What do you think?
Rate this book
10 Questions Science Can't Answer (Yet): A Guide to Science's Greatest Mysteries
Considering questions such as 'Where did language come from?' and 'Do animals know they exist?', Michael Hanlon explores possible theories and dispatches a few of the less likely ones in his quest to fill the gaping holes that science is littered with.
207 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2007
7 people are currently reading
185 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 33 reviews
August 13, 2013
Suatu ketika, salah seorang raksasa fisikawan, Lord Kalvin, pernah berujar, sesuatu yang akan dia sesali kemudian seumur hidupnya, "There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement"
Mengapa dia sempat berujar demikian? Abad 19 adalah abad kemajuan sains. Dunia mengenal Newton, Darwin, Maxwell, Mendel, Rutherford, Thompson, sebagai ilmuwan-ilmuwan klasik yang menonjol pada masanya. nyaris, semua permasalahan sains yang sebelumnya berada pada bayang-bayang gelap bahkan mistis, sedikit demi sedikit mulai terkuak. Salah satunya bintang cemerlang adalah Newton, siapa yang meragukan teori gravitasi yang memiliki tingkat akurasi mengerikan dalam menghitung pergerakan benda di tata surya? atau teori genetika Mendell yang sanggup menjelaskan mengapa anjing, meski variasinya beribu-ribu macam, tetaplah seekor (spesies) anjing. tetapi kumbang, meski sekilas tampak sederhana dan remeh, ternyata memiliki keanekaragaman spesies sampai bejumlah ribuan. mengapa mawar bisa berwarna merah tapi melati tidak?
Para ilmuwan era 1900-an berpikir bahwa mereka telah mengetahui segalanya. Menurut mereka, alam semesta itu "kecil", hampa, dan hanya memiliki beberapa juta bintang; Planet-planet dan kosmik beredar teratur menurut hukum Newton bak jam tangan swiss; Kehidupan dimulai dari "sup purba" yang hangat, larutan berbagai mineral yang lambat laun berikatan, bereaksi membentuk senyawa biologi yang disempurnakan evolusi menjadi kehidupan kompleks; Materi terususn "bola kecil" atom yang berperilaku sebagai tata surya mini.
Begitu pesatnya kemajuan sains pada abad itu sehingga, seorang ilmuwan terkemuka selevel Kalvin, berani berujar seperti kutipan di atas. Ironisnya, tahun 1900 Kalvin mengucapkan ucapan itu, namun, pada tahun itu pula, ucapannya terbuti keliru sama sekali...
dimulai dari teka-teki sains sepele, "mengapa suatu benda bisa berwarna hitam?" sejarah dunia sains telah berubah sama sekali dan meruntuhkan ucapan Kalvin. Sebagaimana kita ketahui, sebuah benda bisa berwarna hijau karena cahaya matahari atau lampu yang "putih" terurai dan warna dominan hijau terpantulkan, ditangkap mata. Pun mengapa suatu benda bisa berwarna merah, biru, bahkan putih (artinya semua sinar yang dia terima, semuanya dipantulkan). Namun, bagaimana dengan warna hitam? tak seorang pun pernah memikirkan ada "sinar hitam" yang dipancarkan. pemecahan masalah ini kemudian diselesaikan melalui makalah Max Planck pada 7 Desember 1900 yang menandai era lahirnya teori kuantum yang telah meruntuhkan semua konsep sains mapan bahkan terbaik sebelumnya.
Sekarang kita tahu, bahwa alam semesta jauh lebih luas daripada yang pernah dibayangkan manusia. Kita tahu bahwa bintang gemintang bersinar, bagaimana bisa mereka tercipta, dan bagaimana mereka bisa mati dan meledak. Sekarang kita bisa "memetakan" posisi bumi yang teramat kecil di jagat raya, dan sekarang kita mengenal monster-monster sains aneh di jagat raya, ada quasars ("bintang" yang cahayanya lebih terang daripada ribuan galaksi yang sekaligus digabungkan!), ada bintang neutron (bintang yang memiliki diameter hanya sekitar 25 km ini memiliki massa sekitar 1,4 kali massa matahari atau setara dengan setengah juta kali massa bumi. Dengan demikian medan gravitasi di permukaan bintang ini berkisar 200 milyar kali lebih kuat dari medan gravitasi di permukaan bumi. Medan gravitasi sebesar ini akan mampu meremukkan benda-benda yang ada dipermukaannya serta atom-atom penyusun benda tersebut. Sebagai gambaran, seseorang yang jatuh ke permukaan BN akan menabrak permukaannya dengan kecepatan 150.000 km per detik atau energi yang dihasilkan oleh tabrakan tersebut setara dengan 100 megaton ledakan nuklir. Tidak hanya sampai di situ. Sebuah BN dapat memiliki medan magnetik hingga 100 gigatesla. Medan magnet sebesar itu dapat menghancurkan semua informasi di dalam semua kartu kredit yang ada di atas permukaan bumi, jika BN diletakkan pada orbit bulan. Sebagai perbandingan, medan magnet bumi hanya berkekuatan sekitar 60 mikrotesla); atau monster lain yang tak kalah mengerikan, lubang hitam... yang hingga detik ini, tak satupun penjelasan ilmiah bisa memetakan kondisi lubang hitang secara memuaskan karena dia adalah "kuburan" bagi persamaan-persamaan matematis.
Teori evolusi Darwin yang mampu menerangkan "proses penciptaan", ternyata sama sekali tak berguna tanpa didukung oleh sains genetika. Teori gravitasi Newton, yang akurat untuk sekala tata surya, menjadi tak beguna saat diterapkan pada skala yang kosmik.
Atom, yang sebelumnya dianggap "bola-bola yang berperilaku mirip tata surya mini" ternyata justru tersusun dari ratusan partikel aneh yang bisa berprilaku sebagai "bola" sekaligus "gelombang tali", dan sama sekali tak bisa diprediksi.
Sekarang, sains bisa menguaraikan penjelasan bagaimana pikiran bisa bekerja. mengapa kita memiliki kesadaran dan memori. Kita bisa menerangkan bagaimana pengaruh lingkungan dan gen, bisa mempengaruhi kepribadian seseorang. Kita juga telah memahami bagaimana kuman-kuman dan virus bekerja sehingga kita bisa menciptakan jutaan obat yang dapat menghindari kepunahan manusia.
Kita juga telah memetapan genom manusia secara lengkap--artinya kita telah tau mengapa si A bisa memiliki penampilan seperti itu, bagaimana sifat dia, bagaimana keturunan dia, dll--. Kita juga telah menyusun "theory of everything" yang menyatukan segala gaya fundamental yang diharapkan bisa menjelaskan segalanya, penciptaan dan "pelenyapan", kiamat.
Dan, teknologi, di sisi lain, telah berkembang melampaui imajinasi manusia paling penghayal sekalipun. siapa yang pernah bepikir akan ada sesuatu yang disebut internet pada tiga dekade yang lalu? Coba bayangkan, bagaimana menjelaskan teknologi web dan e-mail pada Lord Kalvin! :D
Tapi, bukan berarti kita telah tau segalanya!!!
Yang dinamakan Theory of Everything, Teori tentang Segalanya, justru malah menjadi Theory of Nothing...
Seperti Kalvin, hingga detik ini, kita belum faham, bagaimana cara alam semesta diciptakan... bagaimana makhluk hidup bisa muncul dan lahir di bumi...
Kita memiliki teori tentang bagaimana alam semesta tercipta, Big Bang. tapi ita belum memahami, mengapa bisa terjadi ledakan? bagaimana prosesnya? apa yang terjadi sebelum Big Bang?
Bagaimana, bumi, yang asalnya tak memiliki apa-apa, bisa melahirkan makhluk hidup yang beraneka ragam. Kita mungkin jauh lebih memahamai bagaimana pikiran bekerja selangkah lebih maju daripada Plato, tapi, pertanyaan mengapa "hanya" manusia yang memiliki kesadaran, bagaimana kesadaran terbentuk, dll, tak pernah bisa dijelaskan dengan sangat mudah dan sederhana...
Itulah sebabnya, mengapa, filsafat tidak pernah dikategorikan sebagai sains.
Mengapa proyek genom yang bisa memetakan semua karakter manusia (ciri fisik dan sifat), bahkan tak pernah mampu memprediksi apa yang ada dalam isi hati, pikiran, dan memori seseorang? bahkan ilmuwan pemenang Nobel untuk fisiologi, akan kelabakan saat ditanya, bagaimana seseorang bisa mengingat, dan dimana ingatan disimpan?! bahkan apa tujuan kita tidur dan bemimpi pun tak pernah bisa terjelaskan dengan memuaskan dan mudah.
Teori Evolusi mungkin bisa menjelaskan bagaimana alam bisa menjadi sangat semarak sebagaimana yang kita lihat. tapi, teori ini memeiliki banyak hambatan yang cenderung kontroversial. Misal, kunci utama terjadinya evolusi adalah gen makhluk hidup bermutasi (berubah) oleh mutagen. Tapi... itu hanya teori... bahkan di laboratorium terbaik pun, dengan kondisi super ideal, belum pernah tercipta suatu mahkluk yang karena mutasi, dia menjadi makhluk yang lebih baik. mutasi hanya menimbulkan kecacatan bahkan kematian.
