Ubiquity: The Science of History . . . or Why the World Is Simpler Than We Think by Mark BuchananMy rating: 4 of 5 stars
Physics all around--also watching the three part Nova series with youngest son about the fabric of the cosmos.
I'm most intrigued by Buchanan's discussion of instability, that many systems build up pressure of some sort and exist on what he calls the knife of instability. This critical state lends itself to occasional upheavals (an earthquake, massive extinctions, a war) with one small shift in the system. That is big events do not have big causes--how marvelously counterintuitive. His overriding metaphor is a sand pile which, surprisingly, physicists have spent much time playing in. And even more surprisingly, they have found that there is no "typical" size of an avalanche in a sand pile--sometimes only a few grains of sand, sometimes hundreds, sometimes thousands. The avalanches appear to be completely random.
Yet if this is the case then it is nearly impossible, then, to predict these upheavals. Of course this is akin to chaos theory but he moves beyond early chaos theory to describe power laws which describe the "patterns" of upheavability. These power laws do not allow us to predict one particular event; instead they demonstrate that across many systems both geological and biological there is a correlation between the number of small events (e.g. small earthquakes) and the number of large upheavals (e.g. massive earthquakes).
So while these power laws do not have much practical value at this point, they do, as physics often does, point to an underlying system which is not random yet is also not predictable. Finally he uses these theories to (which will undoubtedly disturb some) history where he argues against the great person or genius theories of history. Of course, as he admits, many historians have already questioned this analysis of history. What Buchanan adds is that nonequalibrium physics is the proper field to describe what will happen--not just in sand piles and earthquakes but in the most complex of human systems.
And why should we care about all this? Two reasons I think. One, because it points to the wonders of the universe--complex non-Newtonian patterns which do not rely on god. It gives us the in-between chaos and structure. Two, because these "patterns" still do not allow us to predict upheavability. And hence catastrophe, geological, historical, and personal, is not worth worrying about; it's no one's fault, no one CAUSE. Instead it is simply the working and pressure of a complex system much vaster and grander than we can currently imagine or keep track of.
View all my reviews
2 comments:
I wouldn't say it gives us the in-between chaos and structure, since chaos theory is precisely about recognizing order within dynamic systems, which I think is what the author is explaining. In other words, chaos theory was never about chaos. It was about sensitivity within certain systems to initial conditions, about unpredictability within systems that have clearly understood causes. And, if history is indeed a chaotic system (and I'm not sure that it is) then chaos theory would certainly be relevant to historians. But let's not get carried away.
We don't need chaos theory, even if it turns out to be relevant, to overturn the great person or genius theories of history. Those theories have already been widely debunked by historians, by artists (Tolstoy), by political scientists, by philosophers.... Moreover, we don't need chaos theory to better understand history. We have much more insightful and more precise models already: the Marxist dialectic, historical sociology, anthropological "thick interpretation", Foucault and Nietzsche geneology.... I think part of this phenomena of applying principles of physics to history and other forms of knowledge can be explained by the rampant scientism of our culture, the idea that it isn't really knowledge unless it's scientific knowledge.
Agreed on the first point.
Disagree on the second though I can't come up, right now, with a well-thought rebuttal. It's just my gut instinct which say we need any help we can get to "overturn great person or genius theories of history" because they are so powerful and prevalent.
You know I worry about scientism as you describe here. Yet I also think on some level this type of science can easily be mythical, creationist, archetypal and thus can't fit so easily in the camp of the merely verifiable, scientific method our friend Travis holds so much *faith* in.
Post a Comment