Welcome to the first ever meeting of The Stephen T. Colbert Book Club for the Literary Excellence! We are going to begin the first meeting discussing the first section of Death by Black Hole: And Other Cosmic Quandries.
Section One: The Nature of Knowledge
Let’s begin with inital reactions to the section. Which parts were your favorite? Which chapters did you like least? Were there parts that you did not understand?
- Even when we believe that we’ve found the answer, there always seems to be a new discovery that follows. Will there ever point where there is nothing left to find?
- Men like Copernicus and Galileo were making discoveries with such limited means centuries ago. Do you think that with the technology we have today, we are using the resources we have to their full potential?
- The age of the Renaissance brought with it many new discoveries. How do you think our current “technological renaissance” compares with the findings of those times?
- On page 37, Tyson states: “After the laws of physics, everything else is opinion.” What do you think of that statement?
- Were there any moments while you read the first section of the book that a lightbulb went off, and things made a little more sense?
Remember – these are just a few questions to get us going. There is no reason to stick solely to these. Let your minds run free!
Please keep in mind the rules of the club:
1. First and foremost, respect what others have to say. We are not all going to have the same views, but that does not mean that one perspective is less valuable than another.
2. Don’t be afraid to voice your opinion. This can help others discover aspects of the book that they may have missed themself. New insights can ignite new discussion.
3. It is okay to disagree with others. Without differing opinions, little is left to discuss.
4. Remember that this is a family-friendly website. No bad language, or inappropriate behavior is tolerable.
5. Sometimes the topics we discuss may be controversial. Always keep in mind that the purpose of the book club is not to offend the ideas of others.
6. During discussion, keep on topic. Use page numbers, links to sources, etc. to accompany your input to avoid confusion.
7. Digression is okay, but remember that we are here to discuss the book at hand. Everyone will benefit more from a focused talk.
8. Lastly, enjoy yourself. These rules are established as guidelines, but we are doing this book club to have fun, and appreciate The Colbert Report in a new way.
Yay, the book club kicks off! Okay, since I have been an enthusiastic cheerleader for this book since I read it lo these many moons ago, I guess I’ll begin. Warning: I have the hardcover edition of this book that came out in 2007, so I’m not sure my page references will match everyone else’s.
Anyhow, love — love this book. I think, in this first section, my favorite chapter is “Seeing Isn’t Believing”, but it’s very hard to choose. I think it’s my favorite because, in addition to being very funny and informative, it talks about the night sky in a way that reminded me of why astronomy tends to seem like such a cool field to a lot of kids (until they’re dismayed to discover how much math it involves and how little actual looking through telescopes and at the stars they’re likely to do, anyhow).
When Tyson refers to Edmond Halley’s observation that the star Arcturus had moved from where it was in Hipparchus’ day (p. 40 in my book), I couldn’t help but take a moment to think about how Halley must have felt when he realized what it meant. I remember what a surprise it was when I was an elementary school kid and went to the planetarium and first learned that you could look for — and find! — satellites moving across the night sky without any fancy equipment. What an even bigger thrill, then, when I was at summer camp later and could see them (and any number of “shooting stars” — gotta love the Perseids) for myself. Did Halley feel like that, I wonder?
I could go on (and nearly did), but I think my appreciation comes from feeling that Tyson’s book did exactly what I think successful books should do: they take your mind somewhere it wouldn’t have been otherwise. Astrophysics isn’t an area of thought that normally crosses my mind, after all. In this case, the book also shared the author’s enthusiasm, humor and natural curiosity for his topic, because they poured out in every sentence. Consider the opening sentences of that chapter: “So much of the universe appears to be one way but is really another that I wonder, at times, whether there’s an ongoing conspiracy designed to embarrass astrophysicists. Examples of such cosmic tomfoolery abound.” Can’t you just hear him saying that?
Okay, that’s probably enough yammering from me; can’t wait to hear what some of the rest of you thought.
