Thirty-four writers present a short essay, typically four or five pages long, each on their specialist subject or subjects. Many of them succeed brilliantly and repay respectful re-readings.

However, this is a difficult book to review since, as the title suggests, it is both broad and ambitious. Although there is no real danger of acquiring a full 'science toolkit for the mind', there is a splendid amount of well-presented science herein, and the best parts really do what the title suggests, and will teach you how to critique the not-so-good parts if you are persistent enough, which is even more entertaining than watching Star Wars and Lord of the Rings back-to-back. To score the book as a whole I gave each essay a mark in the range from one to five. The mean essay score is 3.2, but ten of the essays scored 5/5, so I give it an easy 5 stars on a value-for-money basis. (The modal mark is 5, the median 3. Six essays scored 1, six scored 2, eight scored 3, four scored 4. The essay on quarks by Alan H. Guth baffles me, so that might well be a five too for all I know, but I gave it a one on the basis that he should not be so out of step with the others - I understood the other three or four physics essays well enough.)

My top ten essays are:
1. 'What Happened Before the Big Bang?', by Paul Davies (physics).
2. 'The Joy of Water', by P.W. Atkins (physical chemistry).
3. 'Who Do We Blame For What We Are?', Jack Cohen (genetics: how DNA really works and why Jurassic Park cannot happen).
4. 'The Puzzle of Averages', by Michael S. Gazzaniga (danger in calculating averages from raw data and assigning meaning to results. Cases studies from psychology of language development in children, and physiology of human brain asymmetry. This essay does explicitly demonstrate the use of a tool for scientific reasoning.)
5. 'Ceteris Paribus (All Else Being Equal)', by Pascal Boyer (how to construct a hypothesis and move it towards a theory. Demonstrates use of simple coherent generalizations to separate the wheat from the chaff yet still recognise the weight of 'an embarrassing, unexplained fact'. Wonder stuff, an indispensible tool for the mind, you don't have to agree with his psychology of religion.)
6. 'Minds, Brains, and Rosetta Stones', by Steven Rose (philosophy meets psychophysiology: the mind-body problem and anti-reductionism, ie, levels of meaning and explanation in the various sciences. Sends B.F. Skinner, E.O. Wilson, and Jim Watson packing with a frog's leg.)
7. 'Study Talmud', by David Gelernter. (Computer science. Wow - any propeller-head who can explain the usefulness of Talmud study for the precision use of language in science and make me want to read up on the programming language specification for ALGOL60 and the supplementaries by D.E. Knuth as exemplars should get a prize. Supplies references with essay. Amusing sideswipe at the sociobabble of multiculturalism in postscript.)

GOTO StudyTalmud

8. 'What Is Time?', by Lee Smolin (physics).
9. 'Special Relativity: why you can't go faster than light', by W. Daniel Hillis (physics). Not as complicated as I thought, to my relief.
10. 'How Long Will The Human Species Last? An argument with Robert Malthus and Richard Gott', by Freeman Dyson. (On the right selection of a priori probabilities and assumptions in forming theory, cf Pascal Boyer. An elegant deconstruction of Robert 'Gloomy Science' Malthus' famous work on population growth, and Gott's similarly pessimistic and overly simple mathematical model of Man's not-special place in the universe.)

As the introduction puts it exactly : Reading the essays is like overhearing a conversation among scientists dining at a nearby table. The book of a set of essays by great scientists. Each essay is short and focused. Each scientist's biographical details are given. All have tried to write to layman. The major themes are : Thinking about science, Origins, Evolution, Mind, Cosmos and the Future. My own interest in the theme of mind. They are essays by Shank, Dennett , Hao Wang and others. There is a interesting essay by Gelernter titled " Study Talmud". It actually discusses about ALGOL Report & evolution of PASCAL language. The issue of identity in internet is explored in an essay. Ian Stewart explains about symmetry. Every library should have a copy of the book.

This book presents a great variety of short essays written by top scientists. Each essay is just a few pages long, and I was able to understand all but one very well. (I have no background in science.) I've already ordered several of them from my local library.

And here's what I liked best: At the end of each essay is a short bio sketch of the scientist/author. Included in those bios are the titles of other books written by those authors...and most of them write science books for laymen.