Teori sup purba, larutan kimia lambat laun akan berekasi dan membentuk makhluk hidup, sulit untuk dibuktikan. Mungkin pas SMA pernah mendengar percobaan Miller yang menghasilkan asam amino dari gas-gas tertentu, sama sekali tak membuktikan bahwa proses itulah yang terjadi di alam milyaran tahun yang lalu. karena, asam amino memang membentuk makhluk hidup..tapi bukan makhluk hidup. ini sama dengan pernyataan bahwa anda terdiri dari atom karbon, tapi karbon bukanlah makhluk hidup.
dan, sebanyak apapun campuran kimia yang dicampurkan, di laboratorium, tak pernah dihasilkan satu sel amuba pun! padahal, di alam, milyaran tahun lalu, kondisi bumi jauh lebih kejam daripada kondisi laboratorium yang ideal. Bumi masih panas, perubahan suhu dan tekanan yang ekstrem, sinar kosmis yang radioaktif... sama sekali tak memungkinkan "sup purba" membentuk kehidupan... Jika bahan-bahan tersebut digunakan pada kondisi bumi purba, bahan tersebut hanya akan membusuk bahkan gosong.
karena, kunci bagaimana suatu kehidupan bisa terjadi adalah karena adanya DNA/RNA. kehidupan terbentuk oleh DNA, tapi DNA, oleh enzim makhluk hidup. DNA atau enzim?duluan ayam atau telur?
Bahkan, dengan model komputer tercanggih pun, kita tak pernah bisa meramal keadaan cuaca dengan akurat sejam kemudian.
belum kalau membahas UFO/ET...
apalagi kalau membahas pertanyaan lain yang menjadi momok semua orang... apa yang terjadi sesudah mati? tampaknya, selain iman, tak ada satupun yang bisa membuktikan apa yang akan terjadi setelah kematian...
Saat ini, meski sains telah jauh lebih banyak tahu, masih jauh lebih banyak hal yang tak diketahui. Satu jawaban atas satu pertanyaan, akan melahirkan ribuan pertanyaan baru tak berkesudahan. Meski saat ini sains telah berkembang pesat, orang masih memerlukan iman untuk dijadikan pegangan dalam memahami eksistensinya.
====================================================
Mengingat begitu banyaknya pertanyaan-pertanyaan yang "belum" memilki jawaban, yang saat ini para ilmuwan sedang berusaha menguak jawabannya, mengapa kita tidak menguraikan satu-satu pertanyaan? Jangan terlalu yang ekstrem dan susah seperti bagaimana proses penciptaan, tapi hal sepele yang sering kita abaikan, namun, penjelasan sains terbaikpun, tak memiliki jawaban atas penjelasannya.
Hal-hal "sepele" itulah yang dicoba diuraikan dalam buku ini.
Buku ini sekilas mirip buku The Five Biggest Unsolved Problems in Science, namun, tak seperti buku kedua, buku ini ditulis dengan "lebih santai", berusaha seminimal mungkin menghilangkan istilah-istilah sains yang ribet, dan tak membahas pertanyaan-pertanyaan filosofis yang bikin keder. Fyi, buku kedua, karena penulisnya adalah ilmuwan profesor "asli", meski ditulis dengan populer, tetap saja bakal bikin orang pusing mengingat yang dibahas oleh buku itu adalah masalah-masalah paling besar yang tak terpecahkan di lima bidang sains; geologi/geofisika, astronomi, biologi, fisika, dan kimia.
Dengan membaca buku ini, kita akan berkenalan dengan 10 pertanyaan lucu, unik, bahkan terkesan jail, namun tak bisa dijelaskan oleh sains. saya kutip salah satu pertanyaannya, "can i live forever please?"
ayolah, sebaik apapun kita menjaga makanan, kesehatan, gizi, kondisi badan, dll, kita tetap memiliki batas waktu untuk hidup!
Mengapa kita bisa tua padahal sel-sel tubuh kita meregenerasi dirinya tiap detik? bahkan dengan masukin gaizi terbaik pun, kita masih akan terus tua? mengapa menjadi tua tak hanya berubah pada penampilan tapi juga merembet pada memori, jiwa, dan pikiran?
FYI, ada salah satu objek penelitian paling terkenal. namanya sel Hela. singkatan dari Henrietta Lacks, seorang wanita yang meninggal karena kanker 4 Oktober 1941. Apa yang menarik dari benda ini? sesaat sebelum kematiannya, sel kanker dari tubuh Henrietta dicangkok dan dikembangbiakan untuk tujuan penelitian. Ajaib, meski Lacks-nya sendiri telah meninggal, dan saat ini mungkin jasadnya sudah hancur, sel Hela masih terus hidup! bahkan para ilmuwan mengembangbiakan dan membagi-bagikannya bagi laboratorium penelitian di seluruh dunia.
Jika satu sel bisa terus dijaga hidup selamanya, mengapa tubuh manusia utuh tak bisa terus dijaga hidup dan tetap muda bahkan kalau diberi kondisi ideal sekalipun?
Berap rekor umur manusia tertua, 200, 300 tahun? mengapa manusia hanya memiliki "jatah" umur itu padahal sebatang pinus bisa mencapai umur 4000 tahun?
Bahkan, para ilmuwan pun masih bingung dengan jawaban atas pertanyaan, apa sebenarnya penuaan itu?
====================================================
Begitu banyak hal yang tak kita ketahui... semakin banyak yang kita ketahui, malah semakin banyak hal yang tak kita ketahui.
Beberapa orang, akan meninjau ketidaktahuan manusia sebagai sifat keterbatasan ilmu manusia. bahwa, itu menandakan manusia adalah makhluk yang terbatas, diberi pengetahuan terbatas oleh Sang Maha Tak Terbatas. Sains bukanlah segalanya. sains, sebagaimanapun canggihnya masih tak bisa melapaui iman, karena ruang kosong besar yang disisakan sains, bisa diisi dengan iman dengan pasnya.
Bagi kaum skeptis, akan melihat bahwa bahwa ide "Tuhan" yang "nebeng" pada "kekurangan" sains adalah sangat mengerikan. mereka beranggapan bahwa God Gaps hanya diciptakan oleh orang-orang yang naif dalam melihat keterbatasan sains.
Begitu bisa berbedanya orang dalam menafsirkan sains. Tak heran jika sains bisa dijadikan alat bagi orang untuk menjadi seorang yang asketis, agnotis, bahkan sekaligus seorang atheis....
====================================================
There are an awful lot of things out there that we don’t know. In this book, for you, are just ten of them, but there are hundreds more. It is the job of science to find the answers, and one has no doubt that it will.
The only trouble is, one also has no doubt that, when this little lot is cleared up, the summit of knowledge we will find ourselves upon will be just as false as that on which stood Lord Kelvin, and the peaks of the unknown just as high and just as distant as they were when we mistakenly thought the end of the climb was just one more heave away.
:)
Mengapa dia sempat berujar demikian? Abad 19 adalah abad kemajuan sains. Dunia mengenal Newton, Darwin, Maxwell, Mendel, Rutherford, Thompson, sebagai ilmuwan-ilmuwan klasik yang menonjol pada masanya. nyaris, semua permasalahan sains yang sebelumnya berada pada bayang-bayang gelap bahkan mistis, sedikit demi sedikit mulai terkuak. Salah satunya bintang cemerlang adalah Newton, siapa yang meragukan teori gravitasi yang memiliki tingkat akurasi mengerikan dalam menghitung pergerakan benda di tata surya? atau teori genetika Mendell yang sanggup menjelaskan mengapa anjing, meski variasinya beribu-ribu macam, tetaplah seekor (spesies) anjing. tetapi kumbang, meski sekilas tampak sederhana dan remeh, ternyata memiliki keanekaragaman spesies sampai bejumlah ribuan. mengapa mawar bisa berwarna merah tapi melati tidak?
Para ilmuwan era 1900-an berpikir bahwa mereka telah mengetahui segalanya. Menurut mereka, alam semesta itu "kecil", hampa, dan hanya memiliki beberapa juta bintang; Planet-planet dan kosmik beredar teratur menurut hukum Newton bak jam tangan swiss; Kehidupan dimulai dari "sup purba" yang hangat, larutan berbagai mineral yang lambat laun berikatan, bereaksi membentuk senyawa biologi yang disempurnakan evolusi menjadi kehidupan kompleks; Materi terususn "bola kecil" atom yang berperilaku sebagai tata surya mini.
Begitu pesatnya kemajuan sains pada abad itu sehingga, seorang ilmuwan terkemuka selevel Kalvin, berani berujar seperti kutipan di atas. Ironisnya, tahun 1900 Kalvin mengucapkan ucapan itu, namun, pada tahun itu pula, ucapannya terbuti keliru sama sekali...
dimulai dari teka-teki sains sepele, "mengapa suatu benda bisa berwarna hitam?" sejarah dunia sains telah berubah sama sekali dan meruntuhkan ucapan Kalvin. Sebagaimana kita ketahui, sebuah benda bisa berwarna hijau karena cahaya matahari atau lampu yang "putih" terurai dan warna dominan hijau terpantulkan, ditangkap mata. Pun mengapa suatu benda bisa berwarna merah, biru, bahkan putih (artinya semua sinar yang dia terima, semuanya dipantulkan). Namun, bagaimana dengan warna hitam? tak seorang pun pernah memikirkan ada "sinar hitam" yang dipancarkan. pemecahan masalah ini kemudian diselesaikan melalui makalah Max Planck pada 7 Desember 1900 yang menandai era lahirnya teori kuantum yang telah meruntuhkan semua konsep sains mapan bahkan terbaik sebelumnya.
