The Six Secrets of Intelligence

The Six Secrets of Intelligence - book review

This is an odd one. Scientists are used to giving the Ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle a hard time - almost all of his science was wrong, and in some cases, his ideas misdirected scientific thinking for nearly a couple of thousand years. Worse was his apparent ability to ignore easily obtained evidence when it contradicted his ideas - infamously, he proclaimed that women have fewer teeth than men. Yet Craig Adams is clearly a huge fan of Aristotle and makes a reasonable case for the importance of his contribution to some of the more useful aspects of philosophy.

We're not talking navel-gazing here, but rather practical thinking on how to reason and understand better. The 'six secrets' that Adams mentions are deduction, induction, analogy, reality, evidence and meaning. While scientists will be familiar with many of these, they may not be totally clear on how they are used in practice (rather as many English speakers don't have technical knowledge of English grammar) - and for many without a scientific training, even as basic a concept as induction may be something of a mystery. (It's notable that many assume Sherlock Holmes used deduction, where he almost always relied on induction.) There are also some good examples of why correlation is not causality and we get a good feel for the way that this knowledge is particularly useful in spotting and dismissing illogical statements.

So, there is definitely some interesting and good material here. But, for me, the book didn't work awfully well. The presentation is wooly, lacking the clarity you would hope for in the presentation of such concepts to the general reader. It would also have been good to have had some of the modern tools of symbolic logic mentioned. There isn't enough narrative content and use of examples - rather the main points are repeated and become laboured. Things get worse in the second half of the book, where Adams makes a case for an alternative approach to education, based on giving students good thinking tools, combining Aristotelean thinking with what Adams calls 'the modern school of thought', typified by the work of Daniel Kahneman. There isn't anything wrong with these components, though I think that there is a far broader input required - but the way Adams' approach is presented is very unclear. This re-thinking of the curriculum has already been done far better in the RSA's Opening Minds project.

A few specific moans. Adams spends quite a while on deduction, yet doesn't really make it clear how infrequently it is useful in the real world where we rarely have universal/absolute truths available. And when talking about induction, Adams notes ‘induction is the process of creating universal rules from particular examples of signs’ - yet if there’s one thing science makes clear it’s that we can only have best guesses of universal rules. All current theories may well eventually be modified or disproved.

If you haven't been exposed to Aristotle's philosophy on thinking, the book is well worth exploring, but I wish it had been a little more clearly written.

The Six Secrets of Intelligence is available from Amazon.co.uk and Amazon.com

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp...

Murder by Candlelight - Ed. Cecily Gayford ***

Nothing seems to suit Christmas reading better than either ghost stories or Christmas-set novels. For some this means a fluffy romance in the snow, but for those of us with darker preferences, it's hard to beat a good Christmas murder. An annual event for me over the last few years has been getting the excellent series of classic murderous Christmas short stories pulled together by Cecily Gayford, starting with the 2016 Murder under the Christmas Tree . This featured seasonal output from the likes of Margery Allingham, Arthur Conan Doyle, Ellis Peters and Dorothy L. Sayers, laced with a few more modern authors such as Ian Rankin and Val McDermid, in some shiny Christmassy twisty tales. I actually thought while purchasing this year's addition 'Surely she is going to run out of classic stories soon' - and sadly, to a degree, Gayford has. The first half of Murder by Candlelight is up to the usual standard with some good seasonal tales from the likes of Catherine Aird, Car...

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5. However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor...

Search This Blog