A wonderful example across the sciences as to why people working in a field have excellent visibility over the next 5 years, and very poor visibility (or at least very unoriginal) when asked to speculate over longer time periods. For those of you familiar with the research of these people, their vision of the future looks extraordinary like the work they do, only extrapolated in ways that are obvious to those in the field. What I expected was the "creative destruction" by people of their own agendas. All the computer scientists (Brooks, Holland, Gelernter and Schank) disappointed in this regard. Richard Dawkins was the only intriguing one.

Just to calibrate the thought again. If you want to learn the views of some pretty good scientists on the larger backdrop of their research, this is a good book to read. However, other than the fact that they are working on what they are working on, there is no convincing argument as to why the world will turn out the way they envision. Not to mention, good scientists tend to be spectacularly wrong on long term visions (remember Lord Kelvin's claim about the end of chemistry a century ago).

I still look forward enthusiastically to a book with this same title, but a different cast of contributors.

The making of predictions is necessary and important, for it can instill both optimism and caution. There is only a modest collection of predictions in this book, but they do give a fairly good representation of the different scientific fields and what to expect in these fields by the end of the fifth decade of the 21st century. Here is a brief summary and commentary of a few of them:

- "The Future of the Nature of the Universe" (Lee Smolin). The author predicts that quantum computing will become a reality in 50 years, as long as quantum mechanics remains true when extrapolated to macroscopic systems. COMMENT: Due to studies in decoherence and more honest interpretations of experiments testing the phenomenon of entanglement, quantum theory will instead be viewed in more "classical" terms in its formalism and foundations. Research into quantum computation, as understood presently, will fade from the scene.

- "Cosmological Challenges: Are We Alone, and Where?" (Martin Rees). The author is optimisitic about the SETI project and other attempts to detect the presence of life external to the Earth. COMMENT: Due to advances in solid state device physics, life on other planets will be detected via the by-products they put into their atmospheres. The information theory behind the SETI searches will become more refined also, increasing the probability of understanding a real message from another civilization.

- "Son of Moore's Law" (Richard Dawkins). The author predicts an exponential increase in DNA sequencing power, which he labels as the "Son of Moore's Law." The author also expresses a fear that there will still be theologians in 2050, this being done in the context of ethical debates on the genetic sequencing of "Lucy" and the possibility of the reintroduction of dinosaurs. COMMENT: The sequencing projects and the number of sequenced organisms will increase hyperexponentially. In addition, tens of thousands of new "transgenic" organisms will appear, all of them optimized to carry out certain biological functions. The field of horticulture will explode, with thousands of new species of ornamental plants appearing before 2050. The university will meet its demise by 2050, but theologians will not disappear. On the contrary, and perhaps unfortunately, the major religions will be with us for many centuries to come, and they will accompany humankind on their voyages to other worlds, for better or worse.

