The Edge Annual
Question — 2008
When
thinking changes your mind, that's philosophy.
When God changes your mind, that's faith.
When facts change your mind, that's science.
WHAT
HAVE YOU CHANGED YOUR MIND ABOUT? WHY?
Science
is based on evidence. What happens when the data change?
How have scientific findings or arguments changed your
mind?"
165
contributors; 112,600 words |
"They
are the intellectual elite, the brains the rest of us rely
on to make sense of the universe and answer the big questions.
But in a refreshing show of new year humility, the world's
best thinkers have admitted that from time to time even they
are forced to change their minds." — James
Randerson, The Guardian
"As
fascinating and weighty as one would imagine." — Comment
(Leading Article), The Independent
"A
great event in the Anglo-Saxon culture." — El
Mundo
"A
remarkable feast of the intellect... an amazing group of
reflections on science, culture, and the evolution of ideas.
Reading the Edge question is like being invited to dinner
with some of the most interesting people on the planet." — Tim
O'Reilly, O'Reilly Radar
"The
splendidly enlightened Edge website (www.edge.org) has rounded
off each year of inter-disciplinary debate by asking its heavy-hitting
contributors to answer one question. I strongly recommend a
visit."— Boyd
Tonkin, The Independent
"Provocative
ideas put forward today by leading figures." —Roger
Highfield, The Telegraph
"Even
the world’s best brains have to admit to being wrong
sometimes: here, leading scientists respond to a new year challenge." —Lewis
Smith, The Times
"For
an exceptionally high quotient of interesting ideas to words,
this is hard to beat. ...What a feast of egg-head opinionating!" — John
Derbyshire, National Review Online
"Answers
ring like scientific odes to uncertainty, humility and doubt;
passionate pleas for critical thought in a world threatened
by blind convictions." — Sandro
Contenta, The Toronto Star
"A
jolt of fresh thinking...The answers address a fabulous array
of issues. This is the intellectual equivalent of a New Year's
dip in the lake — bracing, possibly shriek-inducing,
and bound to wake you up."
— Margaret Wente, The
Globe and Mail
"As
in the past, these world-class thinkers have responded to impossibly
open-ended questions with erudition, imagination and clarity." — J.
Peder Zane, The News & Observer
PRESS
COVERAGE: Arts & Letters Daily; bloggingheads.tv; Corriere
Della Sera; The Globe and Mail, The Guardian; Infectious
Greed; The Independent; El Mundo; National Review Online;
The News & Observer; O'Reilly Radar; Slashdot; The Telegraph, The
Times, Toronto Star, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington
Post, Die Zeit
| [165
contributors; 112,600 words; most recent
first:]Daniel
Kahneman, Nassim Nicholas
Taleb, W. Daniel
Hillis, David Goodhart, Ray Kurzweil, Mark
Henderson, David
Gelernter, Bart Kosko, Randolph
M. Nesse, Linda S. Gottfredson, Kai
Krause, Clay Shirky, Denis
Dutton, Jamshed Bharucha, Lera
Boroditsky, Gregory Benford, Richard
Dawkins, Roger Bingham, Jesse
Bering, Barry Smith, Steve
Connor, Geoffrey Miller, George
Johnson, Stephon Alexander, Beatrice
Golomb, Chris DiBona, Jordan
Pollack, Alison Gopnik, Paul
Saffo, Neil Gershenfeld, J.
