2006Summer Reading Notes
After wasting a good while, the summer reading plan is finally going to get underway in earnest. But even during that utterly wasted stretch, I still read quite a few books; however decadent one may be, it’s not as if one can stop reading altogether, ha. Today I’ll first finish up the notes on the books I read during the wasted period, and tomorrow I’ll begin to get back on track~
[German]Suzanne Paulson: Eating the Sun, translated by Chen Ying, Sanlian Bookstore, December 2005
Just from the title alone, this book is already incredibly lovely, isn’t it? And indeed it is a lovely book: the prose is beautiful, fluent, vivid, and a delight to read.
Clearly, this book is about plants, but the whole volume has no single fixed theme. The21 essays can each stand on their own, approaching the subject from a variety of perspectives—science, history, emotion, environment, culture, religion, and so on—so the content is rich and varied.
This is a book of pure text, except that a monochrome plant illustration is placed in the inner margin of every page. Generally speaking, I don’t like reading so-called illustrated books. Many books on the market now—on Plato, Nietzsche, even Russell—on the history of Western philosophy have been turned into full-color editions, which feels like overdoing it; they are too exquisitely ornate, and thus feel restless and vulgar. Yet when reading this kind of book, one would rather have it interspersed with handsome color plant plates. But the design of this book gives one a feeling that is at once calm and plain, yet lively and lovely, and that counts as quite good!
[American]William Broad and Nicholas Wade: Those Who Betray the Truth — Falsification in the Temple of Science, translated by Zhu Jinning and Fang Yuzhen, Shanghai Science and Technology Education Press, December 2004
There’s not much to say about this book. It is extremely interesting and full of substance; in its relatively slim pages it gathers together a large number of cases, and both the narrative and the analysis are clear, accessible, and also of a certain scholarly depth. I couldn’t possibly read it just once.However, I would only recommend this book to people who already possess a certain amount of scientific common sense. It isn’t really a good thing to be hostile toward science before one has enough understanding of it. I hope that people who already have some sense of the “beauty” of science can read books like this to take a look at the “ugliness” of science, so that they may gain a more complete and more sober understanding of science.
[American]Samuel et al.: Einstein’s Bible, translated by Li Sima Yongbo, Hainan Publishing House, October 2000
Hainan Publishing House often puts out some very unusual popular science books.
I had already heard this book introduced by a classmate back in ninth grade. At the time he also seemed to mention The Brief History of Time and Kip·Thorne’s Black Holes and Time Warps — Einstein’s Outrageous Legacy. I had already read The Brief History of Time in electronic form even before he recommended it; as for Black Holes and Time Warps, it later became the first popular science book that deeply attracted me (I firmly maintain that Thorne writes much better than Hawking). As for Einstein’s Bible, I only bought it recently, after gathering together all the translated works on science and religion.
This book is written with great creativity, presenting knowledge of physics, astronomy, geology, and so on in the form of the Old and New Testaments.
Also, the comic illustrations in it are quite amusing…
In the preface, the relationship between science and religion is discussed, and there is a line that is very interesting; I quote it below:
第4页
Religion and science cannot be mixed; they are like oil and vinegar. But if oil and vinegar are thoroughly stirred together and the proper seasoning is added, then something that is neither too bitter nor too greasy will emerge. Such a delicious seasoning can be imagined. ////—This metaphor is really worth pondering. How should one view the relationship between science and religion? Ian Barbour distinguished four positions: conflict, independence, dialogue, and integration. Among these, “integration” goes one step further than “dialogue.” But how exactly does one “integrate”? Do science and religion really share something in common, such that they can “interpenetrate,” or even mix? I think that science and religion are after all still two completely different things. Although I also say that science resembles religion, and religion also speaks of science, and so on, I nevertheless believe that science and religion are always different, even opposite—just like oil and water, which are mutually incompatible. But even if they are incompatible, even mutually exclusive, as with oil and vinegar, they can still be “integrated” with the help of appropriate “stirring” and “seasoning,” ultimately making the whole dish complete in color, aroma, and flavor. This dish as a whole is life for the individual, and culture for humanity; it is precisely this whole dish that is the ultimate meaning of oil and vinegar. This is the angle from which the so-called “integration” of science and religion ought to be understood!
[American]John Gribbin: A Story Anyone Can Understand — The Universe, Life, and Everything, translated by Zhang Jinglei, Kunlun Publishing House, October 2000
Gribbin is an excellent, prolific, and well-known writer of popular science and science fiction. Of course he cannot be compared with Asimov, but among currently active popular science writers he counts as one of the very best.
In addition to lively, spirited prose and the ability to take difficult matters and explain them in accessible terms—essential strengths of a top-tier popular science writer—Gribbin’s distinctive trait is that he ranges very widely. He himself says in the book that precisely because his interests are so broad and he cannot settle down in any one field, he ultimately decided to give up being a scientist and choose instead to write popular science. And this book is Gribbin’s summation of the fields of knowledge he has explored over the years, covering physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, geography, and so on.
