by Jim Al-Khalili
“The way we do science—all the traits and practices of science, such as being curious about the world, thinking rationally and logically, debating, discussing and comparing ideas, valuing uncertainty and questioning what we know or think we know, acknowledging our biases, demanding reliable evidence, learning what and whom to trust—all these can benefit us in our everyday lives.” (p. 159, The Joy of Science, Jim Al-Khalili)
Al-Khalili, Jim (2022). The Joy of Science. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
In my opinion, this book might better have been titled, The Love of Science. Al-Khalili exuberantly embraces the scientific method and exudes his enthusiasm for it. Nonetheless, he makes a better case for why we should embrace science and the scientific method than he does for the joy of doing so.
Contents
- Preface, ix
- Introduction, 1
- Something is either true, or it isn’t, 30
- It’s more complicated than that, 51
- Mysteries are to be embraced, but also to be solved, 65
- If you don’t understand something, it doesn’t mean you can’t if you try, 80
- Don’t value opinion over evidence, 97
- Recognize your own biases before judging the views of others, 114
- Don’t be afraid to change your mind, 130
- Stand up for reality, 141
Conclusion, 155
Glossary, 163
Bibliography, 179
Further Reading, 189
Index, 191–200
Notes and Excerpts
Something is either true, or it isn’t, pp. 30–50
p. 32, “Truths exist independently of human feelings and biases. Gaining scientific knowledge is not easy, but acknowledging that there is a truth out there, . . . makes our mission clearer. Following the scientific method, critiquing and testing our theories and repeating our observations and experiments, ensures that we can get closer to that truth.. . . We must therefore learn to spot and weed out what are ‘culturally relative’ truths or ideologically motivated truths and examine them rationally.”
p. 35, “In science, an explanation that has survived the scrutiny of the scientific method can become an established fact about the world, adding to our cumulative scientific knowledge.”
p. 37, “While we must always be open to new ideas and explanations in science and that what we once thought to be true may turn out not to be so once we gain a deeper understanding, we do know some things for sure.”
p. 38, “A single counterexample can prove a theory false.”
p. 39, “Popper argued that the idea of falsifiability was a crucial feature of the scientific method.” On the other hand, a given counterexample may, itself, be false, so before it can be used to overturn an entire theory, it must be tested.
p. 41, A given statement can be both true and false, given differing contexts or situations.
p. 45, “A good scientific theory [must be able to explain] all existing evidence as well as making new testable predictions that we can measure and check it against.”
It’s more complicated than that, 51–64
p. 51, “Ockham’s razor—named after the English medieval monk and philosopher William of Ockham” suggests that when two (or more) explanations are possible, the simpler explanation is the more likely to be true than the more complicated one.
p. 55, “The simplest explanation is not necessarily the correct one, and the correct one is often not as simple as it first appears.” Instead of Ockham’s razor, Al-Khalili suggests that “a better theory is one that is more useful, because it makes more-accurate predictions about the world” (emphasis in original). “To paraphrase Einstein, we should try to make things as simple as possible, but no simpler.”
p. 60, Nobel laureate Richard Feynman “was asked by a journalist if he could explain what his prize-winning work was in a single sentence. Feynman’s response is legendary: ‘Hell! If I could explain in a few words what it was all about, it wouldn’t be worth no Nobel Prize!’”
p. 64, “Thinking that something is true because we have a simple explanation for it is an unreliable way to proceed.”
Mysteries are to be embraced, but also to be solved, 65–79
p. 68, “By being curious about the world—by asking questions and making observations—we discover that what was once a mystery can be understood and explained rationally.”
pp. 69–70, Al-Khalili quotes Feynman again, “Poets say science takes away from the beauty of stars . . . . I too see the stars . . . and feel them. But do I see less or more? … It does not do harm to the mystery to know a little more about it. For far more marvelous is the truth than any artists of the past imagined it.”
p. 70, “Unlocking nature’s secrets requires inspiration and creativity.”
p. 71, “Striving to understand the world around us is a defining feature of our species, and science has given us a means to achieve this.”
p. 76, “Whatever reality we are experiencing, we may still have a limited perspective. We are viewing reality from one frame of reference. . . . we should acknowledge that our view of reality might also be limited, since mysteries still exist.”
p. 77, “There are many mysteries out there, but their true appeal is in trying to solve them, not in leaving them be.”
p. 79, “Enlightenment is almost always preferable to ignorance.”
If you don’t understand something, it doesn’t mean you can’t if you try, 80–96
p. 84, “One of the lessons a scientist learns early on is that whenever there is a concept he or she doesn’t understand, it is most likely because he or she hasn’t had the benefit of the time and effort needed to study it.”
p. 93, “We all have to constantly make choices about what to pay attention to—what to spend our time on.” This is increasingly true as we have access to more and more information.