Craig Venter, David Sloan Wilson, Simon
Baron-Cohen, Austin Dacey, Daniel
Engber, Roger Highfield, Francesco
De Pretis, Dimitar Sasselov, Jaron
Lanier, Janna Levin, Martin
Rees, Esther Dyson, Anton
Zeilinger, Gerd Gigerenzer, PZ
Myers, Susan Blackmore, Adam
Bly, Nicholas Humphrey, Paul
Ewald, Seirian Sumner, Brian
Eno, Hans Ulrich Obrist, Robert
Shapiro, Sam Harris, Yossi
Vardi, David Buss, Andrian
Kreye, Daniel Goleman, James
Geary, Tim O'Reilly, Philip
Campbell, Frank Wilczek, Chris
Anderson, Rupert Sheldrake Nicholas
A. Christakis, Daniel C. Dennett, Helena
Cronin, Aubrey de Grey, Nicholas
Carr, Lisa Randall, Brian
Goodwin, Carolyn Porco, William
H. Calvin, Mary Catherine Bateson, Stanislas
Dehaene, Linda Stone, Sean
Carroll, Richard Wrangham, Marco
Iacoboni, Scott
Atran, Leo Chalupa, John
Allen Paulos, Eduardo Punset, Rebecca
Goldstein, Juan Enriquez, George
Dyson, Paul Davies, Steven
Pinker, Alan Alda, Patrick
Bateson, Jon Haidt, George
Church, Terrence Sejnowski, Judith
Rich Harris, Oliver Morton, Stewart
Brand, Daniel Gilbert, Sherry
Turkle, John Horgan, Roger
Schank, Carlo Rovelli, Xeni
Jardin, Stephen Schneider, Diane
Halpern, Alan Kay, Marti
Hearst, Kevin Kelly, Marcel
Kinsbourne, Peter Schwartz, Scott
Sampson, Ernst Pöppel, John
McCarthy, Seth Lloyd, Gary
Klein, Stephen Kosslyn,Lawrence
Krauss,Jeffrey Epstein, Ken
Ford, John Baez, A.
Garrett Lisi, Lee Smolin, Gary
Marcus, Lee Silver, Laurence
Smith, Robert Trivers, Rodney
Brooks, Paul Steinhardt, Helen
Fisher, Steve Nadis, Tor
Nørretranders, Robert Sapolsky, Max
Tegmark, David Dalrymple, Daniel
Everett, David Myers, Keith
Devlin, Todd Feinberg, Robert
Provine, Marc D. Hauser, Thomas
Metzinger, Dan Sperber, Leon
Lederman, Timothy Taylor, Haim
Harari, David Bodanis, Charles
Seife, Mark Pagel, Arnold
Trehub, Gino Segre, Nick
Bostrom, Rudy Rucker, David
Brin, Ed Regis, Freeman
Dyson, Marcelo Gleiser, Irene
Pepperberg, Colin Tudge, James
O'Donnell, Michael Shermer, Donald
Hoffman, Howard Gardner, Piet
Hut, Douglas Rushkoff, Karl
Sabbagh, Joseph LeDoux, Martin
Seligman |
THE NEWS & OBSERVER —
Raleigh-Durham
January
6, 2008
Zane:
The
changing of the mind
By J. Peder Zane,
Staff Writer
... As
in the past, these world-class thinkers have responded
to Web site editor John Brockman's impossibly open-ended
questions with erudition, imagination and clarity.
In
explaining why they have cast aside old assumptions, the
respondents' short essays tackle an array of subjects,
including the nature of consciousness, the existence of
the soul, the course of evolution and whether reason will
ultimately triumph over superstition.
Two
of the most interesting answers may signal a cease-fire
in the gender wars.
In
2005, Harvard President Lawrence *. Summers was assailed
for suggesting that innate differences might explain why
there are few top women scientists. Now Diane
F. Halpern, a psychology professor at Claremont Mc-Kenna
College and a self-described "feminist," says
Summers was onto something.
"There
are real, and in some cases sizable, sex differences with
respect to cognitive abilities," she writes.
Her
views are echoed by Helena
Cronin, a philosopher at the London School of Economics.
"Females," she
writes, "are much of a muchness, clustering around
the mean." With men, "the variance
— the difference between the most and the least, the
best and the worst — can be vast." Translation:
There may be fewer female geniuses in certain fields, but
there are also fewer female morons...
... |
BLOGGINGHEADS TV
January
5, 2008
Science
Saturday: New Beliefs for a New Year
•
Edge.org’s annual question
• George’s answer to the Edge question
• John’s answer to the Edge question
John
Horgan & George
Johnson
John
and George’s New Year resolutions; John softens his
pessimism about neuroscience ; The soccer club theory of
terrorism; The trouble with relying on experts; How George
got hooked on garage-band science; Happiness is a burning
bridge.
