Here is the first installment of mini book reviews that I promised earlier this year. I’m planning on writing these reviews for nearly every book I read, first posting them on goodreads.com and then collecting them monthly to post here (so you can eagerly anticipate the next installment on February 28th!). My goals for this project are twofold. Most importantly, I want to make sure that I am paying attention and digesting what I read. I’m hoping that the process of writing these reviews will encourage closer reading and understanding on my part. The secondary goal is to provide useful book recommendations for anyone who reads my blog (I’ll try to avoid spoilers for the fiction reviews). Feel free to add your own recommendations in the comments.
- Saving Darwin by Karl W. Giberson is a decent overview of the creation/evolution debate from a theistic evolutionist, if not as in depth as I would sometimes like. But sometimes it’s good to step back and view many facets of a debate instead of focusing solely on particulars. While I am in the same camp as Giberson (someone of faith who accepts evolution), I am still learning much about the issue. So while I’ve enjoyed more thorough treatments of the Scopes trial by Edward Larson or the history of young earth creationism by Ronald Numbers, it was helpful to read a summary of the U.S. court cases since Scopes and an analysis of the “dark companions” of evolution such as social Darwinism and eugenics. Giberson is well read on all aspects of the debate so I found his end notes especially helpful in preparing a further reading list to delve deeper on some of these issues. As a Christian, I especially liked the section where he wrestled with intelligent design, admitting that he wished that the argument from design were true. He cannot accept it theologically though because of what it would say about God when one considers bad designs (human knees that wear out) or seemingly horrific designs (various parasites). Overall, I would recommend this book to anyone of faith willing to consider evolution and looking for a solid overview of the debate.
- The Seven-Per-Cent Solution by Nicholas Meyer is an enjoyable Sherlock Holmes adventure, filling in a perceived gap in the canonical works by Arthur Conan Doyle. I only finished reading the complete Sherlock Holmes stories last year (though they were given to me when I was in junior high by my older brother—thanks Alex!), so I was looking for something more now that the BBC’s Sherlock is between seasons as well. Meyer’s book was a decent “fix” for my itch. Watson narrates, as he does most of the original stories, and his voice is a credible facsimile. I never felt taken out of the story because of the narration. The plot concerns Holmes’s addiction to cocaine (the “seven-per-cent solution” also mentioned in the original stories) and his heretofore unmentioned meeting with Sigmund Freud. It’s all very clever and well done, but that’s part of what I didn’t love about the book. It seems that books (or movies) like these—prequels, reboots, or continuations of famous characters or series—often succumb too much to fan service instead of trying to do something new. By fan service, I mean bringing back beloved elements or tying together every last unexplained detail in the original or having a huge crossover event (world’s most famous detective meets the father of psychoanalysis!). But maybe it’s the predictability of the original series that makes it beloved in the first place. So a reasonable facsimile can keep people happy in the meantime. I was reasonably entertained.
- Evangelicals on the Canterbury Trail by Robert E. Webber is a book I needed to read. Perhaps it would have been even better if I had read it when I first started attending an Episcopal church in grad school. The book is mostly a story, the first half Webber’s personal story from evangelicalism to the Episcopal church, and the second half the stories of other like-minded evangelical pilgrims on the Canterbury trail, so to speak. Webber frames his own story as a search for six needs that he found fulfilled in the Anglican tradition: mystery, worship, sacraments, historic identity, ecumenicalism, and a holistic spirituality. Sometimes I wished he would spend more time on any of these topics, but he was more concerned with telling his story instead of deep analysis of liturgy. I suppose that means I need to look somewhere else for that kind of book. I found Webber’s and his co-pilgrim’s stories comforting as they found richness and freedom in the same way as I have in the Episcopal church. The book is not meant as a critique of the evangelical churches that they left, but merely a way to tell through personal spiritual journeys how not everyone’s needs are met in an evangelical church. Webber points out the many strengths of evangelicalism and how the two traditions can learn from each other. I think this is a book that any evangelical who is interested in liturgical worship should read. Episcopalians should also seek out this book to find out why evangelicals (like me) were attracted to their door. [Please note that there is a newer edition of the book which keeps all of Webber’s text and story, but replaces the original co-pilgrims’ stories with newer examples. I have not read this new edition, so I cannot say if I prefer it over the original.]
