It's also complete bullshit. In addition to Blink I read Outliers. It's a lot easier to write books when you pull them out of your ass and don't need to actually prove any of your ideas.
I don't think Blink is bullshit. Rather, the problem I have with the book is that it doesn't say much about anything.
At this time and age, it is not enough put forward that we humans have an intuitive faculty. You need to explain what it is and why it works the way it works. All that is well known by now!
Yes, I have read it. Several years ago. I seem to remember that there was a lot of data validating the phenomenon. But nothing much to explain it, at least properly.
I think the book really, unknowingly, covers at least two different phenomena: 1) when you reach a very good observation based on seemingly little data and time. 2) When the data and time are so small or non-existent that they really can't explain the accurate perception. In other words when we cross over into extrasensory perception. I suspect the book is afraid of the second one, so it tries to extrapolate everything from the first one. And indeed I doubt the second one can be explained with anything humans can measure, so it's hard to write about in a scientific way.
I suspect the book is afraid of the second one, so it tries to extrapolate everything from the first one.
Here's the thing - even if it can't be explained yet, there's no possibility that it could be extrasensory because that doesn't exist. It's sort of like supernatural. There is no supernatural, or things we can explain and things we can't explain. People attribute the unexplained to the supernatural until, in time, they're shown to be part of the natural.
And indeed I doubt the second one can be explained with anything humans can measure, so it's hard to write about in a scientific way.
This is a cop out. Of course intuition, PSI etc. can be measured. Heck, we are even studying retrocausation in the labs today. Even if the phenomenon is deemed to be entirely subjective, it can be analyzed and written about in a scientific way. Self-observation is a well established method of inquiry in science.
Furthermore, as I was telling in my comment above, intuition is a well established phenomenon by now. So, a book that merely gives anecdotal evidence of its existence does not really get us anywhere in this time and age.
Gladwell's book may have well made people glad in 2005, and I do remember finding it somewhat fascinating myself. But we are now living 2012, and there has been a lot of progress in metaphysical understanding during the last seven years.
there has been a lot of progress in metaphysical understanding during the last seven years.
Like what?
Not that there can be progress in that area, but probably what you mean is the usual process of explaining things thought of as metaphysical until, as always, they're brought into the fold of the regular ol' physical - supernatural to the natural.
Metaphysics is a field of philosophy, not a field of physics. The progress in metaphysics I referred to have to do with well worked out theories for concepts such as intuition, time, acausality, ESP, etc.
It's not that we necessarily fully understand these concepts, but that promising theories -- some even with empirical evidence -- for them exist. So a contemporary book about the subject should at least summarize the current state of thinking/understanding of them. Rather than just restate the existence of the phenomenon with new examples.
Of course, Blink is already nearly a decade old. So you can't fault it that much. But then, that was exactly my point. The book is yesterday's news.
It's also complete bullshit. In addition to Blink I read Outliers. It's a lot easier to write books when you pull them out of your ass and don't need to actually prove any of your ideas.
ReplyDeleteI don't think Blink is bullshit. Rather, the problem I have with the book is that it doesn't say much about anything.
ReplyDeleteAt this time and age, it is not enough put forward that we humans have an intuitive faculty. You need to explain what it is and why it works the way it works. All that is well known by now!
Timo, have you really read it? Or just read about it?
ReplyDeleteSorry to doubt you, but there's really a lot of data in there.
Yes, I have read it. Several years ago. I seem to remember that there was a lot of data validating the phenomenon. But nothing much to explain it, at least properly.
ReplyDeleteI still have the book, so maybe I'll revisit it.
I think the book really, unknowingly, covers at least two different phenomena:
ReplyDelete1) when you reach a very good observation based on seemingly little data and time.
2) When the data and time are so small or non-existent that they really can't explain the accurate perception. In other words when we cross over into extrasensory perception.
I suspect the book is afraid of the second one, so it tries to extrapolate everything from the first one.
And indeed I doubt the second one can be explained with anything humans can measure, so it's hard to write about in a scientific way.
I suspect the book is afraid of the second one, so it tries to extrapolate everything from the first one.
ReplyDeleteHere's the thing - even if it can't be explained yet, there's no possibility that it could be extrasensory because that doesn't exist. It's sort of like supernatural. There is no supernatural, or things we can explain and things we can't explain. People attribute the unexplained to the supernatural until, in time, they're shown to be part of the natural.
or things we can explain and things we can't explain
ReplyDeleteOnly, not or.
Exactly. So we may have senses which are not well known or explained yet, so that's called "supernatural".
ReplyDeleteNo, it will be explained without having to resort to magic.
ReplyDeleteAnd indeed I doubt the second one can be explained with anything humans can measure, so it's hard to write about in a scientific way.
ReplyDeleteThis is a cop out. Of course intuition, PSI etc. can be measured. Heck, we are even studying retrocausation in the labs today. Even if the phenomenon is deemed to be entirely subjective, it can be analyzed and written about in a scientific way. Self-observation is a well established method of inquiry in science.
Furthermore, as I was telling in my comment above, intuition is a well established phenomenon by now. So, a book that merely gives anecdotal evidence of its existence does not really get us anywhere in this time and age.
Gladwell's book may have well made people glad in 2005, and I do remember finding it somewhat fascinating myself. But we are now living 2012, and there has been a lot of progress in metaphysical understanding during the last seven years.
there has been a lot of progress in metaphysical understanding during the last seven years.
ReplyDeleteLike what?
Not that there can be progress in that area, but probably what you mean is the usual process of explaining things thought of as metaphysical until, as always, they're brought into the fold of the regular ol' physical - supernatural to the natural.
Like what?
ReplyDeleteMetaphysics is a field of philosophy, not a field of physics. The progress in metaphysics I referred to have to do with well worked out theories for concepts such as intuition, time, acausality, ESP, etc.
It's not that we necessarily fully understand these concepts, but that promising theories -- some even with empirical evidence -- for them exist. So a contemporary book about the subject should at least summarize the current state of thinking/understanding of them. Rather than just restate the existence of the phenomenon with new examples.
Of course, Blink is already nearly a decade old. So you can't fault it that much. But then, that was exactly my point. The book is yesterday's news.