I'm currently reading The Information: A History, A Theory, A Flood by James Gleick (famed for being the author of Chaos). It's not bad at all; in fact, it's pretty good. For the moment, I'll be content to make the following observation:
My colleagues Ming Li and Bin Ma (Ming is the author of An Introduction to Kolmogorov Complexity and Its Applications) get a nice mention on page 320, as does Charlie Bennett's theory of logical depth.
Intelligent design advocates will gnash their teeth to see that their hated Richard Dawkins gets ten full pages, and his book The Selfish Gene is described as "brilliant and transformative" -- which, of course, it was.
They'll also be surprised to see that their own "Isaac Newton of information theory" doesn't get a single mention. Not a word.
This all goes to show that Gleick actually knows something about the subject and is not fooled by the bleatings of the religious.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Maybe we could produce a comic book or a childrens' coloring book on Chaos, and reserve some space in it for the Fig Newton of Information Theory
Truti
The Selfish Gene was brilliant and transformative in its time, but it distresses me to see how many atheists cling to it now as a gospel. The fact is that Dawkins kept reciting his notions of gene-centric evolution long after research findings said he should stop. Parents pass whole cells to offspring, and not just genes. You can't get a handle on epigenetics, endosymbiosis, and evo-devo unless you focus on cellular transmission.
Thinking back, I can see that Chaos was what got me headed toward my work in forecasting annual sunspots counts. I look forward to hearing more from you about The Information.
Well, I think the hallmark of biology is that it's messy. Just as we don't reject Newton because his understanding was refined by Einstein, we shouldn't reject a gene-centered view just because it is complicated by many other factors.
Isaac Newton of Information Theory? Who? Dembski?
Who coined him this name?
It was pro-ID philosopher Rob Koons who called Dembski that.
This all goes to show that Gleick actually knows something about the subject and is not fooled by the bleatings of the religious.
Was there ever any danger that he would listen to their bleatings?
Might give it a read then ... I've heard good things about Gleick.
Also, I'm assuming from the post that you'd recommend: "An introduction to Kolmogorov complexity and its applications" Li and Vitányi? I spotted that in the library and thought it might be worth working through - thermodynamics textbooks by physicists don't often cover the Information Theory perspective.
>> "Richard Dawkins' book The Selfish Gene is described as "brilliant and transformative" -- which, of course, it was."
I thought this critique of Dawkins' concept of the selfish gene was very good:
http://www.science20.com/gadfly/extended_phenotype_how_richard_dawkins_got_it_wrong_twice
Post a Comment