Sekarang kita tahu, bahwa alam semesta jauh lebih luas daripada yang pernah dibayangkan manusia. Kita tahu bahwa bintang gemintang bersinar, bagaimana bisa mereka tercipta, dan bagaimana mereka bisa mati dan meledak. Sekarang kita bisa "memetakan" posisi bumi yang teramat kecil di jagat raya, dan sekarang kita mengenal monster-monster sains aneh di jagat raya, ada quasars ("bintang" yang cahayanya lebih terang daripada ribuan galaksi yang sekaligus digabungkan!), ada bintang neutron (bintang yang memiliki diameter hanya sekitar 25 km ini memiliki massa sekitar 1,4 kali massa matahari atau setara dengan setengah juta kali massa bumi. Dengan demikian medan gravitasi di permukaan bintang ini berkisar 200 milyar kali lebih kuat dari medan gravitasi di permukaan bumi. Medan gravitasi sebesar ini akan mampu meremukkan benda-benda yang ada dipermukaannya serta atom-atom penyusun benda tersebut. Sebagai gambaran, seseorang yang jatuh ke permukaan BN akan menabrak permukaannya dengan kecepatan 150.000 km per detik atau energi yang dihasilkan oleh tabrakan tersebut setara dengan 100 megaton ledakan nuklir. Tidak hanya sampai di situ. Sebuah BN dapat memiliki medan magnetik hingga 100 gigatesla. Medan magnet sebesar itu dapat menghancurkan semua informasi di dalam semua kartu kredit yang ada di atas permukaan bumi, jika BN diletakkan pada orbit bulan. Sebagai perbandingan, medan magnet bumi hanya berkekuatan sekitar 60 mikrotesla); atau monster lain yang tak kalah mengerikan, lubang hitam... yang hingga detik ini, tak satupun penjelasan ilmiah bisa memetakan kondisi lubang hitang secara memuaskan karena dia adalah "kuburan" bagi persamaan-persamaan matematis.
Teori evolusi Darwin yang mampu menerangkan "proses penciptaan", ternyata sama sekali tak berguna tanpa didukung oleh sains genetika. Teori gravitasi Newton, yang akurat untuk sekala tata surya, menjadi tak beguna saat diterapkan pada skala yang kosmik.
Atom, yang sebelumnya dianggap "bola-bola yang berperilaku mirip tata surya mini" ternyata justru tersusun dari ratusan partikel aneh yang bisa berprilaku sebagai "bola" sekaligus "gelombang tali", dan sama sekali tak bisa diprediksi.
Sekarang, sains bisa menguaraikan penjelasan bagaimana pikiran bisa bekerja. mengapa kita memiliki kesadaran dan memori. Kita bisa menerangkan bagaimana pengaruh lingkungan dan gen, bisa mempengaruhi kepribadian seseorang. Kita juga telah memahami bagaimana kuman-kuman dan virus bekerja sehingga kita bisa menciptakan jutaan obat yang dapat menghindari kepunahan manusia.
Kita juga telah memetapan genom manusia secara lengkap--artinya kita telah tau mengapa si A bisa memiliki penampilan seperti itu, bagaimana sifat dia, bagaimana keturunan dia, dll--. Kita juga telah menyusun "theory of everything" yang menyatukan segala gaya fundamental yang diharapkan bisa menjelaskan segalanya, penciptaan dan "pelenyapan", kiamat.
Dan, teknologi, di sisi lain, telah berkembang melampaui imajinasi manusia paling penghayal sekalipun. siapa yang pernah bepikir akan ada sesuatu yang disebut internet pada tiga dekade yang lalu? Coba bayangkan, bagaimana menjelaskan teknologi web dan e-mail pada Lord Kalvin! :D
Tapi, bukan berarti kita telah tau segalanya!!!
Yang dinamakan Theory of Everything, Teori tentang Segalanya, justru malah menjadi Theory of Nothing...
Seperti Kalvin, hingga detik ini, kita belum faham, bagaimana cara alam semesta diciptakan... bagaimana makhluk hidup bisa muncul dan lahir di bumi...
Kita memiliki teori tentang bagaimana alam semesta tercipta, Big Bang. tapi ita belum memahami, mengapa bisa terjadi ledakan? bagaimana prosesnya? apa yang terjadi sebelum Big Bang?
Bagaimana, bumi, yang asalnya tak memiliki apa-apa, bisa melahirkan makhluk hidup yang beraneka ragam. Kita mungkin jauh lebih memahamai bagaimana pikiran bekerja selangkah lebih maju daripada Plato, tapi, pertanyaan mengapa "hanya" manusia yang memiliki kesadaran, bagaimana kesadaran terbentuk, dll, tak pernah bisa dijelaskan dengan sangat mudah dan sederhana...
Itulah sebabnya, mengapa, filsafat tidak pernah dikategorikan sebagai sains.
Mengapa proyek genom yang bisa memetakan semua karakter manusia (ciri fisik dan sifat), bahkan tak pernah mampu memprediksi apa yang ada dalam isi hati, pikiran, dan memori seseorang? bahkan ilmuwan pemenang Nobel untuk fisiologi, akan kelabakan saat ditanya, bagaimana seseorang bisa mengingat, dan dimana ingatan disimpan?! bahkan apa tujuan kita tidur dan bemimpi pun tak pernah bisa terjelaskan dengan memuaskan dan mudah.
Teori Evolusi mungkin bisa menjelaskan bagaimana alam bisa menjadi sangat semarak sebagaimana yang kita lihat. tapi, teori ini memeiliki banyak hambatan yang cenderung kontroversial. Misal, kunci utama terjadinya evolusi adalah gen makhluk hidup bermutasi (berubah) oleh mutagen. Tapi... itu hanya teori... bahkan di laboratorium terbaik pun, dengan kondisi super ideal, belum pernah tercipta suatu mahkluk yang karena mutasi, dia menjadi makhluk yang lebih baik. mutasi hanya menimbulkan kecacatan bahkan kematian.
Teori sup purba, larutan kimia lambat laun akan berekasi dan membentuk makhluk hidup, sulit untuk dibuktikan. Mungkin pas SMA pernah mendengar percobaan Miller yang menghasilkan asam amino dari gas-gas tertentu, sama sekali tak membuktikan bahwa proses itulah yang terjadi di alam milyaran tahun yang lalu. karena, asam amino memang membentuk makhluk hidup..tapi bukan makhluk hidup. ini sama dengan pernyataan bahwa anda terdiri dari atom karbon, tapi karbon bukanlah makhluk hidup.
dan, sebanyak apapun campuran kimia yang dicampurkan, di laboratorium, tak pernah dihasilkan satu sel amuba pun! padahal, di alam, milyaran tahun lalu, kondisi bumi jauh lebih kejam daripada kondisi laboratorium yang ideal. Bumi masih panas, perubahan suhu dan tekanan yang ekstrem, sinar kosmis yang radioaktif... sama sekali tak memungkinkan "sup purba" membentuk kehidupan... Jika bahan-bahan tersebut digunakan pada kondisi bumi purba, bahan tersebut hanya akan membusuk bahkan gosong.
karena, kunci bagaimana suatu kehidupan bisa terjadi adalah karena adanya DNA/RNA. kehidupan terbentuk oleh DNA, tapi DNA, oleh enzim makhluk hidup. DNA atau enzim?duluan ayam atau telur?
Bahkan, dengan model komputer tercanggih pun, kita tak pernah bisa meramal keadaan cuaca dengan akurat sejam kemudian.
belum kalau membahas UFO/ET...
apalagi kalau membahas pertanyaan lain yang menjadi momok semua orang... apa yang terjadi sesudah mati? tampaknya, selain iman, tak ada satupun yang bisa membuktikan apa yang akan terjadi setelah kematian...
Saat ini, meski sains telah jauh lebih banyak tahu, masih jauh lebih banyak hal yang tak diketahui. Satu jawaban atas satu pertanyaan, akan melahirkan ribuan pertanyaan baru tak berkesudahan. Meski saat ini sains telah berkembang pesat, orang masih memerlukan iman untuk dijadikan pegangan dalam memahami eksistensinya.
====================================================
Mengingat begitu banyaknya pertanyaan-pertanyaan yang "belum" memilki jawaban, yang saat ini para ilmuwan sedang berusaha menguak jawabannya, mengapa kita tidak menguraikan satu-satu pertanyaan? Jangan terlalu yang ekstrem dan susah seperti bagaimana proses penciptaan, tapi hal sepele yang sering kita abaikan, namun, penjelasan sains terbaikpun, tak memiliki jawaban atas penjelasannya.
Hal-hal "sepele" itulah yang dicoba diuraikan dalam buku ini.
Buku ini sekilas mirip buku The Five Biggest Unsolved Problems in Science, namun, tak seperti buku kedua, buku ini ditulis dengan "lebih santai", berusaha seminimal mungkin menghilangkan istilah-istilah sains yang ribet, dan tak membahas pertanyaan-pertanyaan filosofis yang bikin keder. Fyi, buku kedua, karena penulisnya adalah ilmuwan profesor "asli", meski ditulis dengan populer, tetap saja bakal bikin orang pusing mengingat yang dibahas oleh buku itu adalah masalah-masalah paling besar yang tak terpecahkan di lima bidang sains; geologi/geofisika, astronomi, biologi, fisika, dan kimia.