... |
THE GLOBE AND MAIL
January
5, 2008
OPINIONS
Hark!
A shriek-inducing wake-up call; Culture can change
our genes. Men really do outperform women. We can't
predict the future ...
Margaret
Wente Comment
Column; Second Thoughts
If
you want to start your year with a jolt of fresh thinking,
I have just the thing. Each year around this time, a
Web-based outfit called the Edge Foundation asks
a few dozen of the world's brightest scientific brains
one big question. This year's question: What have you
changed your mind about?
The
answers address a fabulous array of issues, including
the existence of God, the evolution of mankind, climate
change and the nature of the universe. Some of the most
provocative responses deal with the bonanza of new evidence
from the fast-evolving fields of genetics, neuroscience
and evolutionary biology. This is the intellectual equivalent
of a New Year's dip in the lake - bracing, possibly shriek-inducing,
and bound to wake you up. For the full menu, go to www.edge.org.
Meantime, here's a taste. ...
... |
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
January
5, 2008
The
Informed Reader
CULTURE
Change of Mind Could Spur A Hardening of the Heart
• EDGE --
JAN. 4
When
scientists and other prominent intellectuals change
their mind about important things, their new outlook
often is gloomier.
That,
at least, is the theme of responses to a survey conducted
by online science-and-culture publication the Edge, which
asked some influential thinkers: "What have you
changed your mind about? Why?" ... d
...Fittingly,
Harvard University psychologist Daniel
Gilbert says he has changed his mind about the benefits
of changing one's mind. In 2002, a study showed him that
people are more satisfied with irrevocable decisions
than with ones they can reverse. Acting on the data,
he proposed to his now-wife. "It turned out that
the data were right: I love my wife more than I loved
my girlfriend."
... |
TORONTO
STAR
January 5, 2008
CHANGING
YOUR MIND
In
praise of the flip
Ralph
Waldo Emerson called consistency the hobgoblin
of little minds, yet we live in a world where
'flip-floppers' are treated with contempt.
An ambitious new survey of top thinkers, however,
serves as a reminder of how healthy it is to
change one's mind
Sandro
Contenta
Staff Reporter
...Challenging
this complacency is a project by the Edge Foundation,
a group promoting discussion and inquiry into issues
of our time. To kick off the New Year, the group put
this statement and question to many of the world's leading
scientists and thinkers:
"When
thinking changes your mind, that's philosophy. When God
changes your mind, that's faith. When facts change your
mind, that's science. What have you changed your mind
about?"
Answers,
posted on the website www.edge.org, came
from 164 people, many of them physicists, philosophers,
psychologists and anthropologists. They ring like scientific
odes to uncertainty, humility and doubt; passionate pleas
for critical thought in a world threatened by blind convictions.
In short, they're calls for more people who can change
their minds. ...
... |
WASHINGTON
POST
January 4, 2008
RAW
FISHER
Marc Fisher
RFQ:
What Have You Changed Your Mind About? (Plus: Last
Chance on the Coin Contest)
...University
of Virginia psychologist Jonathan
Haidt says he used to consider sports and fraternities
to be the height of American celebration of stupidity. "Primitive
tribalism, I thought. Initiation rites, alcohol, sports,
sexism, and baseball caps turn decent boys into knuckleheads.
I'd have gladly voted to ban fraternities, ROTC, and most
sports teams from my university." But Haidt has changed
his mind: "I had too individualistic a view of human
nature. I began to see us not just as chimpanzees with
symbolic lives but also as bees without hives. When we
made the transition over the last 200 years from tight
communities (Gemeinschaft) to free and mobile societies
(Gesellschaft), we escaped from bonds that were sometimes
oppressive, yes, but into a world so free that it left
many of us gasping for connection, purpose, and meaning.