[p. 94,] We must be careful not to spread our attention too thinly.
p. 95, “To truly understand a subject requires time and effort.”
p. 96, “If you’re prepared to try, you can cope with far more than you imagine.”
Don’t value opinion over evidence, 97–113
p. 98, “As we counter information on a daily basis, we need to decide what is valid and legitimate—backed up by facts and reliable evidence.”
p. 100, “The more evidence we can amass, the more reliable our knowledge becomes.”
p. 102, It’s better to err “on the side of caution” than to ignore incomplete available evidence and do nothing. (He later gave an example of a doctor telling you that there’s incomplete evidence that a particular substance could kill you. You wouldn’t wait until your doctor had complete proof.)
p. 105, “Like any experts, scientists can be trusted to know what they are talking about, not because they are special, but because they have devoted years to studying and building up that expertise.”
p. 106, “A healthy level of openmindedness goes hand in hand with scrutiny and critical inquiry.”
p. 111, When confronted with a claim, “Ask yourself how likely the claim is to be true and whether those advocating it have motives for doing so . . . . Challenge the evidence: Where did it originate from, and is the source credible?”
Recognize your own biases before judging the views of others, 114–129
pp. 114–115, “We are often capable of recognising the biases in others’ views while hardly ever questioning our own beliefs. . . . thinking scientifically can help inoculate us against [confirmation bias] and other blind spots.” Specifically, confirmation bias is our tendency to look for evidence to confirm our existing beliefs and to dismiss evidence contrary to them.
pp. 118–119, “Legitimate experts . . . tend to be far more ready to admit what they don’t know than those with no particular training or knowledge of a subject.” People with less expertise may be less willing to acknowledge their own lack of knowledge.
p. 123, The scientific method includes many mechanisms to correct false or misleading information, such as requiring that experimental or observational results be reproduced, insisting on peer review of results, using double-blind trials, and many more.
p. 125, It’s often easy to assume that correlation equals causation, but there may be many reasons for a correlation, which are not causal. (For instance, playing basketball or wearing large shoes doesn’t make you tall.) He gives an example that cities with more churches have higher rates of crime. The correlation arises because bigger cities have both more churches and more incidents of crime.
Don’t be afraid to change your mind, 130–140
p. 134, “Many people not trained in science see uncertainty as a weakness rather than a strength of the scientific method. . . . uncertainty in science doesn’t mean that we don’t know, but that we do know. We know just how likely our results are to be right or wrong because we can quantify our degree of confidence in them.”
p. 136, “We must always be open to new evidence and to changing our minds in light of it. There is even a certain nobility in scientific culture in admitting one’s mistakes.”
p. 137, “Admitting our mistakes is a strength of the scientific method, not a weakness.”
p. 139, “Accepting that we might sometimes be wrong is how we can develop a deeper understanding of our world and our place in it.”
P. 140, “If you are wrong, be brave, be noble, and admit it—and value others who have the courage and integrity to do the same.”
Stand up for reality 141–154
Though misinformation and disinformation existed long before the rise of digital technologies, these technologies have greatly facilitated their spread. Fakes and false information are becoming increasingly difficult to differentiate from true information. Information literacy is the key to detecting fake info.
Conclusion, 155–162
p. 155, “In developing the scientific method, humankind created a reliable way of learning how the world works, a way that takes into account our human foibles and builds in correctives.”
p. 156, “We trust in science because it works and because we recognise where we would be without it” (emphasis in original).
p. 157, “Science is the creation of knowledge, . . . , whereas technology is the application of that knowledge” (emphasis in original). “Applied science is still science.”
p. 159, “The way we do science—all the traits and practices of science, such as being curious about the world, thinking rationally and logically, debating, discussing and comparing ideas, valuing uncertainty and questioning what we know or think we know, acknowledging our biases, demanding reliable evidence, learning what and whom to trust—all these can benefit us in our everyday lives.”
p. 160, “The true beauty of science is that it enriches us.”
p. 161, “Science gives us a way to see the world beyond our limited senses, beyond our prejudices and biases, beyond our fears and insecurities, beyond our ignorance and weaknesses.”
Glossary, 163–178
from “Allegory of the cave” (p. 163)
to “Value neutrality” (p. 177)
Bibliography, 179–188
More than 50 compelling books and articles about the value of science
Further Reading, 189–190
Almost 20 additional stimulating books on science and scientific thinking
Index, 191–200
from “aliens (extraterrestrial visitors)”
to “wonder: science and”
Bird Brain 
Leave a comment