Dengan membaca buku ini, kita akan berkenalan dengan 10 pertanyaan lucu, unik, bahkan terkesan jail, namun tak bisa dijelaskan oleh sains. saya kutip salah satu pertanyaannya, "can i live forever please?"
ayolah, sebaik apapun kita menjaga makanan, kesehatan, gizi, kondisi badan, dll, kita tetap memiliki batas waktu untuk hidup!
Mengapa kita bisa tua padahal sel-sel tubuh kita meregenerasi dirinya tiap detik? bahkan dengan masukin gaizi terbaik pun, kita masih akan terus tua? mengapa menjadi tua tak hanya berubah pada penampilan tapi juga merembet pada memori, jiwa, dan pikiran?
FYI, ada salah satu objek penelitian paling terkenal. namanya sel Hela. singkatan dari Henrietta Lacks, seorang wanita yang meninggal karena kanker 4 Oktober 1941. Apa yang menarik dari benda ini? sesaat sebelum kematiannya, sel kanker dari tubuh Henrietta dicangkok dan dikembangbiakan untuk tujuan penelitian. Ajaib, meski Lacks-nya sendiri telah meninggal, dan saat ini mungkin jasadnya sudah hancur, sel Hela masih terus hidup! bahkan para ilmuwan mengembangbiakan dan membagi-bagikannya bagi laboratorium penelitian di seluruh dunia.
Jika satu sel bisa terus dijaga hidup selamanya, mengapa tubuh manusia utuh tak bisa terus dijaga hidup dan tetap muda bahkan kalau diberi kondisi ideal sekalipun?
Berap rekor umur manusia tertua, 200, 300 tahun? mengapa manusia hanya memiliki "jatah" umur itu padahal sebatang pinus bisa mencapai umur 4000 tahun?
Bahkan, para ilmuwan pun masih bingung dengan jawaban atas pertanyaan, apa sebenarnya penuaan itu?
====================================================
Begitu banyak hal yang tak kita ketahui... semakin banyak yang kita ketahui, malah semakin banyak hal yang tak kita ketahui.
Beberapa orang, akan meninjau ketidaktahuan manusia sebagai sifat keterbatasan ilmu manusia. bahwa, itu menandakan manusia adalah makhluk yang terbatas, diberi pengetahuan terbatas oleh Sang Maha Tak Terbatas. Sains bukanlah segalanya. sains, sebagaimanapun canggihnya masih tak bisa melapaui iman, karena ruang kosong besar yang disisakan sains, bisa diisi dengan iman dengan pasnya.
Bagi kaum skeptis, akan melihat bahwa bahwa ide "Tuhan" yang "nebeng" pada "kekurangan" sains adalah sangat mengerikan. mereka beranggapan bahwa God Gaps hanya diciptakan oleh orang-orang yang naif dalam melihat keterbatasan sains.
Begitu bisa berbedanya orang dalam menafsirkan sains. Tak heran jika sains bisa dijadikan alat bagi orang untuk menjadi seorang yang asketis, agnotis, bahkan sekaligus seorang atheis....
====================================================
There are an awful lot of things out there that we don’t know. In this book, for you, are just ten of them, but there are hundreds more. It is the job of science to find the answers, and one has no doubt that it will.
The only trouble is, one also has no doubt that, when this little lot is cleared up, the summit of knowledge we will find ourselves upon will be just as false as that on which stood Lord Kelvin, and the peaks of the unknown just as high and just as distant as they were when we mistakenly thought the end of the climb was just one more heave away.
:)
November 25, 2019
این کتاب پرسشهایی پیرامون خودآگاهی،معنای زمان، عمر و پیری و جاودانگی، هوش و انسانهای کندذهن، کیهان، هویت، چاقی و سلامتی، ادعاهای فراهنجار مثل چاکرا و تلهپاتی، و غیره مطرح میکند.
نویسنده روزنامهنگار علمی است. هر فصل بیشتر شبیه یک مقاله است تا فصلی از یک کتاب پخته. گرچه باید پذیرفت که این حجم برای پرداختن به همهی این موضوعات کافی نیست، ولی نمیشود حرافی گاه و بیگاه، و تلاش نویسنده برای هیجانزده کردن مخاطب را به قیمت کاستن از عمق مطالب نادیده گرفت.
به هر حال، در این کتاب بحثهای گیرایی مطرح میشود، به خصوص در مورد خودآگاهی. از طرفی چون نویسنده روزنامهنگار است، شما این فرصت را پیدا میکنید که با حال و هوای علم در فضای رسانهای و ژورنالیستی آشنا شوید. همچنین د�� مورد برخی سوالات بسیار چالشانگیز علمی از نظریات روز باخبر میشوید که سبب کنجکاوی بیشتر است.
چنانکه قابل حدس است، چنین بحثهایی به کرات با فلسفه و اخلاق میآمیزند. در نتیجه، گرچه کتاب فلسفی نیست ولی در مواردی به فلسفه تن میدهد.
نویسنده روزنامهنگار علمی است. هر فصل بیشتر شبیه یک مقاله است تا فصلی از یک کتاب پخته. گرچه باید پذیرفت که این حجم برای پرداختن به همهی این موضوعات کافی نیست، ولی نمیشود حرافی گاه و بیگاه، و تلاش نویسنده برای هیجانزده کردن مخاطب را به قیمت کاستن از عمق مطالب نادیده گرفت.
به هر حال، در این کتاب بحثهای گیرایی مطرح میشود، به خصوص در مورد خودآگاهی. از طرفی چون نویسنده روزنامهنگار است، شما این فرصت را پیدا میکنید که با حال و هوای علم در فضای رسانهای و ژورنالیستی آشنا شوید. همچنین د�� مورد برخی سوالات بسیار چالشانگیز علمی از نظریات روز باخبر میشوید که سبب کنجکاوی بیشتر است.
چنانکه قابل حدس است، چنین بحثهایی به کرات با فلسفه و اخلاق میآمیزند. در نتیجه، گرچه کتاب فلسفی نیست ولی در مواردی به فلسفه تن میدهد.
May 4, 2025
To książka z 2007 roku, więc nie wiem, czy się już w pewnych tematach nie zdeaktualizowała. Jeden rozdział był mnie dla bardzo dziwny i trochę nie rozumiem, czemu się tu znalazł, ale poza tym dobrze mi się ją czytało i autor wziął na tapet całkiem ciekawe tematy.
June 14, 2015
[2.5]
This is very much a book by a science journalist, rather than someone who has much in-depth understanding of the scientific issues involved. As such, it has the same limitations as New Scientist - and like New Scientist, makes perfectly diverting reading on a train journey or in a doctor's waiting room.
To this non-expert, the best chapter was the first - Is Fido A Zombie - looking at the vexed question of whether, and to what extent, animals are conscious and self-aware. If nothing else, I learned that some birds are considerably cleverer than I had bee aware. The chapter on the 'mystery' of time rather flew over my head, though in contrast with, say A Brief History of Time, I wasn't entirely sure that the author understood what he was writing about any better than I did (though I did have a half-formed thought along the lines that some of the problems may arise from the fact that we use the same word to describe a lot of only loosely related concepts).
The chapter on 'what do we do with the stupid' was crassly named and not really asking a scientific, but rather a sociological and political question, but it did at least make me think about an issue which nobody in our political system is really even pretending to address - how to provide opportunities, and indeed meaningful work, for the sixth of the population who fall more than a standard deviation below the mean on intelligence tests (accepting that while intelligence tests aren't the be all and end all, across the piece, they have a fair amount of validity).
The chapter on parallel universes and Nick Bostrom's simulation argument says nothing that I haven't seen put better elsewhere, though readers not familiar with the arguments might find them of interest. I didn't think he was sceptical enough of claims about ESP and telepathy on his chapter 'can we be sure the paranormal is really bunkum', although I kind of liked his idea of a hierarchy of ridiculousness concerning paranormal claims (he puts acupuncture and hypnotism at the top as 'most likely to have something in them'.
The chapter about continuity of identity 'are you the same person you were a minute ago' seemed a bit flaky, but it did ask a question that has occasionally nagged at me in my day job working on criminal justice - how meaningful is it to prosecute an adult for a crime they committed as a child?
So diverting enough, and with a few ideas that made me think, but I can't help feeling there's a better book to be written on this.
This is very much a book by a science journalist, rather than someone who has much in-depth understanding of the scientific issues involved. As such, it has the same limitations as New Scientist - and like New Scientist, makes perfectly diverting reading on a train journey or in a doctor's waiting room.
To this non-expert, the best chapter was the first - Is Fido A Zombie - looking at the vexed question of whether, and to what extent, animals are conscious and self-aware. If nothing else, I learned that some birds are considerably cleverer than I had bee aware. The chapter on the 'mystery' of time rather flew over my head, though in contrast with, say A Brief History of Time, I wasn't entirely sure that the author understood what he was writing about any better than I did (though I did have a half-formed thought along the lines that some of the problems may arise from the fact that we use the same word to describe a lot of only loosely related concepts).