I began to think about the many ways that people, particularly
young people, have found to combat this isolation. Rave
parties and the Burning Man festival are spectacular examples
of new ways to satisfy the ancient longing for communitas.
But suddenly sports teams, fraternities, and even the military
made a lot more sense."
...
...
|
INFECTIOUS
GREED
January 1, 2008
What
Have You Changed Your Mind About?
by
Paul Kedrosky
This
year's Big Question at Edge from John
Brockman, et al., is this, What have you changed your mind
about? This is, at least, an interesting question, so I'll
start by saying that what I've changed my mind about is
whether, in general, the Edge's annual question is worth
reading. Okay, sometimes it is.
That
said, are any specific answers to this year's Big Question
worth reading? Somewhat surprisingly, yes. Granted, some
of the answers are just wankery, scientists and others
saying that they used to think we wouldn't solve Problem
X, and now they think we will, someday, etc. Or, worse
yet, there is a passel of up-with-the-environment puffery,
where the previously unconverted become carbon holy-rollers.
...
Here
are a couple worth reading. Feel free to add more.
Economist Dan
Kahneman on the aspiration treadmill
Clay
Shirky on science and religion
Nassim
Taleb on .... nothing (okay,
incomplete, but I still like the
semiotic pun)...
...
|
NATIONAL
REVIEW ONLINE
January 3, 2008
the corner
Plato
Had a Bad Year [John Derbyshire]
For
an exceptionally high quotient of interesting
ideas to words, this is hard to beat. ...
What a feast of egg-head opinionating!
If
there's a common tendency running through many
of these pieces, it is the fast-rising waters
of naturalism, released by a half-century of
discoveries in genetics, evolutionary biology,
and neuroscience, submerging every other way
of looking at the human world.
We
are part of nature, a twig on the tree of life.
If we are to have any understanding of ourselves,
we must start from that. Final answers to ancient
questions are beginning to come in. You may
not be happy about the answers; but not being
happy about them will be like not being happy
about Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.
... |
DIE
ZEIT
January 2, 2008
Small
issue, big answers
Even the best minds
of this world sometimes
have to accept that
they were wrong. Scientists
to answer the question
of Edge Foundation,
which they change their
mind — and why.
The
responses of the intellectuals are personal,
sometimes very technical, but also political.
They cover a wide range of what people employed:
Climate change, the difference between men
and women, but also the question of the existence
of God.
... |
Correre
Della Sera — Italy
January 2, 2008
UN'ASSOCIAZIONE
CULTURALE HA CHIESTO A LUMINARI E
FILOSOFI
DI RACCONTARE I PROPRI
ERRORI
Quando
lo scienza confessa:
ho sbagliato
Dalle teorie sull'evoluzione
alle differenze tra
razze,
in rete i mea culpa
degli studiosi
LONDRA — «Quando
pensare modifica la tua opinione è filosofia,
quando Dio ti fa cambiare idea è fede.
Quando i fatti ti fanno vedere le cose in modo
diverso è scienza». Questa l'introduzione
al quesito per l'anno posto da un'associazione
culturale cui aderiscono i principali pensatori
del momento, da Richard
Dawkins, lo zoologo britannico autore del
libro culto Il gene egoista e più recentemente
L'illusione di Dio, allo psicologo Steven
Pinker passando per il musicista produttore Brian
Eno.
Se
nel 2006 aveva domandato ai suoi iscritti quale
fosse l'idea più pericolosa e nel 2007
su che cosa si sentissero ottimisti, per il
2008 Edge (il sito è www.edge.org)
ha lanciato una provocazione: su cosa avete
cambiato idea? E perché? L'obiettivo
era spingere gli scienziati, gli scrittori
e i ricercatori che utilizzano regolarmente
il sito ad ammettere, in un certo senso, i
propri errori.
Centinaia
di loro hanno raccolto l'invito (a tanta solerzia
ha forse contribuito il fatto che le ultime
edizioni delle risposte sono state pubblicate
sotto forma di libro), rivelando una gamma
di dietro front tra il clamoroso e il simpatico.