-"The Mathematics of 2050" (Ian Stewart). The author predicts major revolutions in mathematics, due partially to the increasing influence of the computer, bioinformatics, and financial engineering. He also predicts that the current split between "pure" and "applied" mathematics will end, with the result being just "mathematics". He mentions also the "Milennium Problems", one being the Riemann hypothesis, which he predicts will be solved by 2050, its solution being hinted at by considerations in physics. The P/NP problem will be proved undecidable, the Hodge conjecture will be disproved, the Birch/Swinnerton-Dyer conjecture will be proved, the Navier-Stokes equations will turn out not to have solutions in certain circumstances, the Yang-Mills mass gap problem will be settled but will be deemed irrelevant by physicists, and the Poincare conjecture will be "wide-open". Interestingly, the author is one of the few who have mentioned the role of "quantization of mathematics" via quantum algebra, quantum topology, and quantum number theory. COMMENT: The Poincare conjecture will be resolved by 2010 with its resolution being in the context of the "quantization of mathematics" mentioned by the author. In fact, the quantization of mathematics will be the driving force behind whole new areas of mathematics. Pure mathematics will continue to be viewed as disjoint from applied mathematics. In fact, there will be an intense effort, as evident from the last two meetings of the International Congress of Mathematicians, to keep pure and applied mathematics as separate disciplines. Mathematical finance will continue to explode and there will be intense competition between financial firms to develop highly sophisticated algorithms for financial prediction and portfolio manangement. Financial mathematics will also have more overlap with physics and meteorology, as energy and weather derivatives take on even more importance. The next fifty years will see the rise of financial firms, and others, managed, staffed, and run completely by intelligent machines. In addition, due to hardware advances and the development of highly sophisticated algorithms in mathematical biology and bioinformatics, the entire biosphere will be sequenced by 2050. Complete mathematical models of the entire human body will be developed by mathematicians working in the biotechnology industry, and drug discovery will be viewed as essentially mathematical, with the actual physical chemistry and manufacture being essentially automatic. In this same light, combinatorial chemistry will become a branch of mathematics in its own right, attracting the attention of hundreds of mathematicians. Advances in artificial intelligence will bring about, with indications by the year 2040, of intelligent machines able to construct original concepts and theories in pure mathematics. Skepticism as to the possibility of thinking machines will be alleviated because of these developments. "Artificial" mathematicians will begin to become competitive with "natural" ones by the year 2050. Further, cryptography will continue to explode as a field of mathematics, due to the increasing need for online security and individual privacy. Increased computer power will fuel this need, and the competition between encryption and de-encryption algorithms will become very intense. lastly, by 2050 it will be accurate to say that mathematics will enter into every phase of human and machine activity. There will be no process, no business transaction, no entertainment function, no leisurely activity, that will not depend predominantly on mathematical structures or algorithms.

As Yogi Berra said, "It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future." However, if anyone can make meaningful predictions, it's the twenty-five leading scientists and authors whose essays grace The Next Fifty Years.

It's an exciting book. Almost every piece is enlightening, stimulating, and remarkably well written. I read a lot of books and articles about science, but still came across dozens of new ideas, convincing arguments and sparkling insights. Here are a few items that got me thinking:

Physicist Lee Smolin points out that subtle changes in light waves as they cross space may provide the first test of quantum theories of gravity--we won't need to build accelerators the size of the solar system to gain this information.

Evolutionary psychologist Geoffrey Miller speculates that gene activation chips will soon allow researchers to map the changes in our brains caused by "every state of mind lasting more than a few hours." The result will be a far richer understanding of human consciousness.

Mathematician Steven Strogatz expects that new methods for creating complex, evolving systems on computers will mean that we humans will "end up as bystanders, unable to follow along with the machines we've built, flabbergasted by their startling conclusions."

Richard Dawkins predicts that by 2050 it will cost just a few hundred dollars to sequence one's own personal genome, computers will be able to simulate an organism's entire development from its genetic code, and scientists may even be able to reconstruct extinct animals a la Jurassic Park.

Computer scientist Rodney Brooks thinks wars may be fought over genetic engineering and artificial enhancements that have the potential to turn humans into "manipulable artifacts."

AI researcher Roger Schank foresees the end of schools, classrooms and teachers, to be replaced by an endless supply of virtual experiences and interactions.

In many cases, the bold ideas of one writer are challenged or balanced by another, making the book a kind of high-level dialogue. Cosmologist Martin Rees, for example, takes on Smolin's idea of evolving universes, and neurobiologist Robert Sapolsky is much less optimistic about our ability to conquer depression than is psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi.

It's not all perfection, however. A few of the essays seemed relatively uninspired. These included psychologist Paul Bloom's pessimistic view of our ability ever to understand consciousness or the nature of thought--"We might be like dogs trying to understand calculus." And I found computer scientist David Gelernter's essay on the grand "information beam" that will transform everyone's lives an unconvincing one-note techno-fix. Also the book really needs an index--that simple addition would have made it much more useful.

However, it's a book that tackles big questions about our future in as thoughtful, insightful and well informed a manner as I've ever encountered. It's worth reading and re-reading.

Robert Adler, author of Science Firsts: From the Creation of Science to the Science of Creation (Wiley, 2002).