The chapter on 'what do we do with the stupid' was crassly named and not really asking a scientific, but rather a sociological and political question, but it did at least make me think about an issue which nobody in our political system is really even pretending to address - how to provide opportunities, and indeed meaningful work, for the sixth of the population who fall more than a standard deviation below the mean on intelligence tests (accepting that while intelligence tests aren't the be all and end all, across the piece, they have a fair amount of validity).
The chapter on parallel universes and Nick Bostrom's simulation argument says nothing that I haven't seen put better elsewhere, though readers not familiar with the arguments might find them of interest. I didn't think he was sceptical enough of claims about ESP and telepathy on his chapter 'can we be sure the paranormal is really bunkum', although I kind of liked his idea of a hierarchy of ridiculousness concerning paranormal claims (he puts acupuncture and hypnotism at the top as 'most likely to have something in them'.
The chapter about continuity of identity 'are you the same person you were a minute ago' seemed a bit flaky, but it did ask a question that has occasionally nagged at me in my day job working on criminal justice - how meaningful is it to prosecute an adult for a crime they committed as a child?
So diverting enough, and with a few ideas that made me think, but I can't help feeling there's a better book to be written on this.
August 1, 2017
All'inizio sembrava se non interessante almeno divertente...poi è scivolato tanto nel nozionismo fine a se stesso. Quando ha accennato alla preghiera di intercessione (PI) ho quasi lanciato il kindle. Però è stato uno stacchetto non proprio vuoto.
July 4, 2016
Libro de cuatro y medio, pero le doy un cinco por su escepticismo inglés. Ese estilo de divulgación es el que le falta a la ciencia española. Sin negar nada aunque parezca aplastante, pero sin afirmar estupideces que no conducen a ninguna parte. Siempre citando pros y contras de toda teoría, citando a expertos de múltiples ramas, con una amplia variedad de opiniones y hasta teorías que desconocía, en especial sobre la Física Cuántica y la Biología (Patología y Senescencia) que me han llevado a tomar más libros sobre dichas materias -y no poco estoy aprendiendo-. Si a alguien le interesa, le desgranaré un poco la obra:
- La pregunta uno va sobre los animales y sus inteligencias. Aquí se debatirá sobre si hay que darles o no derechos y qué capacidades posee cada uno de ellos. Se introducirán conceptos y experimentos nuevos. Esta parte de es de diez.
- La dos va sobre la naturaleza del tiempo. Cuántica muy interesante, pero luego entran en juego Filosofía, Biología y demás y se embarra. Ocho y medio global.
- La tres va sobre la vida eterna. Senescencia, biogerontología... temas muy interesantes qué explican en qué consiste de veras envejecer y por qué no se buscan remedios. Diez.
- La cuatro sin pelos en la lengua habla sobre la necedad, lo necesario de hablar del término 'CI' y las salidas sociales a ella. Tema de diez de entrada simplemente por ser de los pocos autores que no se corta un pelo.
- La cinco, sobre el lado oscuro, introduce de forma breve la materia oscura, y se corona con su última analogía, la de Stonehenge. Diez.
- La seis, sobre 'está vivo el Universo' comienza de diez, pero luego empiezan a mezclarse teorías y experimentos y pese a que los ejemplos que ponen son de diez, se comienza a perder un poco el hilo y uno dice 'ahora qué'. Pelín menos de nueve.
- La siete, sobre los 'yoes' y el cambio identitario continuo, para mí un tanto plomiza, le doy un siete, en honor a su nombre. No me gusta. Poca ciencia, mucha Filosofía y Psicología, bah. El tema abducción y eso no está nada mal, pero noto flojo ese punto.
- La ocho es muy reveladora sobre el porqué de la obesidad, e introduce el tema del adenovirus 36 que es quizá uno de los más probados como causa 'infecciosa' de la obesidad. Le falta una cosa, y es hablar más de las causas generales y no personales y los estudios realizados posteriormente, aunque en un libro de divulgación sería extenderse mucho. Nueve por esos fallitos.
- La nueve, acerca de lo paranormal, se me vuelve a merecer otro siete y poco. Mezclamos cuántica, pero a precio de qué y con qué evidencia. Mucho escepticismo para decir 'esto podría valer', y sin meterse de lleno en cuestiones como religión y espiritualidad. Creo que este tema, sin polémicas y con un punto de vista tajante, lo describió a la perfección en su Introducción a la Física Cuántica el catedrático catalán David Jou. A él sí que le daba un diez.
- La diez, sobre la realidad, es un poco confusa, pero certera, sobre los multiuniversos -multiversos-, los micro-, los bits, los hologramas, la existencia de otros universos, las realidades cibernéticas y demás. Ideas que rompen con lo establecido y que muestran la imposibilidad de responder a las preguntas actuales, que tardarán milenios en ser entendidas. En ese sentido a las primeras páginas les doy un siete y pico, pero a las últimas les pongo un nueve por sus ejemplos. Un ocho y poco le vendría genial.
No hay conclusión en el libro al tratar de preguntas.
Resumen: MUY recomendable si os queréis iniciar en temas que NO salen en libros y dependen de artículos, investigaciones y 'papers' de autores poco conocidos con teorías muy interesantes y falibles. Puro estilo británico.
- La pregunta uno va sobre los animales y sus inteligencias. Aquí se debatirá sobre si hay que darles o no derechos y qué capacidades posee cada uno de ellos. Se introducirán conceptos y experimentos nuevos. Esta parte de es de diez.
- La dos va sobre la naturaleza del tiempo. Cuántica muy interesante, pero luego entran en juego Filosofía, Biología y demás y se embarra. Ocho y medio global.
- La tres va sobre la vida eterna. Senescencia, biogerontología... temas muy interesantes qué explican en qué consiste de veras envejecer y por qué no se buscan remedios. Diez.
- La cuatro sin pelos en la lengua habla sobre la necedad, lo necesario de hablar del término 'CI' y las salidas sociales a ella. Tema de diez de entrada simplemente por ser de los pocos autores que no se corta un pelo.
- La cinco, sobre el lado oscuro, introduce de forma breve la materia oscura, y se corona con su última analogía, la de Stonehenge. Diez.
- La seis, sobre 'está vivo el Universo' comienza de diez, pero luego empiezan a mezclarse teorías y experimentos y pese a que los ejemplos que ponen son de diez, se comienza a perder un poco el hilo y uno dice 'ahora qué'. Pelín menos de nueve.
- La siete, sobre los 'yoes' y el cambio identitario continuo, para mí un tanto plomiza, le doy un siete, en honor a su nombre. No me gusta. Poca ciencia, mucha Filosofía y Psicología, bah. El tema abducción y eso no está nada mal, pero noto flojo ese punto.
- La ocho es muy reveladora sobre el porqué de la obesidad, e introduce el tema del adenovirus 36 que es quizá uno de los más probados como causa 'infecciosa' de la obesidad. Le falta una cosa, y es hablar más de las causas generales y no personales y los estudios realizados posteriormente, aunque en un libro de divulgación sería extenderse mucho. Nueve por esos fallitos.
- La nueve, acerca de lo paranormal, se me vuelve a merecer otro siete y poco. Mezclamos cuántica, pero a precio de qué y con qué evidencia. Mucho escepticismo para decir 'esto podría valer', y sin meterse de lleno en cuestiones como religión y espiritualidad. Creo que este tema, sin polémicas y con un punto de vista tajante, lo describió a la perfección en su Introducción a la Física Cuántica el catedrático catalán David Jou. A él sí que le daba un diez.
- La diez, sobre la realidad, es un poco confusa, pero certera, sobre los multiuniversos -multiversos-, los micro-, los bits, los hologramas, la existencia de otros universos, las realidades cibernéticas y demás. Ideas que rompen con lo establecido y que muestran la imposibilidad de responder a las preguntas actuales, que tardarán milenios en ser entendidas. En ese sentido a las primeras páginas les doy un siete y pico, pero a las últimas les pongo un nueve por sus ejemplos. Un ocho y poco le vendría genial.
No hay conclusión en el libro al tratar de preguntas.
Resumen: MUY recomendable si os queréis iniciar en temas que NO salen en libros y dependen de artículos, investigaciones y 'papers' de autores poco conocidos con teorías muy interesantes y falibles. Puro estilo británico.
May 7, 2009
If there's one thing I've learned in my years of reading about and contributing to science, it's the old cliche that the more I learn, the more I realize how much I don't know. The method of science has revealed a whole lot about the universe we live in, but even the most well-established facts can be utterly mysterious if examined in depth. Most of this mystery is still too mysterious to even be labeled as a mystery, unable to even be coherently imagined. But there are some things we know enough about to ask good questions, but not yet enough to provide good answers. Michael Hanlon explores ten of these questions in this book.
The title is a bit misleading; this is not a comprehensive "guide", but a rather random selection of ten mysteries. Some are what you'd expect - e.g., what is dark matter? What are consciousness and identity? But there are also some quirky topics you wouldn't expect here - e.g., what really causes obesity? What should we do with stupid people? I found these rarely-tackled topics to be the most interesting.
It's a quick read, written in an informal style and never delving too deep into any one topic. It's just enough to stimulate your appetite for more information, but unfortunately Hanlon rarely provides sources for the science mentioned. That's somewhat forgivable - this is, after all, a book of questions, not answers. Less forgivable is the preponderance of typos and shoddy writing (e.g., why does everyone have so much trouble distinguishing "which" and "that"??). I thought I was just being picky, but I got the book from the library and whoever read it before me went to the trouble of circling and correcting each of the many mistakes. Hilarious.
