Scan barcode
caffeinated_gills's review against another edition
informative
slow-paced
3.25
This book was incredibly dry, but informative. Much was intuitive to me, but likely needs to be said for academics. I'll recommend this mostly to old fogies in academia, but I'll be recommending it.
laurapk's review against another edition
1.0
I have tackled my library to get this book, I have hunted down the person who was not returning the book and keeping the hold-queue stuck. Boy did I not need to bother.
I'm a scientist about to leave academia and I believe that there are A LOT of problems with fast science. However, I found way more problems with this book and I think I wasted my time reading it. Why? Because the author does not explain her point(s) clearly AT ALL. Her sentences are word salads and she drops in names and terms without explaining any of them. Check out this exquisite example: “But what seems much less common in such fields is the type of dynamic that links competent colleagues - as indicated by references to work on which a particular author's own claim depend, signifying a cumulative dynamic wearing the recognized viability of a conclusion makes new questions possible.” What was that supposed to mean? Another example of just dropping names without taking the reader on a clear path: the author starts talking about Cassandra all of a sudden and it took me three sentences to realize that she's talking about a hurricane. We were not talking about weather or climate in the earlier paragraph, there was no mention of the words storm or hurricane, I was just supposed to know which Cassandra she's referring to?
The author does have a few good points (probably more than a few, but I couldn't understand her writing): that ethics or moral talks are discouraged and seen as signs of weaknesses in 'hard sciences'; that the 'macho' scientist which is the only good scientist is an aberration; that our obsession with parameters of success and patents is poisonous to research (and is probably at the heart of our current reproducibility crisis). But she also says so much garbage that is just not true. For example: she claims that: "proofs of biological evolution are the kinds of proofs that would make experimentalists chuckle. They should be brave enough to acknowledge that their effects are simply pointers.” Except we have observed evolution happen in real life, at both the microscopic and macroscopic levels. We have actually designed experiments (isolation experiments and bacterial in vitro experiments) and have observed natural selection and evolution IN REAL TIME. Also, what does she think antibiotic resistance and virus strain changes represent? Earlier in the book the author states that she doesn't think that everyone should immediately embrace scientific theories such as evolution, and I wonder if she'd also like to say "nor should we all except the earth is round and not flat." There were times when I wondered if she understood the terms she was talking about. Which is interesting, because she talks about how scientists should encourage a lay audience of connoisseurs, the way the tech industry accepts users as connoisseurs. First of all, I don't believe that software complexity and cellular and biochemical complexity are even on the same scale. Second, I think there is evidence of connoisseurs involved in astronomical research, but the smaller the object of interest, the harder it is to build a good base of knowledge. Because you can't directly observe a protein, an antibody, a virus. You rely on complicated tools, you rely on tons of prior experimental knowledge, you rely on human samples. It's much harder to form the same level of connoisseurship in microbiology, compared to zoology, botany, astronomy, etc. The author does make a good point that the way science is currently taught is wrong and dangerous (science as the right answer to a question). There is a lot of ambiguity in science. But there is a decent amount of good solid ground we're standing on. It wasn't clear for me what the author had against that solid ground. Because she didn't express herself clearly. (also, she killed me with all her single quotes; too many, waaaaaaaaaaay to many).
Overall, a hard to follow, horribly written work of philosophy that doesn't seem to care if non-philosophers can follow. Which is hilarious, considering the author seems to condemn this exact type of specialized writing in fast-scientists.
If you're interested in reading about problems in modern science there are other books I recommend which are clearer and easier to follow. Consider reading instead: "X+Y" by Eugenia Cheng; "The seven deadly sins of psichology" by Chris Chambers; "Snowball in a blizzard" by Steven Hatch.
I'm a scientist about to leave academia and I believe that there are A LOT of problems with fast science. However, I found way more problems with this book and I think I wasted my time reading it. Why? Because the author does not explain her point(s) clearly AT ALL. Her sentences are word salads and she drops in names and terms without explaining any of them. Check out this exquisite example: “But what seems much less common in such fields is the type of dynamic that links competent colleagues - as indicated by references to work on which a particular author's own claim depend, signifying a cumulative dynamic wearing the recognized viability of a conclusion makes new questions possible.” What was that supposed to mean? Another example of just dropping names without taking the reader on a clear path: the author starts talking about Cassandra all of a sudden and it took me three sentences to realize that she's talking about a hurricane. We were not talking about weather or climate in the earlier paragraph, there was no mention of the words storm or hurricane, I was just supposed to know which Cassandra she's referring to?
The author does have a few good points (probably more than a few, but I couldn't understand her writing): that ethics or moral talks are discouraged and seen as signs of weaknesses in 'hard sciences'; that the 'macho' scientist which is the only good scientist is an aberration; that our obsession with parameters of success and patents is poisonous to research (and is probably at the heart of our current reproducibility crisis). But she also says so much garbage that is just not true. For example: she claims that: "proofs of biological evolution are the kinds of proofs that would make experimentalists chuckle. They should be brave enough to acknowledge that their effects are simply pointers.” Except we have observed evolution happen in real life, at both the microscopic and macroscopic levels. We have actually designed experiments (isolation experiments and bacterial in vitro experiments) and have observed natural selection and evolution IN REAL TIME. Also, what does she think antibiotic resistance and virus strain changes represent? Earlier in the book the author states that she doesn't think that everyone should immediately embrace scientific theories such as evolution, and I wonder if she'd also like to say "nor should we all except the earth is round and not flat." There were times when I wondered if she understood the terms she was talking about. Which is interesting, because she talks about how scientists should encourage a lay audience of connoisseurs, the way the tech industry accepts users as connoisseurs. First of all, I don't believe that software complexity and cellular and biochemical complexity are even on the same scale. Second, I think there is evidence of connoisseurs involved in astronomical research, but the smaller the object of interest, the harder it is to build a good base of knowledge. Because you can't directly observe a protein, an antibody, a virus. You rely on complicated tools, you rely on tons of prior experimental knowledge, you rely on human samples. It's much harder to form the same level of connoisseurship in microbiology, compared to zoology, botany, astronomy, etc. The author does make a good point that the way science is currently taught is wrong and dangerous (science as the right answer to a question). There is a lot of ambiguity in science. But there is a decent amount of good solid ground we're standing on. It wasn't clear for me what the author had against that solid ground. Because she didn't express herself clearly. (also, she killed me with all her single quotes; too many, waaaaaaaaaaay to many).
Overall, a hard to follow, horribly written work of philosophy that doesn't seem to care if non-philosophers can follow. Which is hilarious, considering the author seems to condemn this exact type of specialized writing in fast-scientists.
If you're interested in reading about problems in modern science there are other books I recommend which are clearer and easier to follow. Consider reading instead: "X+Y" by Eugenia Cheng; "The seven deadly sins of psichology" by Chris Chambers; "Snowball in a blizzard" by Steven Hatch.
isalovestheocean's review against another edition
Read the first 2 chapters for a course. Too much over-generalizing and the writing style does not animate me to continue reading.
More...