I happened to check the book out from the library, so I am happy to say I did not waste any money on it. Some books are readable and interesting. Other books may be readable and boring. Unfortunately this book is unreadable, owing to an idiotic typography that acts as a constant visual hiccup, so the issue of interest or boredom is barely relevant. From the few pages I did go through before giving up in disgust -- and with a headache -- I can only say that rarely have I read someone so ignorant of culture, so poor in intellect, and having so much pretensions to a high brow culture. Maybe Brockman thinks that it brushes off on him just by rubbing shoulders with some more or less "famous" people. In his case it clearly does not.

Bottom line - unreadable, empty, and pretentious.

Yes, I just like the book title and the new word "digerati".

~I was truely hoping this book was going to give some compliments most of the book goes on about how revolutionary things should be while almost all (bar one or two) seem to think the whole world and Internet consists of purely American citizens and that American rights should be used on the Internet and therefore applied to the rest of the world, followed by dribbling on about context and content in such boring terms it was difficult to stay awake.

The book also consists of more than a few journalists and analysts whom, after all, had~ such great ideas and visions would be sitting at the top of a large company and not speculating about whats going on.

If this is the best ideas and visions the

This book is a sad collage of weak efforts from a self-promoting literary agent. Brockman co-opts a pithy title with a specific meaning and then misapplies it intentionally, seeking to acquire the virtues of the label without providing the substance to back it up. If you want to read a group of highly respected scientists (and an occasional philosopher) speculating about their work's broader context -- socially, historically, aesthetically, morally, spiritually -- without the rigorous requirements of a peer reviewed journal or the space required to make a nuanced argument, this may be worth your time. However, be prepared to wade through piles of mutual admiration smugness and now-you're-an-insider prose.

Brockman positions the work as an "oral history of a dynamical emergent system," which is just a jargon-laden smokescreen for a half-assed effort. If only Brockman had the spine to take the transcripts of his interviews and synthesize them for the reader into a coherent, readable whole! Instead, we have edited transcripts, a power point version of a thoughtful book, the crucial synthetic element replaced with copyediting and cleverly labeled section titles. Good idea, lousy execution. This is a book edited by Brockman, not written by him; he apparently lacked the self-confidence or talent to write in his own voice, and he does a disservice to the thinkers whose verbal speculations he edits into pabulum, digestible by the massest of the mass public (e.g., "Chris Langton is the central guru of this artificial life stuff." Ack.).

Do yourself a favor and buy the original works of the thinkers included in this volume, or read their original academic publications. Yes, it may be putting money in Brockman's pocket as their agents, but at least he will be rewarded for the work that reflects his talent - leeching off others. The cover swims with the names of Nobel Prize winners and scientific luminaries - in a halo around his own.

The underlying premise of this book is that a new kind of scientist-popularizer now serves as the intellectual elite of our culture. Each chapter focuses on one such scientist-popularizer; first he or she explains his/her work and then peers comment on it. Broadly, the science focuses on about four themes: evolution, cognitive science/AI, cosmology, and complexity. The people interviewed include Steven Jay Gould, Richard Dawkins, Marvin Minsky, Roger Penrose, Murray Gellman, Steve Pinker, and others. My criticisms of the book are

1. It's exceedingly arrogant in its dismissal of literary and politcal intellectuals in the book's preface.

2. At least half of the peer discussion at the end of chapters is inane remarks like "So-and-so's work is very important. She's the smartest person I know." This, along with the tone of the preface, makes it seem as if the participants are insecure somehow. It also makes me suspect the book is merely a promotional vehicle for the participants books. (The editior of this book is a literary agent.)

3. In very few instances are the participants ideas adequately developed or critiqued. The spatial limitations are exacerbated by the inane praise and filler.

4. Much of the thinking covered is glitzy with little substance and this gives a false notion of how science is done. There's very little mention of experiment.

3 and 4 combine to create a book that includes both crackpot and mainstream scientific ideas and then doesn't not present the reader with enough information to distinguish between them.

The book does attempt to do some worthwhile things:

1. Lead one to some great authors. For instance, readers pick up the book because they like Pinker's "The Language Instinct" might then be led to Dawkins' "Selfish Gene"

2. Present both sides of a scientific debate. Dawkins vs. Gould is the prime example. I wish this had been developed more.