This book should be a light, entertaining read for both scientists and non-scientists. I think it would also be a great wake-up call for people who identify with the so-called "skeptical movement." Skepticism is obviously a requirement for good science, but I think it is often taken too far, to the point where skeptics can claim that we already know everything there is to know about the universe (and therefore anything that contradicts current knowledge must be wrong). This book is just one reminder that no, actually, we know very little about the universe. Mystery is what makes science so exciting.
The title is a bit misleading; this is not a comprehensive "guide", but a rather random selection of ten mysteries. Some are what you'd expect - e.g., what is dark matter? What are consciousness and identity? But there are also some quirky topics you wouldn't expect here - e.g., what really causes obesity? What should we do with stupid people? I found these rarely-tackled topics to be the most interesting.
It's a quick read, written in an informal style and never delving too deep into any one topic. It's just enough to stimulate your appetite for more information, but unfortunately Hanlon rarely provides sources for the science mentioned. That's somewhat forgivable - this is, after all, a book of questions, not answers. Less forgivable is the preponderance of typos and shoddy writing (e.g., why does everyone have so much trouble distinguishing "which" and "that"??). I thought I was just being picky, but I got the book from the library and whoever read it before me went to the trouble of circling and correcting each of the many mistakes. Hilarious.
This book should be a light, entertaining read for both scientists and non-scientists. I think it would also be a great wake-up call for people who identify with the so-called "skeptical movement." Skepticism is obviously a requirement for good science, but I think it is often taken too far, to the point where skeptics can claim that we already know everything there is to know about the universe (and therefore anything that contradicts current knowledge must be wrong). This book is just one reminder that no, actually, we know very little about the universe. Mystery is what makes science so exciting.
December 20, 2023
Pensavo, a torto, che l’Hanlon autore di questo libro fosse quello del Rasoio di Hanlon (“inutile supporre la malafede quando può bastare la stupidità”, legge fondante di buona parte della politica e del management italiano), ma è invece una specie di Piero Angela anglosassone, un divulgatore scientifico di alto livello.
Questo libro si interroga su dieci temi contro cui la scienza, per il momento, ha finito per sbattere la testa, e per i quali a breve non si vede ancora una soluzione e uno scioglimento. Questi temi sono: 1) cos’è il pensiero, e se il pensiero è patrimonio comune degli esseri umani e degli animali (tendenzialmente la risposta per Hanlon è positiva); 2) cos’è il tempo; 3) perché gli uomini sono mortali e se esistono ricette per l’immortalità; 4) cos’è la stupidità e perché essa può essere un problema (sia per chi è stupido sia per chi non lo è); 5) cos’è la materia e l’energia oscura; 6) cos’è la vita e se è possibile che ci sia vita nell’universo; 7) se è ammissibile considerare una persona la stessa persona in varie epoche od istanti della propria vita (più generalmente, cos’è l’identità); 8) perché oggi l’obesità è un’epidemia (e no, la risposta non è semplicemente “perché si mangia troppo e si fa troppa vita sedentaria”; 9) siamo davvero certi che il paranormale sia una sciocchezza; 10) che cos’è la realtà.
Come si può vedere, sono tutte domande che sconfinano più verso il filosofico che lo scientifico. I dieci capitoli (più un’estesa introduzione) sono tutti interessantissimi, scritti in modo piano e comprensibile nonostante l’osticità degli argomenti trattati. Personalmente ho apprezzato molto soprattutto il decimo capitolo, in cui si parla delle concezioni estreme dell’universo, quindi di universi paralleli (multiversi) e anche della possibilità, meno edificante, che noi potremmo essere i personaggi di una specie di videogioco universale (ovviamente la cosa è meno semplice di così ma non è affatto un’ipotesi peregrina) con tutto il corredo di dialettica tra predestinazione e libero arbitrio. Come mondo “immaginario eppure reale” l’autore cita anche Second Life (è un libro di qualche anno fa), e viene da chiedersi in che modo avrebbe fatto entrare nel discorso l’esperienza dell’intelligenza artificiale che sta andando tanto per la maggiore oggi. Devo dire che la lettura di questo capitolo ha piuttosto addolcito la depressione che mi era venuta leggendo “Fino alla fine del tempo” in cui si dava troppo credito a una delle varie ipotesi cosmologiche, al punto di considerarla l’unica possibile, quella che sia pure a lunghissimo termine prevede la morte termica dell’universo.
Ma interessanti sono anche il capitolo sul paranormale (l’autore è troppo razionalista per credere negli spiriti o la magia, men che meno nella religione e in un Dio creatore, ma invita a non mettere da parte l’ipotesi di studiare scientificamente fenomeni che ci sembrano troppo strani per essere veri, come la trasmissione del pensiero o la telecinesi) e in modo particolare quello sulla stupidità.
L’argomento di questo capitolo mi ha richiamato alla memoria un libro letto qualche anno fa, “Tabula rasa - perché gli uomini non sono tutti uguali” di Steven Pinker. In esso, e il tema viene ripreso qui, veniva contestata l’ipotesi che l’influenza ambientale sia l’unica che in qualche modo plasma la personalità e l’intelligenza degli individui, mettendo da parte gli aspetti più puramente biologici e genetici (che non necessariamente sono correlati all’ereditarietà; la genetica ha un ruolo combinatorio talmente ampio e complesso che anche un raggio cosmico di passaggio potrebbe intervenire a modificare il “programma”). Qui il discorso viene focalizzato sul fatto che le capacità intellettive medie sono sicuramente cresciute col tempo, ma nello stesso tempo sono cresciute anche le richieste che la società fa alle persone, arrivando invariabilmente a costruire un sistema meritocratico in cui solo i più intelligenti (di più: i portatori di intelligenza “sistematica”, credo che sia un altro modo di definire l’intelligenza logico-matematica) vengono premiati e si trovano nelle posizioni apicali nelle gerarchie della conoscenza. E’ una cosa sulla quale anch’io mi sono interrogato; cento anni fa per far parte dell’élite era sufficiente saper leggere e scrivere. Oggi, bisogna (per dire) avere le conoscenze per progettare macchine di alto livello (“macchine” sia in senso fisico, sia in senso metafisico - programmi, strutture logiche, cose così). Sotto una certa soglia di QI (che l’autore cita non come esempio di misurazione oggettiva dell’intelligenza, ma per avere un elemento di riferimento) c’è l’handicap mentale. Sopra un’altra soglia c’è la ricchezza intellettiva e la possibilità di eccellere negli studi (e venire ricompensati per questo). Il problema è la fascia di mezzo; Hanlon la fa coincidere prevalentemente con la forza-lavoro manuale che è stata emarginata dalle macchine nel processo produttivo, ma personalmente vedrei anche allargata ai gradi bassi delle capacità intellettive. Insomma, che fare non solo con quelli che nel mondo di ieri stringevano bulloni e per questo si portavano a casa lo stipendio, ma anche con quelli che si diplomano e si laureano mettendoci più del tempo previsto, e magari con voti che li renderebbero del tutto inappetibili per il mondo del lavoro, delle professioni e dell'accademia?
Questa forse, tra tutte quelle poste nel libro, è l’unica domanda non scientifica, ma etica (al di là della consapevolezza che l’intelligenza non è un fatto strettamente ambientale) e che pone delle ipotesi e cerca risposte non scientifiche. “Chi non è tanto intelligente viene deriso, è meno sano, può scegliere tra un numero limitato di partner, ha maggiori probabilità di essere disoccupato e povero e probabilità ancora più alte di scivolare nel crimine. Vive in una società che non solo lo deride, ma che piazza sulla sua strada tutta una serie di ostacoli inventati deliberatamente per farlo inciampare. E’ una palese ingiustizia. Quando mai qualcuno se ne occuperà?”
Questo libro si interroga su dieci temi contro cui la scienza, per il momento, ha finito per sbattere la testa, e per i quali a breve non si vede ancora una soluzione e uno scioglimento. Questi temi sono: 1) cos’è il pensiero, e se il pensiero è patrimonio comune degli esseri umani e degli animali (tendenzialmente la risposta per Hanlon è positiva); 2) cos’è il tempo; 3) perché gli uomini sono mortali e se esistono ricette per l’immortalità; 4) cos’è la stupidità e perché essa può essere un problema (sia per chi è stupido sia per chi non lo è); 5) cos’è la materia e l’energia oscura; 6) cos’è la vita e se è possibile che ci sia vita nell’universo; 7) se è ammissibile considerare una persona la stessa persona in varie epoche od istanti della propria vita (più generalmente, cos’è l’identità); 8) perché oggi l’obesità è un’epidemia (e no, la risposta non è semplicemente “perché si mangia troppo e si fa troppa vita sedentaria”; 9) siamo davvero certi che il paranormale sia una sciocchezza; 10) che cos’è la realtà.