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
I really liked the piece about continuing to focus knowledge which invoked with the lovely metaphor of pointillism. I used it to help me organize a paper I’m writing for a (science) class right now. I found some very old articles (50+ yrs old) that seemed to be closing the door on further study in a certain area, but I also found people had continued research and published on the same question in the past couple of years. the difference was that they were being more specific, considering more than just what happened but how, why, and further implications beyond this specific case. we have so much new technology. they didn’t even know about the structure of DNA back when they were trying to finish off the topic.
anyway, now I think I’m going to be looking for that pattern throughout my education.
the after physics opinion thing is a bit questionable. I have never been a fan of interscience arguments, but it seems to discount, say evolution as being a fact. I don’t mean to choose a popularly controversial topic, but rather something that’s founded in science but doesn’t deal very closely at all with physics.
that’s all I’ve got time for now. sorry for going all biology about it.
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
I’m loving the book so far — I’m a little behind where I’d hoped to be by now, but I did just finish up Section 1 last night. Lots of reading ahead of me tonight to catch up in time to discuss Section 2!
My favorite chapter so far is “Stick in the Mud Science,” where Tyson makes it clear exactly how much we can learn about the Earth, the Sun and our solar system from basically just a stick stuck in the mud (and a reliable hourglass). Our current technology, and the amount that is already known about our universe, is so ingrained in me, that my mind boggles when I consider how much ancient civilizations were able to learn without the benefit of telescopes, satellites, computers, even slide rules. Just a simple sundial, a clear view of the sky and the horizon, and a good hourglass.
I’m on my lunch break right now and don’t have much time to discuss — hope to get back on tonight with more thoughts. Love the book!
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
So far, I think the book is fun. I wouldn’t exactly say that I’ve learned anything so much, or had any ‘ah-ha’ moments, but I’ve certainly picked up some new, entertaining, and perhaps a bit simpler ways to explain or describe some things that some people can find difficult to grasp or maybe even care about at first blush. I think I went into this expecting just a little bit more of a harder-core physics book, something grappling with up-and-coming theories of quantum physics and string theory to put beside Hawking and Kaku on the shelf, but that was my mistake. Something tells me I missed the interview where this book was discussed (bad Colbert fan! Bad!) Instead, I’ve found it’s more like fun, humourous essays targeted at the layman with a passing or bourgeoning interest in any of various fields of science.
Tyson certainly seems to enjoy what he’s talking about and how he’s talking about it, and that’s contagious: I chuckled out loud numerous times and find the style really quite approachable. In fact, his humour does sometimes remind me of Hawking’s more rakish lines (think The Universe in a Nutshell), and some of his turns of descriptive phrase have even felt just a bit Kaku-ish to me. But his style is definitely all its own.
As for the comment “After the laws of physics, everything else is opinion,” I think the word ‘opinion’ here is interchangeable with ‘theory.’ Tiger mentioned that statement as being able to discount something such as evolution being a fact. I could certainly see that POV if the line is taken at a strict face value. But the counter-argument might be: Evolution is a theory. It’s even called such: “The Theory of Evolution.” It isn’t a law because all the pieces haven’t been filled in. The Theory of Evolution is a series of opinions formed over time by painstaking study of the available evidence–the opinions of very dedicated, well-educated sticklers for the adherence to the scientific method, true, but in the end, still ‘opinion,’ or theory. Remember that all the laws of physics started off as theories. They had to be proven again and again and again and again to become laws. And if anyone anywhere ever manages to disprove one of these tried and true laws, then it’s no longer a law. Heck, then it’s not even a theory. My (long-winded) point being: I don’t think the author was trying to discount anything with this statement except the natural human inclination (scientists certainly not excluded) to staunchly persist in believing what we believe without the empirical evidence to support it. String theory is “just an opinion,” the possibly existence of a Theory of Everything is “just an opinion,” bubble universe theory is “just an opinion”–until they are put through the ringer of scientific study and experimentation and come out the other end with nary a crack to show for it, it’s all just what someone or a group of someones thinks might be going on. And, in the pure scientific spirit of that, I have to agree.