3. Show what prominent scientists think of each other's work.

4. Show some modern scientific paradigms--only this is done somewhat disingenously because real scientific breakthroughs and the paradigms they beget are eschewed for pop-sci that has done very little. For instance, fields like genomics and quantum computation are passed over but complexity is included.

My advice is to peruse the contents and use that to find interesting authors to read directly.

Yes, and it's called 'The Third Culture'. I am a final year high school student studying evolution and I read 'The Third Culture' expecting a dry and uninteresting outline of science. I was so happy to be proved wrong! I found that 'The Third Culture' was a logical and plausible explanation of integral facets of existence and that it explored science in such a way that it LIVED. Instead of just regurgitating the tried and true aspects of science which are so often printed in school books (or untried and untrue aspects of religion which is so often the resort of people attempting to explain the supposedly unexplainable) it does not shrink from showing that there is conflict in the scientific community and that it is by no means infallible but at least it's trying to resolve some old questions. Not least, it is readable and informative and doesn't resort incomprehensible jargon which was important to me. I'm very glad I read 'The Third Culture' and I think I'm better informed for doing that.

The excellent content of this book is hidden behind a particularly atrocious design, and it is getting dated.

Brockmann's advice is solid, often based on empirical research (very well referenced), and systematic; yet the poor design -- bad fonts, bad paper, bad layout, bad diagrams -- undermine the quality of the content. Even in 1990, a specialist in documentation should have known better.

Some areas are now seriously out of date: Online help is completely obsolete; Web-based techniques are non-existent; tools are old; screen-shots are quaint. Still, most of it is as valid as ever.

The high-quality text cries out for a thorough updating and redesign leading to a new edition, as most of its content is not only still true, but very valuable. Until then, despite its very real qualities, I can only recommend it with strong reservations.

...but if you want a good introduction to solid principles of computer documentation, this is a good place to start. Wiley's collection of books for technical writers certainly contains some more detailed volumes, but Brockmann's book is a good starting point for less-experienced documentation authors.

John Brockmann has raised the occupation of Technical Writing to the academic level and for that we owe him a huge debt of gratitude. I came into the industry when it was housewives who were bored, crackpots and all kinds of strange characters. The idea was that engineers couldn't communicate with users, so plain ordinary folks were hired in order to do it. The result was often folksy, but silly. Then writers who had experience in writing but who wanted to make some decent money at it were coming into the profession because the money is in the computer industry. That improved the results much, but there was still lacking an academic and theoretical foundation. Some junior colleges offered certificates in Technical Writing and a few Universities offered bachelor's degrees, but this was more the exception than the rule. The one who has had the most exposure and most acceptance in offering a theoretical and academic underpinning to what we do as Technical Writers is R. John Brockmann. I have to admit I liked the version 1 of the book better, because it was less funky. This version still retains the meat and potatoes of the first version: principles of how to write a documentation blueprint, how to organize information, how to index it, etc. It's worth reading and reading again.

The problem with this book is that it isn't a book at all. It is a vanity publication of The Edge Foundation. Actually, it is a series of emails that the Foundation's members sent in response to one of their "great questions" series. These examples were chosen by John Brockman, a literary agent who coincidentally represents many of these same people.

...

A quick sampling: Stuart Brand, founder of the Whole Earth Catalog and corporate strategist; John Maddox, physicist and editor emeritus of Nature magazine; Marvin Minsky, mathematician and founder of MIT's AI Lab; John Rennie, editor-in-chief of Scientific American; Leon Lederman, Nobel laureate and director emeritus of Fermi Nation Accelerator Laboratory; and Michael Nesmith, business person.

This impressive list is weighted toward the scientific and medical arts with a goodly sampling of science journalists. Bet you didn't know that Michael Nesmith, past member of the Monkeys singing group, was a high status "intellect", did you? He's a member. There's also some guy named Jeff Bezos in it.....

In the year 2000, there was an over abundant inventory of TV shows, magazine articles and coffee shop conversations devoted to nominating the greatest events and innovations of the last century. For the bold, the debate was expanded to the last two thousand years. Suggestions varied since what constitutes greatness depends on view point. Many took up the challenge which generated this volume. It demonstrates once again that there's nothing like a good argument with famous names to sell books.