Come si può vedere, sono tutte domande che sconfinano più verso il filosofico che lo scientifico. I dieci capitoli (più un’estesa introduzione) sono tutti interessantissimi, scritti in modo piano e comprensibile nonostante l’osticità degli argomenti trattati. Personalmente ho apprezzato molto soprattutto il decimo capitolo, in cui si parla delle concezioni estreme dell’universo, quindi di universi paralleli (multiversi) e anche della possibilità, meno edificante, che noi potremmo essere i personaggi di una specie di videogioco universale (ovviamente la cosa è meno semplice di così ma non è affatto un’ipotesi peregrina) con tutto il corredo di dialettica tra predestinazione e libero arbitrio. Come mondo “immaginario eppure reale” l’autore cita anche Second Life (è un libro di qualche anno fa), e viene da chiedersi in che modo avrebbe fatto entrare nel discorso l’esperienza dell’intelligenza artificiale che sta andando tanto per la maggiore oggi. Devo dire che la lettura di questo capitolo ha piuttosto addolcito la depressione che mi era venuta leggendo “Fino alla fine del tempo” in cui si dava troppo credito a una delle varie ipotesi cosmologiche, al punto di considerarla l’unica possibile, quella che sia pure a lunghissimo termine prevede la morte termica dell’universo.
Ma interessanti sono anche il capitolo sul paranormale (l’autore è troppo razionalista per credere negli spiriti o la magia, men che meno nella religione e in un Dio creatore, ma invita a non mettere da parte l’ipotesi di studiare scientificamente fenomeni che ci sembrano troppo strani per essere veri, come la trasmissione del pensiero o la telecinesi) e in modo particolare quello sulla stupidità.
L’argomento di questo capitolo mi ha richiamato alla memoria un libro letto qualche anno fa, “Tabula rasa - perché gli uomini non sono tutti uguali” di Steven Pinker. In esso, e il tema viene ripreso qui, veniva contestata l’ipotesi che l’influenza ambientale sia l’unica che in qualche modo plasma la personalità e l’intelligenza degli individui, mettendo da parte gli aspetti più puramente biologici e genetici (che non necessariamente sono correlati all’ereditarietà; la genetica ha un ruolo combinatorio talmente ampio e complesso che anche un raggio cosmico di passaggio potrebbe intervenire a modificare il “programma”). Qui il discorso viene focalizzato sul fatto che le capacità intellettive medie sono sicuramente cresciute col tempo, ma nello stesso tempo sono cresciute anche le richieste che la società fa alle persone, arrivando invariabilmente a costruire un sistema meritocratico in cui solo i più intelligenti (di più: i portatori di intelligenza “sistematica”, credo che sia un altro modo di definire l’intelligenza logico-matematica) vengono premiati e si trovano nelle posizioni apicali nelle gerarchie della conoscenza. E’ una cosa sulla quale anch’io mi sono interrogato; cento anni fa per far parte dell’élite era sufficiente saper leggere e scrivere. Oggi, bisogna (per dire) avere le conoscenze per progettare macchine di alto livello (“macchine” sia in senso fisico, sia in senso metafisico - programmi, strutture logiche, cose così). Sotto una certa soglia di QI (che l’autore cita non come esempio di misurazione oggettiva dell’intelligenza, ma per avere un elemento di riferimento) c’è l’handicap mentale. Sopra un’altra soglia c’è la ricchezza intellettiva e la possibilità di eccellere negli studi (e venire ricompensati per questo). Il problema è la fascia di mezzo; Hanlon la fa coincidere prevalentemente con la forza-lavoro manuale che è stata emarginata dalle macchine nel processo produttivo, ma personalmente vedrei anche allargata ai gradi bassi delle capacità intellettive. Insomma, che fare non solo con quelli che nel mondo di ieri stringevano bulloni e per questo si portavano a casa lo stipendio, ma anche con quelli che si diplomano e si laureano mettendoci più del tempo previsto, e magari con voti che li renderebbero del tutto inappetibili per il mondo del lavoro, delle professioni e dell'accademia?
Questa forse, tra tutte quelle poste nel libro, è l’unica domanda non scientifica, ma etica (al di là della consapevolezza che l’intelligenza non è un fatto strettamente ambientale) e che pone delle ipotesi e cerca risposte non scientifiche. “Chi non è tanto intelligente viene deriso, è meno sano, può scegliere tra un numero limitato di partner, ha maggiori probabilità di essere disoccupato e povero e probabilità ancora più alte di scivolare nel crimine. Vive in una società che non solo lo deride, ma che piazza sulla sua strada tutta una serie di ostacoli inventati deliberatamente per farlo inciampare. E’ una palese ingiustizia. Quando mai qualcuno se ne occuperà?”
May 9, 2008
Ten short discussions about ten bedeviling questions, the kind to which there are no answers. The questions and the fact that they have no real answers expose the weirdness of life and the illogic, at bottom, of our attempts to make sense of many of our core concepts, i.e., time, consciousness. Some of the unanswerable questions are on the amusing side (why are we all so fat, do animals think?) and some are truly bedeviling (what is reality, why is time so weird?)They bring to mind Augustine's comment that God created hell for people who ask questions like why did God create hell. They are all dealt with in about the right depth, although a few seem to veer off on a tangent. Nonetheless, a highly readable and thought provoking book.
April 24, 2016
This book was a beautifully interesting study on ten mysteries. My favorite one was when the author questions the nature of reality, as he offers many theories, sucj as the multiverse theory, that explain different facets of the problem. In "What do we do with the stpuid?" he offers the plight of the people who are of a lower intelligence than average, but high enough to not be given special help. They are less healthy, more likely to commit crimes, and less likely to be employed than the rest of the population, and their plight is largely ignored.
December 7, 2023
Pull quotes/notes
"(Isaac Newton, possibly the greatest mind of historic times, was, famously, so terrible at communicating that his lectures were often only attended by one or two bored students.)" (6)
"As the entertaining British politician and journalist Boris Johnson has pointed out, global warming is one of those things one believes in or does not, and that there is the whiff of faith about the whole climate change debate." (9) so very entertaining
"The most recent alumnus of the mirror test was the African elephant. In November 2006, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences1 reported that three elephants, Happy, Maxine and Patty, who live at the Bronx Zoo in New York City, had spots painted on their foreheads and were then shown a mirror." (28) vs
"1. Plotnik, I., de Waal, F. B. M. and Reiss, D. (2006) Self-recognition in an Asian Elephant. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103(45), 17053-7." (42) which elephant is it, sir
"But intelligence may well be linked to consciousness. That the brains of mammals, reptiles, birds amphibians and even fish share common structures and genetic backgrounds suggests quite strongly that our self-awareness is almost certainly not unique." (36) well those are certainly some clauses put next to each other
"We do not really 'see' the passage of time, after all. We simply have a series of subjective experiences that are different from the ones in our memories and it is this difference that our conscious brains perceive as time." (45)
"The US car market, after decades of downsizing, has now reverted to type. More than half of all vehicles being sold today are trucks—or SUVs—partly because when you weigh a fifth of a tonne and your teenage daughter weighs more than Mike Tyson you really do need a truck to carry you around. Our girth is making us drive bigger cars and is hence contributing to global warming." (143) in case you didn't hate yourself enough as a fat person
"Fat is a feminist issue. It is also a scientific one, and the science is turning out to be not as straightforward as we once thought." (153) well this is tonal whiplash
"People who 'believe' in crystal therapies and chakras often also believe in acupuncture and telepathy. And while there is zero evidence that the first two are real, there is quite a lot of evidence that acupuncture 'works', and some evidence for telepathy." (157) wait sorry what was that last aside? Some evidence for telepathy??
"This amounts to a defence of psychological scepticism.
Richard Wiseman adds:
Psychologists have carried out lots of work showing that people are often driven by their beliefs when they evaluate evidence, rather than being more rational. Also, they obviously carry out work with people, rather than with chemi-cals, and so are used to people cheating, not telling the whole truth and so on. As such, I think they are more aware than most of how evidence for an effect may be due to human deception and self-deception.
In other words, psychologists work in a world where people lie a lot. Physicists do not. This makes physicists a bit more gullible." (165) hard sciences/social sciences fight fight fight
March 29, 2020
Covering things like immortality, recovered memories, multiverses, etc. , I was most intrigued by the definition of life, how we can only describe what we know about us, not truly define. It is very possible that life exists everywhere throughout the universe but we are unable to recognize it. Also if interest was the author’s treatment of what it takes for us to recognize intelligence and autonomy. What would we do if our lab animals could ask us to stop? This is not a vegan polemic but rather a serious question about our egos and ability to acknowledge intelligence in others. In fact, the book seemingly is aimed at broadening our outlook on a variety of subjects.
August 26, 2017
Read more like a series of magazine articles, clearly not aimed at actual scientists when Scientific American is one of the references for a chapter. I'm clearly not the intended audience, but I do feel many other writers do much better science writing than this, there's very little actually discussed the rest is just trying to add colour but really just seems to be trying to be cute to cover up a reluctance to actually dig into the discussion. Just search through the NY Times Science section articles and you'll get much better summaries of these same topics.
October 3, 2017
Divertente scelta di domande, alcune interessanti, alcune molto interessanti. Frizzante e spiritosa - ma sempre rigorosa - trattazione da parte di Hanlon, alcuni misteri che la scienza non riesce (ancora) a spiegarci rimandano comunque a intuizioni che, pur essendo sperimentabili e riproducibili - almeno, ci si prova - sono ben più fantasiose del pastiche di credenze delle religioni più o meno organizzate che si smerciano al giorno d'oggi. Per fare i mistici o i visionari non serve più rimettersi a qualche santo: è sufficiente studiare Fisica, o Biologia.