Now, on the other hand, we do see evolution on a small scale in micro-celled organisms every day. Maybe that was the kind of ‘evolution’ Tiger meant in the above post, and not the actual Theory of Evolution that led to you and me. In that case, of course, the empirical evidence is not only available, but proliferate and quite easily tested again and again. :)
I look forward to reading more. I’m just reading enough at a time to keep up with the Club. So I’m interested to see if he delves a bit more into the nitty-gritty of physics as the book goes on.
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
Well, he did initially write each chapter as a separate esssay in Natural History, which might account for its tone. I was pleasantly surprised to find it all mentally stimulating without being overwhelming.
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
I think I had the same expectation as you, but I don’t mind the lighter reading. it’s an interesting style, from a literary perspective, and I like to see how he chooses his words and now he simplifies. my knowledge in the area is limited to reading Brian Greene anyway.
I wasn’t really differentiating between micro and macroevolution, but either one works fine in my illustration. it’s a fact that if you look at populations over time, in some cases there are actually measurable changes.
I will agree that physics drives everything, but it’s not my “opinion” that natural selection occurs and causes evolution…it just does.
I don’t think I would have even picked out that sentence on my own, because I know what he means in writing it. hmmm. it just seemed a bit extreme. everything else is written at a pretty basic level, so this hyperbole seems a bit of place.
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
I was one of the ones who enthusiastically voted yes for the book discussion, but unfortunately I haven’t had a chance to read this one – this week came up quickly on me! (maybe in the future a little more lead time before discussion week?)
But – I’m really enjoying reading the comments here!
I really appreciate bipolypesca’s explanation of Tyson’s “opinion” comment. That makes a lot of sense, and I think points out something really important that most people routinely forget about science.
I was having a conversation w/ someone about global warming recently, and they were dismissing the idea of “scientific consensus” as being too wishy-washy, not enough evidence for them — they said something either scientifically IS or ISN”T, that “consensus” has nothing to do with it. I didn’t want to get into it with him, but I was thinking “actually I think ALL we have on any topic is scientific consensus, right?” I mean, all scientific facts we know started out as an idea that someone had to prove, and over time and the accumulation of evidence, the majority of scientists came to believe was the accurate way of describing a phenomenon. As new evidence comes to light, the consensus understanding of the way things works changes. “Scientific consensus” is constantly in a state of flux, to varying degrees depending on the field, sometimes very minor fine tuning, other times vast re-thinking. We do the best we can with the information at hand, and constantly try to find out more. (What this has to do with global warming I’ll leave to another discussion!)
enjoying the discussion! :)
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
We do the best we can with the information at hand, and constantly try to find out more.
Since you mention it, that was brought up interestingly in this part of the book, too: The never-ending drive to find out more. As Tiger mentioned, Tyson draws a parallel between our drive to find out more and more scientifically (and sometimes not being able to step back and look at the big picture) to stepping a little too close to a pointillism painting. Get too close and ideas and phenomena just becomes a bunch of dots and dashes–not always, of course, but in some instances. Quantum physics is, like, the quintessence of “Oh, dear, we got too close. This isn’t working anymore.” Not to say that it’s necessarily a bad thing (though sometimes it can be, because it can blind you to so much), but that it’s a real and present danger.
On the other hand, quantum physics is fascinating. Maybe I’m one of those people who really would put her nose on a Signac. ;)
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
If you can get your hands on a copy of the book today or tomorrow, feel free to try reading even just a few chapters. They’re short (former magazine articles), but very entertaining, and I don’t think you need to read the book in order for it to be fun — although you may want to go back to the beginning and start from there, at some point in the future. Since we’re discussing based on sections in the book, you could still participate that way.
