
The Knowledge Machine
How Irrationality Created Modern Science
Failed to add items
Add to Cart failed.
Add to Wish List failed.
Remove from wishlist failed.
Adding to library failed
Follow podcast failed
Unfollow podcast failed
3 months free
Buy for $21.49
No default payment method selected.
We are sorry. We are not allowed to sell this product with the selected payment method
-
Narrated by:
-
Julian Elfer
-
By:
-
Michael Strevens
A paradigm-shifting work that revolutionizes our understanding of the origins and structure of science.
Captivatingly written, interwoven with historical vignettes ranging from Newton's alchemy to quantum mechanics to the storm surge of Hurricane Sandy, Michael Strevens' wholly original investigation of science asks two fundamental questions: Why is science so powerful? And why did it take so long, 2,000 years after the invention of philosophy and mathematics, for the human race to start using science to learn the secrets of nature? The Knowledge Machine's radical answer is that science calls on its practitioners to do something irrational: By willfully ignoring religion, theoretical beauty, and, especially, philosophy - essentially stripping away all previous knowledge - scientists embrace an unnaturally narrow method of inquiry, channeling unprecedented energy into observation and experimentation.
Like Yuval Harari's Sapiens or Thomas Kuhn's 1962 classic, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, The Knowledge Machine overturns much of what we thought we knew about the origins of the modern world.
©2020 Michael Strevens (P)2020 HighBridge, a division of Recorded BooksListeners also enjoyed...




















People who viewed this also viewed...


Eye opening and informative
Something went wrong. Please try again in a few minutes.
An exceptionally good book
Something went wrong. Please try again in a few minutes.
Awe
Something went wrong. Please try again in a few minutes.
The best book I have consumed in a very long time.
Something went wrong. Please try again in a few minutes.
Overall, I find the argument compelling, but I'm not expert enough to pronounce judgment on its correctness. I was hoping to hear the author connect his theory with Bayesian models of inquiry, but I think I know how he might do that.
If you think science is a simple matter of falsification, this book will help set you straight. Either way, this was a really fun listen.
Beautifully written, fascinating thesis
Something went wrong. Please try again in a few minutes.
Fascinating story of how science came to be
Something went wrong. Please try again in a few minutes.
Mathematics can alone constrains the antics of the world and saves us from countless unnecessary experiments, trials and controls. Science is not a pile of data or an Iron Rule "to look", but also a developing theoretical framework increasingly free of Bacon's language idol and replaces old words with an ever-growing empirically rich language that unifies and can falsify in practice as well as experiment.. The generation and effort into regimenting a language with references to actual, causally relevant objects, and the languages role in gluing together phenomenon and providing inferences similar to mathematical ones, capable of deciding debate is ignored.
This shortcoming produces another; how is it that a scientific operationalization (reduction of a hypothesis to an experiment) counts as good or relevant? Pragmatists have an answer: it comes down to generating a desired power over nature, but pandemonium is in the details, and Strevens ignores this mystery. (He almost gets it with his rhyming thought experiment). As a former practicing scientist the creative act of testing a hypothesis often included a concomitant persuasive act of convincing others the experiment is relevant, and this requires a "Style of Reasoning", which is not quite a paradigm, but which requires education and practice to develop. The Iron Rule presumes operationalization is easy, when it is not.
Summary: I wish the inter-workings of the knowledge machine were fully exposed, but much remains a black box.
(1) How does a new mathematics form and become authoritative?
(2) How do new ways of talking generate right material inferences?
(3) What sorts of "Bridge Law" consensuses connect a proposed operationalization from experiment to verbal/mathematical theory?
These are severe shortcomings. The knowledge machine is held together by theory, not merely facts or tricks or hacks (like machine translation or GPT-3, so much AI work, engineering formulae or Sui Dynasty Chinese canal building). Scientific data connect like lego blocks into a structure of stable theories, with a shape that allows for mathematical and linguistic inference and the appropriate placement of new blocks of observations.
Sociologically, the works failure to regard the role of replicability and technology in science. Accumulation of data doesn't just happen, because people re-test general relativity, for example, but because subsequent experiments require scientists to reproduce previous experiments to move forward. In the biological sciences, re-using a strain or protein for further inquiry critically augments knowledge. And, in areas where science translates to commercial applications, successful commercial technologies can settle debates (Heavier than air controlled flight happens, contrary to theorists who denied the possibility.).
As for the historical scholarship, there is nothing novel. But, too little credit is given to Boyle who set forth the rules of communication, and too much to Newton whose remarks were ignored on the Continent, while Boyle was not. Newton broke his metaphysical "shallowness" when it came to light and "absolute space".
A worthy attempt, part of the story for sure, but lots missing. We still don't know how the knowledge machine works.
Almost there. Scholarly review.
Something went wrong. Please try again in a few minutes.
cutting the Gordian knot
Something went wrong. Please try again in a few minutes.
Excellent
Something went wrong. Please try again in a few minutes.
Somewhat entertaining if you find irony funny.
Something went wrong. Please try again in a few minutes.