December 15, 2019
علیرغم موضوع جالب آن، کتاب را به سختی خواندم. شدیدا نیاز به ویراستاری احساس میشود. بعضی از جملات را باید بارها و بارها خواند تا تا حدی معنی آنها درک شود.
May 31, 2021
It was alright. But the last chapter blew my mind about the theory that we live in a simulation crazy shit man, scary as well.
August 26, 2025
Um livro que mistura ciência quase numa abordagem filosófica e que no fundo, não responde às próprias perguntas, mas deixa-nos a reflectir.
June 5, 2012
I want to start by owning up to the fact that I am a lay person reading a book full of some deep scientific thought and questions. This is not the type of book I would ordinarily read. I found it while doing research for another project and the title of Chapter 4: what are we going to do with the stupid? caught my eye.
Me being me, I thought maybe it was some clever, wicked parody with 'stupidity' defined as 'thoughtless' or 'lack of common sense.'
The chapter actually looks at the issue of people with IQs between 70 (the number generally agreed upon as an individual needing assistance in some form to live in society) and 85 (85-115 being generally accepted as 'normal.')
Hanlon brought up so many interesting and thought-provoking points in that chapter I turned back to the beginning to read some of the others. The first chapter looks at the study of animal behavior and the ethical dilemma that could be approaching as science continues to discover there are fewer and fewer differences between us (humans) and animals.
I was riveted by these two chapters. The rest of the book looks at the theory of time, dark matter in the universe and some of the classic philosophical questions regarding the definitions of life, time, space and reality. These chapters delve into ideas that are too confusing for my non-scientific, non-philosophical brain. Reading it at this point started to hurt my head--like watching one of the time-space continuum episodes of Star Trek Next Generation.
My own IQ limitations aside, I found many things in this book to warrant reading it. I have already had several discussions with friends and family surrounding the issues raised around the IQ and Animal Behavior theories for the future.
Me being me, I thought maybe it was some clever, wicked parody with 'stupidity' defined as 'thoughtless' or 'lack of common sense.'
The chapter actually looks at the issue of people with IQs between 70 (the number generally agreed upon as an individual needing assistance in some form to live in society) and 85 (85-115 being generally accepted as 'normal.')
Hanlon brought up so many interesting and thought-provoking points in that chapter I turned back to the beginning to read some of the others. The first chapter looks at the study of animal behavior and the ethical dilemma that could be approaching as science continues to discover there are fewer and fewer differences between us (humans) and animals.
I was riveted by these two chapters. The rest of the book looks at the theory of time, dark matter in the universe and some of the classic philosophical questions regarding the definitions of life, time, space and reality. These chapters delve into ideas that are too confusing for my non-scientific, non-philosophical brain. Reading it at this point started to hurt my head--like watching one of the time-space continuum episodes of Star Trek Next Generation.
My own IQ limitations aside, I found many things in this book to warrant reading it. I have already had several discussions with friends and family surrounding the issues raised around the IQ and Animal Behavior theories for the future.
October 11, 2012
The author's purpose to the story is to explain the ten questions science can't answer (yet). He brings up stories to help explain why science can't answer these ten questions. He also is misleading when it comes to the question that science can't answer which broadens my views on questions science can't answer.
The theme to the book at least to me is life is full of unanswered questions. I think it's the theme because the book revolves around these so far impossible questions to answer. I feel the author was trying to say that live your life to find the answers to these questions.
The style the book was written in narration and exposition. It was a narration by the author telling story to also help explain and give examples on the expositions. It is an exposition or expositions because the book revolves around these ten topics that the author is trying to get across to the reader. The writing style was effective because it kept me reading and it kept making me interested in the ways he was explaining these questions science can't answer.
My opinion on the book is that it was a clever and creative book to read. I really liked the book for the fact that it mislead me at first be cause I thought it would be about basic unanswered questions like "where did we come from," and "what is the meaning of life," but it instead asked question that made me think about the things he was saying. What I didn't like about the story was the ending it was just kind of didn't have the same thing that the rest of the book had but I let read it and you can decide it for yourself. This book seems similar to books like this such as 10 things or 10 ways to but I don't think I have ever read a book on questions science can't answer.
The theme to the book at least to me is life is full of unanswered questions. I think it's the theme because the book revolves around these so far impossible questions to answer. I feel the author was trying to say that live your life to find the answers to these questions.
The style the book was written in narration and exposition. It was a narration by the author telling story to also help explain and give examples on the expositions. It is an exposition or expositions because the book revolves around these ten topics that the author is trying to get across to the reader. The writing style was effective because it kept me reading and it kept making me interested in the ways he was explaining these questions science can't answer.
My opinion on the book is that it was a clever and creative book to read. I really liked the book for the fact that it mislead me at first be cause I thought it would be about basic unanswered questions like "where did we come from," and "what is the meaning of life," but it instead asked question that made me think about the things he was saying. What I didn't like about the story was the ending it was just kind of didn't have the same thing that the rest of the book had but I let read it and you can decide it for yourself. This book seems similar to books like this such as 10 things or 10 ways to but I don't think I have ever read a book on questions science can't answer.
August 21, 2013
A princípio, fiquei um pouco céptica com este livro. A linguagem foi o maior choque para mim, que não estou habituada a termos científicos e os que conheço são apenas os que aprendi no ensino básico. Comecei a perder um pouco o interesse. No entanto, à medida que fui retomando a leitura, descobri que, afinal, todos esses termos são, com alguma concentração, bastante acessíveis. As 10 perguntas estão todas colocadas de uma maneira muito criativa e que nos cativa a conhecer o ponto de vista do autor. Por vezes, foge um pouco ao tema através de extensas explicações muito detalhadas acerca dos diversos fenómenos referidos, mas é compreensível que um cientista não consiga evitar fazê-lo de vez em quando, ou não fosse essa a sua profissão. De uma maneira leiga e sem demasiadas complicações, este livro aguça-nos, de facto, o interesse pela ciência, sejam quais forem as nossas vocações pessoais.
August 1, 2013
"The only thing that I know for sure is that I know nothing." Although I do not accept the Socratic paradox as being literally true, I do realise that with science we only know what has not been proved wrong yet. Newton's Law of Gravity works fine here on planet Earth but close to stars - let alone black holes - and the law gets broken: we need to look to Einstein to find out how gravity actually works. Although there is loads of stuff that I do not know, there is loads of stuff that the very greatest minds of science do not know either: yet. This book examines ten of the great mysteries of science in language that any layperson will be able to easily follow.
March 18, 2013
Brilliant book which reaffirms the principle I've always lived by, and that is it's not science that answers questions about the universe, it's us, and the more we know the more we find out we don;t know. I love that.
Hanlon is an atheist skeptic who is unafraid to march off into unfamiliar and uncomfortable territory, and even if he confesses there is no answer, at least he's entertaining and open minded about all the interesting questions.
Hanlon is an atheist skeptic who is unafraid to march off into unfamiliar and uncomfortable territory, and even if he confesses there is no answer, at least he's entertaining and open minded about all the interesting questions.
September 16, 2019
I loved this book!
It looks into things in a way that really engaged me.
If you have an enquiring mind and like to mulling things over, and are happy to not necessarily find an actual answer, then this is a great and light hearted book for a long train journey. Anythign which asks questions in an interesting and entertaining way, works for me. Some of the chapters are definitely better than others, but they really do ask questions that make you think.
It looks into things in a way that really engaged me.
If you have an enquiring mind and like to mulling things over, and are happy to not necessarily find an actual answer, then this is a great and light hearted book for a long train journey. Anythign which asks questions in an interesting and entertaining way, works for me. Some of the chapters are definitely better than others, but they really do ask questions that make you think.
September 2, 2016
An enjoyable but superficial look at science, with the emphasis on the thing which science has not yet been able to define or prove/disprove. This will not teach you in depth about any aspect of science, but it will bring up some interesting questions that in some cases deal with philosophy and human psychology as much as science. A quick book to read, and the more interested you are in the history of science, the more fun you'll have reading it.
December 25, 2010
This would score higher without my engineering background giving me an edge on the scientific questions under discussion. The treatments are not elementary, but simplified. It's a great book to get excited about the future, but I've read more involved works about the moral and ethical choices facing the future's children.
October 18, 2010
Hanlon's an okay writer at best, and his ten questions leave something to bed desired. But he's writing in earnest, and brings up some interesting points. I'm glad I got this one from the library and didn't pay money for it.
December 8, 2010
It gives you lots of things to think on, a good philosophical read. The 10 questions themselves aren't that good, but the possibilities suggested are awesome! Actually, the book tries to answer much more than ten questions and, IMO, he shouldn't have divided the book this way.
May 3, 2015
It has some interesting discussions but his attack on the beliefs of others, specifically the belief in astrology, made it a huge turn-off. Otherwise I liked the sympathy given to animals, and the weight gaining aspect of a nation, and that many really do live a long life, food for thought.
Currently reading
January 30, 2008Interesting chapter entitled: Can I Live Forever Please?
great, succinct thoughts and comparisons on all manner of life -- longevity -- and more.
I'm liking it.
great, succinct thoughts and comparisons on all manner of life -- longevity -- and more.
I'm liking it.
September 8, 2013
- Repetitive
- Not engaging, got very caught up in showcasing scientific knowledge
- Not well structured
- Arguments not clearly presented
- Not engaging, got very caught up in showcasing scientific knowledge
- Not well structured
- Arguments not clearly presented
Displaying 1 - 30 of 33 reviews