The book is divided into comments (and BIOS) on "How We Live . . . ", observations on the nominated innovation's impact on the physical world, the printing press, classical music and "How We Think . . .", innovations that changed our perception of the universe, self government, calculus. While all your favorites are there, the printing press, the contraceptive pill, the atomic bomb, other more esoteric and conceptual are also included. For example "free will" is listed as a profound conceptual innovation. However, the recommender closes his nomination by saying that it is actually a "glorious, absolutely necessary illusion."

Arguments on why the nominations are so important are brief and facile in most cases and without much richness of description. One Princeton professor of physics did nominate hay (as in, "bales of...") and connected it, via the horse, to the rise of urban civilization and the great cities. An interesting concept if quite a historical leap. Remember, these were emails to the editors, not thoughtful discussions.

There is an afterword is by the Pulitzer Prize winner Jared Diamond. It is the only section of the book that appears truly thoughtful. Which, of course, is classic Diamond. Unless you need a tiny coffee table book to impress your friends or your guest bathroom needs its magazines replaced, look elsewhere your millennium insight...

I think that some have been a little harsh as to the merits of this book -- there are those scientists that dashed off hurried responses to the question, but there are just as many others who took the time to write thoughtful essays. Just having the chance to see how scientists and other creative people put their thoughts together makes the book worthwhile reading -- think of it as brain food for your mind. The responses ranged from the more obvious answers like the birth control pill, to more out there ones like the eraser and free will. If nothing else, these essays are written in digestible pieces and provide a good overview of major discoveries since man has inhabited the earth. Most will find it provoking. I'm fairly certain the thermos quote was tongue in cheek.

This is a genuinely great book because it makes readers think;we are so used to the world around us, that it is almost impossible tothink of what our life would be like without such everyday items as sliced bread.

No, somehow "sliced bread" didn't make it into this list. Instead, the first half of the book talks about material inventions such as the printing press, electric motors, telecommunications, the plow, the static electricity machine, the caravel, hay, clocks, the atomic bomb and the Internet. The second half deals with ideas such as marketing, calculus, the scientific method, secularism, the scientific method, the clock, economic man and other ideas that change the way we think.

It's done with humor on occasion, as in the nomination of the thermos bottle which ". . . keeps cold things cold and hot things hot. But, how does it know?" In each case, the relevant invention is briefly described and its material and intellectual impact is explained. One of the greatest American inventions of all times is overlooked, the invention of "the list" -- such as the book itself. Americans love to make lists such as "the greatest inventions of the past 2,000 years" and the "best 100 books of the century" and the "best home run hitter in baseball." You name it, there's an American list for it.

That's part of the fun of the book. Other readers will undoubtedly come up with their own omissions -- this book was compiled by nonimations from about 100 prominent scientists and thinkers. In itself, that suggests another distinctly American invention -- the one-upmanship of the expert by the average person. It's part of the social fabric of the United States; when Jeff Bezos came up with a list of 20 possible business ventures using the Internet, his employer at the time ranked selling books at the bottom of the list. So, Bezos went out and invented Amazon dot com -- a typical American approach to the experts who says something is impossible, impractical or irrelevant.

One of the fun things to consider is that this book had its origins on the Internet, at Edge.org, and a discussion among scientists and thinkers. Yet, here it is in the form of movable type used to place ink on paper -- which, one of the contributors, is a technology that dates at least to the Minorans of 1,700 BC. That's the nature of ideas; you spend all of your time inventing something, then people use it for some entirely different purpose.

Think of poor old Thomas Edison, who invented a practical means of recording sound and then expected it would be used to record the last words of dying people, or to enable clocks to announce the time, or to teach spelling to children. Instead, to Edison's disgust, it was used to record music! Can you imagine? With a band on every corner, musicians in every bar and theatre, someone came up with the idea of using the phonograph to record music.

That's what makes this book fun, enlightening, well worth reading and quite relevant to own. It will do two things for every reader: first, it will show how our world came to be, and second, it will prompt many readers to ask, "Why didn't they include . . . ?" Brockman compiled a wonderful list, and he also left out a wonderful list. That's the beauty of America (which he overlooks), no matter how good your product, someone is always able to come up with a new and unexpected way of using it. END