- The Mismeasure of Man by Stephen Jay Gould is an excellent history of science that argues against biological determinism of intelligence. His main argument is that intelligence is not a single, innate, heritable, quantifiable entity, able to be ranked. By going back and looking at the data and methodology of key figures along the way, Gould is able to show where scientists erred. He shows how easy it was for scientists’ bias to affect how they measured the size of skulls in the 19th century or how IQ tests for U.S. Army recruits in World War I were inadequately administered and the content biased against immigrants and those without formal education. This history is humbling for science, a warning always to be aware of bias. However, I had trouble following his arguments against the theory of general intelligence (g) by Spearman and later Burt. It involves factor analysis, a method of statistics initially invented to analyze mental tests (but used for many other things). I don’t have any background in statistics, so I couldn’t tell if his critiques hit the mark or not. But I did understand when he pointed out that the correlations between a set of mental tests could just as easily show the advantages or deficits of environment as a biological IQ. He also explained how using other statistical methods on the same data, it is possible to see multiple intelligences (as in Gardner) instead of one general intelligence underlying everything. Gould wrote the book originally in 1981, but revised it after The Bell Curve came out in 1994 so that he could add a few supplementary essays rebutting it. The Bell Curve made a big splash when it was published, but Gould feels that it was merely rehashing the same biological determinism of intelligence that he had already shown was mistaken. I would highly recommend this book for anyone interested in the history of science or the science of intelligence. [Please note the comment below about the controversy surrounding this book]
2 thoughts on “Book Reviews, January 2015”
Pingback: How I Became an Episcopalian | strangerextant
I am aware of criticisms of Gould’s methodology and book, including a study that remeasured skulls. One example Gould uses is a 19th century study of skull measurements of various races of people. Gould criticized the methodology of the study, claiming it was biased. Gould based his criticism on his re-analysis of the data. He did not do any remeasuring himself; he only looked at the original numbers. A recent study did remeasure the skulls and found that the original measurements were accurate. Here is the study: http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001071
It is helpfully summarized in this NYTimes article: “In a 1981 book, “The Mismeasure of Man,” the paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould asserted that Morton, believing that brain size was a measure of intelligence, had subconsciously manipulated the brain volumes of European, Asian and African skulls to favor his bias that Europeans had larger brains and Africans smaller ones.
But now physical anthropologists at the University of Pennsylvania, which owns Morton’s collection, have remeasured the skulls, and in an article that does little to burnish Dr. Gould’s reputation as a scholar, they conclude that almost every detail of his analysis is wrong.”
However, Gould does have his defenders, including this entry on the Cross Check blog of Scientific American by John Horgan: “Some caveats are in order here. First of all, Holloway and his colleagues analyzed fewer than half of the skulls in Morton’s collection. Second, their analysis, far from being “straightforward,” was highly technical and based on many judgment calls, as were those of Gould and Morton. The divergent results depend in part on whether to include or exclude certain skulls that could unduly skew estimates of brain sizes. Third, neither Morton nor Holloway et al. corrected their measurements for age, gender or stature, all of which are correlated with brain size.
Finally, at least one of the PLoS authors, Holloway, is obviously biased against Gould. The Times quoted Holloway saying: “I just didn’t trust Gould. I had the feeling that his ideological stance was supreme.” Holloway faulted Gould because he “never even bothered to mention” a 1988 paper by John S. Michael that found Morton’s conclusions to be “reasonably accurate.” But Holloway and his co-authors stated that the paper by Michael, written when he was an undergraduate at the University of Pennsylvania, “has multiple significant flaws rendering it uninformative.”
Maybe Gould was wrong that Morton misrepresented his data, but he was absolutely right that biological determinism was and continues to be a dangerous pseudoscientific ideology.”
Anyone who reads Gould’s book should be aware of the controversy. Science can be a contentious and messy business.