However, although this book ranges widely, it is far less brilliant than his thematic works such as Schrodinger’s Kittens and the Search for Reality, In Search of the Big Bang, and In Search of the Double Helix, which is rather disappointing.
[American]R. Courant and H. Robbins, revised by I. Stewart: What Is Mathematics? — An Elementary Approach to Ideas and Methods (Expanded Edition), translated by Zuo Ping and Zhang Yici, Second Edition, Fudan University Press, October 2005
This set of books from Fudan University Press is all very good. This is the thickest volume in the set, and it also seems to be the most technical. The two chapters on calculus alone could even be extracted and used as lecture notes. If I were to read it seriously, I’d probably need to have draft paper beside me as I went, but for now I’m just giving it a cursory browse, and it is already quite interesting.
第5页
Fortunately, creative thinking continues to develop regardless of certain dogmatic philosophical beliefs, and if thought submits to such beliefs it will hinder the emergence of constructive achievements. For both experts and ordinary people alike, the only answer to the question “what is mathematics” is not philosophy but the living experience within mathematics itself. ////—Here we encounter a problem we often have to face: who exactly has the qualification to answer the question “what is XX”? If one is not oneself inside it, how can one obtain a genuine sense of it? This is especially clear when studying “what is science” or “what is religion.” On this point, I once used Mount Lushan as a metaphor: the saying, “One cannot see the true face of Mount Lushan, only because one is in this mountain.” But on the other hand, merely looking down from afar without actually wandering through the mountain’s winding paths will also not yield a complete impression. So both the inside and outside perspectives are beneficial. Mathematics, however, seems special, because she is too pure, too beautiful. This is why I am dissatisfied when certain sociology-of-science scholars apply the whole package of relativism, post-positivism, and the like to mathematics as well. I am not taking a logicist position; in fact, the preface to this book also has a passage that says it very well: “（第3页）At present there seems to be a growing danger in the tendency to overemphasize mathematics’ axiom-deductive character. In fact, those elements of creative invention, those intuitive elements that play a guiding and driving role, although they are often not expressible in simple philosophical formulas, are nevertheless the core of any mathematical achievement, even in the most abstract domains. If the goal is a perfect deductive form, then intuition and construction are at least also a kind of driving force. There is a view that poses a serious threat to science itself; it asserts that mathematics is nothing other than a set of conclusions deduced from definitions and axioms, and that these definitions and propositions, apart from the requirement that they be free of contradiction, may be arbitrarily created by mathematicians according to their will, …” As can be seen, the author’s antipathy toward philosophy is directed at logicism (this book was written in 1941). Personally, although I do not yet believe that only mathematicians have the qualification to answer “what is mathematics,” I do believe that if one does not sincerely listen to mathematicians’ views, one has no right to pontificate about what mathematics is.
第252页
The Jordan curve theorem — “A simple closed curve (one that does not intersect itself) C in the plane divides the plane into exactly two regions, one inside and one outside. This means that the points in the plane fall into two classes—the points A outside the curve and the points B inside the curve—such that any pair of points in the same class can be connected by a curve that does not intersect C, while any curve connecting a pair of points belonging to different classes must intersect C. …
This theorem was first stated by Jordan (C. Jordon, 1838–1922) in his famous Analysis Course, which taught an entire generation of mathematicians the rigorous concepts of modern analysis. Strangely enough, Jordan’s proof was long and complicated, and even stranger, it was later discovered that Jordan’s proof was flawed, and considerable effort had to be made to patch the holes in his reasoning. The first rigorous proof of this theorem was quite complex; even many well-trained mathematicians found it difficult to understand, and only very recently was a relatively simple proof found.
第521页
Does a result obtained by extensive computation—something the human brain cannot accomplish on its own—count as a proof? The philosopher Tichomynko said: “If we regard the four-color theorem as a theorem that has been proved, then we must change the meaning of ‘theorem’; more precisely, we must change the concept of ‘proof.’” However, nearly all research mathematicians disagree with this view. One reason is that there are mathematical proofs not dependent on computers which are so long and complicated that even after ten years of study, no one would dare pound his chest and guarantee that there is not a single problem in them. For example, the so-called “classification theorem of finite simple groups” has a proof of at least 10,000 pages; it is the result of the efforts of more than a hundred people, and only scholars who have received good training can read it. But mathematicians…
[British]Harriet Swan, editor, John Perkinhorn et al.: Masters Speak on 20 Big Questions in Science, translated by Li Shuhui, Wu Wei, and Liu Yaozong, Democracy and Construction Press, January 2006
Overall, this book is fairly ordinary—neither good nor bad—and I only gave it a cursory browse. What attracted me was the first question, “Does God exist?” Perkinhorn’s essay is not without interest, but perhaps because I’ve read a lot of articles on this topic, I didn’t feel there was much novelty in it.