Btw, we just decided to go with a “dark week = book club” week schedule; that’s the main reason this one came up when it did. Sorry you didn’t get a chance to read before the week began. :(
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
Yay for the NFZ book club! I feel like I should be drinking cheap white wine right now, but since I don’t have any, my Arnold Palmer will have to do. :-)
I’m a little more than halfway through Tyson’s book and I love it! He has a way of making the concepts approachable, interesting, and easy to understand. His excitement is definitely contagious!
I’ve enjoyed reading everyone’s comments so far. I can’t wait to hear what others have to say.
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
I’m about halfway through the book at this point. I really enjoy the little humorous lines he throws in – for instance, when discussing the laws of physics on page 37, he says that “without violating momentum laws, you cannot spontaneously levitate and hover above the ground, whether or not you are seated in the lotus position. Although, in principle, you could perform this stunt if you managed to let loose a powerful and sustained exhaust of flatulence.”
My other favorite is when on page 63 (stick in the mud chapter), he tells us the four dates that the clock time is equal to sun time: “April 15 (no relation to taxes), June 14 (no relation to flags), September 2 (no relation to labor), and December 25 (no relation to Jesus).” And I appreciate that he said Jesus, and not Christmas, because if you research why Christmas is celebrated that particular day, it has everything to do with solar observation, as it co-opted a pagan holiday!
And to think, he called Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington’s writings “glib”…
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
Those are great examples! His “Have a nice day” at the end of the third chapter really cracked me up, coming, as it did, on the heels of “humans are emotionally fragile, perennially gullible, hopelessly ignorant masters of an insignificantly small speck in the cosmos.”
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
I don’t laugh out loud very often when reading, but that “Have a nice day” slayed me.
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
The flatulence comment was LMAO (no, I didn’t levitate!)!
It’s too early to look it up, but when Tyson was talking about Venus (? – like I said, it’s early), he stated a 16″ pizza would cook w/in 7 sec. – and he knew ’cause he did the math! LOL
I’m just @ the end of section 2.
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
This is sad, but I don’t think I’ve read a purely scientific work since studying geology during my freshman year in college….which was 10 years ago! Being such a humanities gal, it was hard at first to transition into a scientific reading mode, but as many others have already noted, Tyson makes science accessible to everyone…with a twist of humor:)
I believe my favorite chapter in this section was “Seeing Isn’t Believing.” For example, I had no idea that the luminosity of a star is measured by the square of its distance rather than its mere distance. I love the fact that we are seeing the rare high-luminosity stars in the canopy above (pg. 39). At least we have something going for us even if the sun isn’t revolving around us;)
As a history buff, I was really fascinated by the efforts made by Copernicus and a thelogian, leading up to the publication of his work “De Revolutionibus,” to mollify the anticipated reaction of the Church. Andreas Osiander, in the preface, tried to reassure the Church that these findings were not necessarily true and Copernicus, in his address to the Pope, expressed his fear of being an outcast (pgs. 41-42). I guess I shouldn’t really have been surprised that Copernicus took these measures. Stating that the sun does not actually revolve around the Earth would have been a pretty bold statement at the time and, as Tyson noted, “would freak out the establishment.” If I lived during that time and read his book, I suppose I would have felt as if my world had turned upside down…or was cast out of the center.
Oh, I don’t think I realized… or maybe I just forgot…that other planets in addition to Saturn have rings (pg. 58). Yes, my scientific knowledge is very limited. Don’t laugh at me science geeks!
Who would like to see Neil DeGrasse Tyson and Bill Nye host a science show together? Better yet, Stephen could have them on and they could discuss doomsday scenarios.
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
I really enjoyed the history, too, and I like seeing interdisciplinary references. When he was descibing the Foucault pendulum in “Stick-in-the-Mud-Science”, I couldn’t help thinking of Umberto Eco’s Foucault’s Pendulum. A little knowledge may be a dangerous thing, but I do like having at least that little bit from here, there and everywhere so that those connections start to become visible and the references start to make sense.
Shout Out (Hey!):
0