympian stance on nearly all science.

"The Answer" is a "final theory". The advances made by particle physics and cosmology during the last century suggested a unifying formula might tie the universe together. Realisation of the concept has brought physicists deeper into the atom in search of evidence. These depths have proven beyond our perception, says Horgan, and the cost of further penetration is too high for
the public to bear. Besides, the quest may be futile. There's no indication that a Final Theory would emerge from such probing, Horgan argues.

The Final Theory has implications in the other direction. Can quantum physics explain the mechanisms of the mind? Is the scope of human conception so great that it can someday interact with the mythical Creator? Horgan challenges philosophers and neuroscientists to show their work is leading to new, more fundamental, understanding. His approach is sly and disarming. While he contends science is no long searching for the truth, he really means they're not divulging The Truth, an expression scorned by nearly all scientists. The distinction is important, almost overwhelmingly so in this book. Horgan, it turns out, isn't really interested in the status of science. His real quest is for personal certainty. It's a valid quest, but hardly worth the price of demolishing so many scholars. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]

The ends of science ****
Must read book, good to the last penny but I must knock off one star for authorial insolence. This was a well placed 'potshot' at the pretensions of Big Science, and better barbed than the original Spengler version which was a bit of a 'cheapshot', or overly hysterical, or too neo-barbarous. It would seem the problem is not the end of science but (the question of the 'ends' of science apart) correctly hoping for its true beginning, and in any case cutting out the fat in (very) major areas where science has produced filler instead of knowledge. Science has 1. never escaped Descartes, 2. cold shouldered Kant's critiques 3. produced a bogus theory of evolution 4. never resolved issues of free will, soul, or divinity, and yet claims to have a lockon for absolute truth, 5.forgotten all the warnings that this was happening starting in the generation after Newton. Thus, the 'end' of science actually happened at the end of the eighteenth century and into the early nineteenth, but noone quite got the message as the emergence of a host of semi-sciences cluttered the minds of the intellectual masses with massive amounts of junk thinking. A good example is Darwin's theory of selectionist evolution taken as a total theory to bootstrap the pretense evidentally of 'full take over and control' for the Age of Science. Such a theory is the one thing needed to achieve a breakthrough in the human sciences (control again), so it is a good question, did they fake it? Until science can backtrack and correct its mistakes and account for its inability to backtrack and correct its mistakes issues of the end of science are a bit like asking why Beetlebomb the racehorse never finished the race and was found munching in pasture near the track. In the meantime because science is good at technics (dig those Big Bombs) the mystique and arrogance of the nerdish nitwits has proven sufficient for mindshare/mindcontrol. The question of the end of science thus hardly arises. The issue is the 'end of fantasy science', the irrationalism of 'scientific rationalism', etc...

The ends of science ****

Must read book, good to the last penny but I must knock off one star for authorial insolence.
This was a well placed 'potshot' at the pretensions of Big Science, and better barbed than the original Spengler version which was a bit of a 'cheapshot', or overly hysterical, or too neo-barbarous. It would seem the problem is not the end of science but (the question of the 'ends' of science apart) correctly hoping for its true beginning, and in any case cutting out the fat in (very) major areas where science has produced filler instead of knowledge. Science has 1. never escaped Descartes, 2. cold shouldered Kant's critiques 3. produced a bogus theory of evolution 4. never resolved issues of free will, soul, or divinity, and yet claims to have a lockon for absolute truth, 5.forgotten all the warnings that this was happening starting in the generation after Newton.

Thus, the 'end' of science actually happened at the end of the eighteenth century and into the early nineteenth, but noone quite got the message as the emergence of a host of semi-sciences cluttered the minds of the intellectual masses with massive amounts of junk thinking. A good example is Darwin's theory of selectionist evolution taken as a total theory to bootstrap the pretense evidentally of 'full take over and control' for the Age of Science. Such a theory is the one thing needed to achieve a breakthrough in the human sciences (control again), so it is a good question, did they fake it?
Until science can backtrack and correct its mistakes and account for its inability to backtrack and correct its mistakes issues of the end of science are a bit like asking why Beetlebomb the racehorse never finished the race and was found munching in pasture near the track. In the meantime because science is good at technics (dig those Big Bombs) the mystique and arrogance of the nerdish nitwits has proven sufficient for mindshare/mindcontrol.
The question of the end of science thus hardly arises. The issue is the 'end of fantasy science', the irrationalism of 'scientific rationalism', etc...