Chapter 13: Is it right to intervene in nature? pages 156–157
Fear of new scientific discoveries does indeed have its reasons. For example, scientists thought sedatives were safe and could be prescribed to pregnant women to control morning sickness. The first sedative baby was born in 1956, and in 1961, after it was found to be associated with birth defects of limbs, a high rate of miscarriage, and a mortality rate of about 40% before the age of one, this drug was driven off the market. But some technologies that were initially scorned and rejected by popular opinion later proved beneficial and were increasingly accepted by the mainstream. In 1798, Edward Jenner discovered that inoculating humans with a small amount of cowpox could make them immune to smallpox. This “vaccination” has saved millions of lives. In 1981 the World Health Organization announced the eradication of this disease. However, at the beginning of this invention, political cartoonists published cartoons satirizing vaccinated people as growing cow heads. Some people feared being injected with bovine substances, saying they did not want treatment using material from lower animals. When the cowpox vaccine became compulsory in 1853, there were protest marches as well.////—The panic over cowpox seems to resemble people’s current attitudes toward new technologies such as genetically modified organisms and cloning. My own attitude is perhaps fairly close to that of Professor Liu Huajie at the time: first, I do not support human cloning at present; but when it comes to how to oppose cloning, one needs a rational and calm attitude, rather than imitating cartoonists with satire or angry young men with marches. Scholarship is about reasoning and dealing with matters as they are.
Xu Guangming: The Mystery of the Crown Removed — 100 Years of Statistics and Analysis of the Nobel Prize, Guangdong Education Publishing House, April 2003
I kind of regret buying this book, because it really isn’t very useful…I’ll leaf through it a few times and set it aside for reference.
Su Xiangui, Tian Song, Liu Bing, Liu Huajie: Revering Nature, Hebei University Press, May 2005
This was a gift from Professor Liu. This book was really hard to buy—I don’t know whether it had all already been distributed internally… In fact I’d already read almost all of it, with only the final chapter on feminism left unread, and I finally finished that a few days ago.
I’ve always felt that these professors are especially close to me; I feel as though I could join in their discussions, because so many of their interests, likes, and dislikes are similar to mine. Of course, the professors each in fact have their own distinct characteristics, and their positions are not entirely一致, but the differences are just right—overall, they can come together and have a shared language.
Speaking of feminism, although I don’t know much about feminist philosophy, like Professor Tian Song I am also willing to call myself a “feminist.” I very much revere and admire women. However, I do not advocate women being “above,” “better than,” or “stronger than” men. Those notions of strength and weakness, superiority and inferiority, that spirit of competing to be the stronger party, that idea of regarding strength as honorable and weakness as shameful—all of these actually belong to the male character. If the standard by which strength and weakness are measured is still set by male thinking, then it is perfectly natural to admit that women are “weaker” than men. Men are indeed “stronger,” so they need to shoulder heavier responsibilities, and that is also perfectly natural. My feminism may perhaps be a kind of “male-chauvinist feminism”…
[French]Serge Lang: The Delight of Doing Mathematics — Three Public Lectures, translated by Li Delang, proofread by Zheng Qiucheng, Sichuan University Press, January 2001
Although it is said to be a lecture series not even welcoming to mathematicians, intended even for women and children, it is still somewhat technical. Quite interesting. But it wasn’t as dazzling as I had expected; perhaps I’ve already read too many works on mathematical beauty and have become a bit numb. Still, the distinctive feature of this book is that it is not merely a transcript of the lectures: the author includes a great deal of interaction with the audience during the talks, so it reads quite vividly.
[American]John R. Searle: Freedom and Neurobiology, translated by Liu Min, China Renmin University Press, September 2005
A very, very thin book, quickly browsed through. After reading it, I didn’t gain much inspiration, and didn’t find it interesting either. Personally, I don’t appreciate tying the issue of freedom to things like neurobiology.
2006年7月19日
· skydream
2006-07-20 00:40:50 http://blog.sina.com.cn/u/1241100182
I read your reply~~ it made me want to laugh~ it’s hard to say in one go~
The new post also made me feel ashamed of myself~ your “wasting time” really can’t compare with mine, haha, I haven’t even finished one book yet.
This makes me decide that I must come by often and take after you. There’s so much on you that is worth learning from.
Thank you.
· skydream
2006-07-20 00:44:30
PS. I recently set up a blog; the address is above. If you ever find yourself bored out of your mind~, you’re also welcome to come take a look.
2007-05-07 17:27:30 Anonymous 124.17.16.168
As expected of someone whose bedboards are said to be covered with books. I’m sincerely impressed.
· Gu Ci
2007-05-07 19:53:54
Having books under the bedboards is not enough to describe the size of my current collection……
Having a lot of books is nothing to brag about; it can only show two things: 1. I like buying books; 2. My family is in pretty good financial shape.
Actually, when I buy books, I’ve always had one wish: that besides me, my personal library might one day also be able to help other people. Although the really good books, in the end, still have to be bought by oneself to feel satisfying, not everyone has the conditions to buy and keep so many books. In some fields, the books I have here may be even more complete than the library’s, and I can offer recommendations and participate in discussions. I hope someone will be willing to come browse and borrow from my private library, so that my collection can truly realize its value.
2007-05-07 21:48:48 Anonymous 220.171.181.230
………………………………MS is a shared vision……
Translated from the Chinese original with AI assistance. The original text is authoritative.
Leave a Reply