Sorry Jeremy, I didn't remember who the author of the thread was when I wrote the response. Yes, I could have checked, but I didn't. For the record, your title, "Jeremy's a little harsh", are your words not mine. I stated that I found the message a little harsh.For the record, in my opinion, neither of the quotes you just posted from the Lucifer Principle support the notion that Bloom is advocating a "new mysticism" (I believe that's what you called it - sorry, cooking dinner right now). Anyway, I've read many other works that also do not advocate mysticism as an underlying feature of the cosmos and yet they point out the increasing order of the universe. This increase in order is easily observed and often cited as evidence by those who would propose that dieties "wind the clockworks" in the least. The question becomes not whether there is a seeming tendancy toward greater order, but why there is such a tendancy. I do happen to agree with Bloom here - applying the concept of entropy to the universe is wrong. Entropy was meant to describe the interactions of gasses in a closed system. The universe is composed of much more than simple gasses and it is certainly debatable as to whether it is a closed system. I happen to think it is not, since it is apparently either infinite or expanding. There are also other forces at work that the original concept of entropy does not discuss. I'm not talking about dieties and evil spirits - I'm talking about electromagnetism, the weak nuclear force, etc. The universe seems to be self-organizing in most ways.You cite that Dawkins went to great lengths to spell out that he was writing metaphorically. Perhaps your problem ultimately rests more with Bloom's style than the substance?I again apologize for apparently offending you by referring to you as the "author of the 'Open Letter' thread". I'm glad you'll be in the discussion.Steve

I have read "The Lucifer Principle" and "Global Brain",though not very recently.I first read Global Brain online at Telepolis (beforeit was published in the real world).Later I read both books in hard copy.I found these books made a difference to how Ithink about the world and in that respect are themost important books I have read in the last decade.This does not mean that I agree with whatever it isthat Howard is trying to say!I think its probably true to say that If I had to nominatea "central thesis" for each book then it would probablybe something which I actually disagree with.For the Lucifer principle I guess the thesis is thatevil is endemic in human nature, and I think thatthe main thrust of the evidence he puts forward is thathuman nature is highly sensitive to cultural context andthat we are good or bad according to where we find ourselves.So I don't think the negative thesis is substantiated.Incidentally, I don't think Bloom's evidence contradicts thesecond law of thermodynamics, which however I happento consider without foundation in its applications to the Universeas a whole (i.e. there is no credible scientific evidence whichsupports the thesis).Roger Jones

RogerQuote:I found these books made a difference to how Ithink about the world and in that respect are themost important books I have read in the last decade.I'm about finished with The Lucifer Principle and I think this book has opened my mind considerably. Bloom is a brilliant man with a knack for seeing things from a very objective perspective...IMO. Throughout the course of reading this text I found myself continually saying to myself, "Wow, I never really thought of it like that!" Bloom gets you to think...and think deeply.I'll enjoy hearing your views as we discuss both of these books over the next several months. I'm planning to finish the book over the next day or two and then initiate some discussions here on this forum.Chris Edited by: Chris OConnor  at: 10/30/05 3:52 pm

Roger, you've hit the nail on the head. That was exactly my reaction to the book. That's why I suggested it for BookTalk. I thought it could make a great jumping off point for discussion.A number of people commented on my (admittedly) poorly worded stream of consciousness regarding order, chaos, disorder and the perception of them as they pertain to the oft cited Law of Thermodynamics. The point had been forwarded earlier that this book might be a disservice to the cause of science in the mind of the general public. What I was trying to point out was that the average person's notion of order, disorder, etc. is not really the same as what those terms actually mean in the context of the scientific laws. I have a feeling that I'm still not quite getting across the idea in the way that I would like.Oh well, onward to other aspects of the discussion. I find myself agreeing while reading The Lucifer Principle that there really isn't much in the way of conclusion being offered. The book is, for the most part, a large collection of observations. I'd agree that the criticism is fair that its conclusions are more speculation than the product of a rigorous proof. In a way, I think that this is a big part of why I found the book to be valuable. The conclusion is left open enough for the reader to interpret.You can disagree with Bloom, but it's hard to argue that he isn't on to something.Steve

Quote:What I was trying to point out was that the average person's notion of order, disorder, etc. is not really the same as what those terms actually mean in the context of the scientific laws.I believe this kind of feeling was why the book was accused of being a disservice - that the way in which Bloom has used various terms and notions are not the same as their use in science and therefore tend to compound misunderstanding. Shaking things up to see if the terms and notions are valid is unquestionably a good thing; but if shaking things up only confuses things - what gives? Where's the new understanding?Quote:You can disagree with Bloom, but it's hard to argue that he isn't on to something.I'd be interested in listening to what exactly he is onto because I have yet to figure it out; and judging from the comments even of those who agree, that sort of "it sounds right, but can't put a finger on what 'it' is" reaction seems pretty common. I'm afraid this simply makes me very suspicious of 'it' having any real substance.

Can you give a reference to the criticism you mention of Bloom's terminology (preferably an online reference)?It seems to me that both Howard's books are intended for a general readership and are not scientific treatises.Same for "The Selfish Gene", which I would be happy to criticise as a piece of science (I think the central conclusions false and the methods without scientific merit).I'm working on a description of what I think I got out of Howard's books, but it may take a little while yet.Roger Jones

RogerI look forward to hearing your summation!Chris Edited by: Chris OConnor  at: 10/30/05 3:53 pm

EveryoneI woke up early and spent a few hours and finished reading the book. Wow! The last few chapters are incredible. I'll start some threads now on what I got out of this book.Chris Edited by: Chris OConnor  at: 10/30/05 3:53 pm

Quote:Can you give a reference to the criticism you mention of Bloom's terminology (preferably an online reference)?I haven't read any peer reviews of Bloom's book... did a quick search, and didn't find anything that looked especially promising in that vein. I'll try a more thorough search, though - if it is a scientific expedition, certainly would expect peer reviews.The specific "disservice" criticism referred is in the Open Letter thread that Jeremy started. The criticisms I have personally with Bloom are scattered through the various threads here. They include things like his characterization of a superorganism - one of my first reactions was surprise (and dismay) at the absence of references to any organismicist literature in the bibliography, and later by the disparity between Bloom's use of that concept and its use by scientist. Another would be Bloom's use of memes. Etc.Quote:It seems to me that both Howard's books are intended for a general readership and are not scientific treatises.Yes, but that makes it all the more important for care to be taken in how concepts are presented, no?Quote:Same for "The Selfish Gene", which I would be happy to criticise as a piece of science (I think the central conclusions false and the methods without scientific merit).*Ani flashes a thumbs up at ya*I had a similar reaction to The Selfish Gene.

I'm afraid the critique is not really specific enough for me to appreciate it.Take the question of concepts.Even in mathematics the usage of concepts varies from one respectable tome to another, so I don't expect Howard's usage to fit precisely some academic precedent.If you want to say something new then you have to adapt language to your purposes.I'd be more interested to hear what you consider the most important claim which Howard makes which you think false.