... |
EL
MUNDO —
Spain
January 2, 2008
ZOOM:
Edge Question
At the beginning of each year is a great event
in the Anglo-Saxon culture, or rather, in the
social life of that culture...The event is
called the Edge Annual Question,
bringing together much of the most interesting
Anthropologist Richard
Wrangham has introduced a subtle shift
in the explanation of the evolutionary history
of man: he once believed it to be caused by
eating meat, now he believes that the decisive
factor is the kitchen, ie, changing from raw
to cooked. The response from the musician Brian
Eno explains how he went from revolution
to evolution, and how he left Maoism for Darwin.
... |
THE
TIMES
January 1, 2008
Science
has second thoughts about life
Even the world’s
best brains have to admit to being
wrong sometimes: here, leading scientists
respond to a new year challenge
Lewis
Smith, Science
Reporter
The
new year is traditionally a time when people
tend to look back and try to work out where
it all went wrong – and how to get it
right in the future.
The
new year is traditionally a time when people
tend to look back and try to work out where
it all went wrong – and how to get it
right in the future.
This
time the Edge Foundation asked
a number of leading scientists and thinkers
why they had changed their minds on some of
the pivotal issues in their fields. The foundation,
a chat forum for intellectuals, posed the question: "When
thinking changes your mind, that’s philosophy.
When God changes your mind, that’s faith.
When facts change your mind, that’s science.
What have you changed your mind about? Why?"
The
group’s responses covered controversial
issues, including climate change, whether God
or souls exist and defining when humanity began.
This
time the Edge Foundation asked a number of
leading scientists and thinkers why they had
changed their minds on some of the pivotal
issues in their fields. The foundation, a chat
forum for intellectuals, posed the question: "When
thinking changes your mind, that’s philosophy.
When God changes your mind, that’s faith.
When facts change your mind, that’s science.
What have you changed your mind about? Why?"
The
group’s responses covered controversial
issues, including climate change, whether God
or souls exist and defining when humanity began.
... |
|
Posted
by Zonk on
Tuesday January 01, @12:41PM
from the read-dawkins'-it's-awesome dept.
chrisd writes
|
GUARDIAN UNLIMITED
January 1, 2008
Change
of heart
What
did you change your mind
about in 2007? The world's
intellectual elite spread
some New Year humility.
James
Randerson,
science
correspondent
Since
I wrote my piece on this year's show of scientific
humility for the New Year's day paper some
big names have added their thoughts to the
mix.
Here's
evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins on
how being a "flip-flopper" is no
bad thing in science...
The
controversial geneticist Craig
Venter has had a change of heart about
the capacity of our planet to soak up the punishment
humanity is throwing at it...
There
are also interesting contributions from Simon
Baron-Cohen, the University of Cambridge
autism researcher who has changed his mind
about equality; psychologist Susan
Blackmore, who has gone from embracing
the paranormal to debunking it; and artist
and composer Brian
Eno, who was once seduced by Maoism, but
now believes it is a "monstrosity".
What
did you change your mind about in 2007?
... |
THE INDEPENDENT
January 1, 2008
Deep
thinkers reveal that they, too, can change
their minds
Steve
Connor
Helena
Cronin, a philosopher at the London School
of Economics, turns her attention to why men
appear far more successful than women, by persistently
walking off with the top positions and prizes
in life — from being heads of state to
winning Nobels.
Dr
Cronin used to think it was down to sex differences
in innate talents, tastes and temperament. But
now she believes it has also something to do
with the fact that women cluster around a statistical
average, whereas men are more likely to be represented
at the extreme ends of the normal spectrum — both
at the top and the bottom.
Some
replies to the Edge question ponder the perennial
problem of God. Professor Patrick
Bateson of Cambridge University has changed
his mind on what to call himself after meeting
a virulent creationist. He is no longer an agnostic
but an atheist. Meanwhile the actor and writer Alan
Alda said that he has changed his mind about
God — twice.
What
have you changed your mind about? Why?
