Benjamin Pelletier

Not quite what I'd hoped

Revisado: 10-29-22

I heard about this book from Annie Duke's excellent "Thinking in Bets" and hoped it would be something along the lines of the practical philosophy of knowledge (what is the meaning of "knowing things" when the "facts" we know actually have half-lives and will often decay). Instead, the book felt heavily focused on facts about numeric data related to technology and measurements, and those are the kinds of facts I'm least interested in. I'd expect the facts "My wallet is in the bedroom" and "when hydrogen and oxygen are heated enough, they combine to form water" to be very different kinds of facts. The first one is an utter banality -- that it becomes "false" at some point is trivial and uninteresting since I expect my wallet to move around from time to time. It would probably be interesting if "My wallet was in the bedroom at 12:35 on October 29, 2022" were false since that would indicate a belief that was false even at the time it happened, but I felt like the book mostly cared about looking at the rate of decay of the clearly-temporal kind of fact, and that kind of fact decay isn't particularly interesting to me. The number of transistors we are currently capable of putting on microchips (Moore's Law) feels more like a "wallet" fact than an "invariant truth" fact, and the book focuses heavily on Moore's Law and similar trends.

I feel like the other kind of fact is a distinct category because I don't expect it to change. When it does change, it forces me to reexamine my beliefs in a way that the fact about my wallet's current location changing doesn't. There are a few interesting discussions along these lines in the book -- especially the magnetic permeability of iron. But, it doesn't seem like this is recognized as a different category, nor does the surprising idea that this is *not* a separate category seem to be discussed.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

Dripping with bias

Revisado: 08-18-21

I would have expected a neutral (or even Trump-friendly!) account of the Trump administration's handling of the pandemic to stand on its own as an indictment of Trump and his administration, but the authors seem to think otherwise. There are a lot of useful facts and obviously detailed reporting behind this narrative, but still Trudeau is "handsome" while Trump's physical appearance is "ridiculous" (just a tiny example of the tone throughout).

There are areas where the bias seems to introduce substantive issues as well, such as the timing of the vaccine trial results relative to the election. The authors claim the FDA officials had no control over when Pfizer's study would complete, but in fact they changed the number of people who needed to have contracted covid from 32 to 62 and this change was what caused the difference between reporting before the election and after the election. Perhaps this choice was for the greater good, but claiming the FDA didn't influence the timing of the study results makes me doubt the degree of truth present in the many parts of the book describing things I'm not as familiar with.

Overall, I thought the book was worthwhile as a summarized collection of interviews when I read between the lines and listened to what I think Birx and other sources likely said rather than treating the book's narrative as an attempt at literal truth.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

esto le resultó útil a 1 persona

Slips between fact, opinion, and speculation

Revisado: 06-24-21

There are many good aspects to this book, particularly when explaining Buddhism and making broad categorical characterizations that illustrate the important essences of certain key elements in history. But, the narrative seemed to slip seamlessly between fact, opinion, and speculation so it was hard to know how to treat new information I hadn't heard before. I was frequently frustrated with the author's confidence in things I didn't think warranted that degree of confidence.

To take a minor example that stuck with me for some reason, the author states without evidence or explanation that monkeys can't be incentivized with the idea of rewards in the afterlife. That actually seems like an interesting question involving whether monkeys can delay gratification now for a larger reward later, how long the delay can be, whether a monkey has a concept of its mortality, and others. But we get no investigation or even acknowledgement of these interesting questions which could be addressed experimentally -- instead, we get a bald assertion that monkeys are categorically incapable of that kind of thought. There were many times I had this kind of reaction throughout the book.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

The best science fiction book ever?

Revisado: 05-31-21

I haven't read enough science fiction to actually make that claim, but what I do know is that this book is fantastic. This is the book I would have written in the alternate universe where I was an amazing writer and was able to spend a huge amount of time building an almost completely realistic universe. The pacing and twists are perfectly presented and remarkably unpredictable given the constraints Weir set for this book. I'm very glad I had no idea what this book was about when I read it.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

We should just try to be more right

Revisado: 05-16-21

That seems like such a simple, obvious, and unhelpful statement, and I was afraid briefly at the beginning of the book that I was going to be told all about how a bunch of specific people had made better choices than they could have so I should too. But, fortunately the author addresses the subject excellently and makes a compelling and useful case for what can actually be done differently and how, along with why this approach will work while some other superficially-similar approaches won't. Highly recommended for everyone, but especially this is the number one book I would have someone graduating high school read if I could pick just one.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

Clear, even-handed look at recent pop psychology

Revisado: 04-25-21

While I'm sure I would disagree with the author on many political topics, I would absolutely trust him to fairly evaluate the merits of both sides of any particular argument. This book does exactly what it says it does, and in a very clear and effective manner. As a side note, I happened to find the author's chapter on the implicit association test the clearest argument regarding the prevalence of systemic racism that I've encountered. Recommended.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

esto le resultó útil a 1 persona