... |
O'REILLY RADAR
January 1, 2008
What
Have You Changed Your Mind About?
By Tim
O'Reilly
...I eventually offered some ideas and
he jumped on one: my skepticism about the term "social
software" after Clay Shirky's "Social
Software Summit" in November 2002. As it turns
out, Clay was right and I was wrong. This was a
powerful meme indeed, just five years early.
Here's what I wrote for the 2008 Edge question.
As I suspected, it's a meager offering at a remarkable
feast of the intellect. Use it, if you must, as
an entry point to an amazing group of reflections
on science, culture, and the evolution of ideas.
Reading the Edge question is like being invited
to dinner with some of the most interesting people
on the planet.
... |
THE GUARDIAN
January 1, 2008
Second
thoughts on life, the universe and everything
by world's best brains
The changes of mind that gave
philosophers and scientists
new insights
James Randerson,
science correspondent
They
are the intellectual elite, the brains the rest
of us rely on to make sense of the universe and
answer the big questions. But in a refreshing show
of new year humility, the world's best thinkers
have admitted that from time to time even they
are forced to change their minds.
When
tackling subjects as diverse as human evolution,
the laws of physics and sexual politics, scientists
and philosophers, including Steven
Pinker, Daniel
Dennett, Paul
Davies and Richard
Wrangham, all confessed yesterday to a change
of heart.
The
display of scientific modesty was brought about
by the annual new year's question posed by the
website edge.org, which drew responses
from more than 120 of the world's greatest thinkers.
... |
THE INDEPENDENT
31 December 2007
Boyd
Tonkin: This year, how about some new year's
irresolution?
Changes of mind lie at the core of almost every
breakthrough in science, art and thought
From
tomorrow morning, we can all sample the reasoning
that drives shifts in position by a selection of
leading scientists and social thinkers. Since 1998,
the splendidly enlightened Edge website (www.edge.org) has
rounded off each year of inter-disciplinary debate
by asking its heavy-hitting contributors to answer
one question. This time, the new-year challenge
runs: "What have you changed your mind about?
Why?". I strongly recommend a visit to anyone
who feels browbeaten by fans of that over-rated
virtue: mere consistency.
... |
ARTS
& LETTERS DAILY
January 1 2008
Articles
of Note
What have you changed your mind about,
and why? John Brockman’s Edge put the question
to over a hundred scientists and scholars... more» |
THE INDEPENDENT
January 1 2008
COMMENT
Leading
article: Why, oh why?
It's
becoming something of a New Year ritual. For almost
a decade, the website www.edge.org has been asking
a selection of eminent thinkers and scholars to answer
a single question and publishing the results on 1
January.
In
the past it has presented such posers as "What
do you believe is true, even though you cannot prove
it?" and "What is the most important invention
of the past 2,000 years?"
This
year Edge wanted to know: "What have you changed
your mind about and why?" As usual, it's a good
question. And the responses of the likes of Steven
Pinker and Helena Cronin are as fascinating and weighty
as one would imagine.
... |
THE
TELEGRAPH
December 31, 2007
Scientists
reveal what changed their minds
By Roger
Highfield, Science Editor
The
best men really do outperform the best women, drugs
should be used to enhance our mental powers, and
marriages suffer from a "four year itch",
not a seven year one.
These
are among the provocative ideas put forward today
by leading figures who have been asked what has changed
their minds about some of the biggest issues.
The
poll of Nobel laureates, scientists, futurists and
creative thinkers is published by John Brockman,
the New York-based literary agent and publisher of
The Edge website.
... |
JUST
PUBLISHED!
What
Are You Optimistic About?:
Today's Leading Thinkers on Why Things Are Good and Getting Better
Introduction
by Daniel C. Dennett
"Persuasively
upbeat." O, The Oprah Magazine "Our
greatest minds provide nutshell insights on how science
will help forge a better world ahead." Seed "Uplifting...an
enthralling book." The Mail on Sunday
What
Is Your Dangerous Idea?: Today's Leading Thinkers on the Unthinkable
Introduction
by Steven Pinker
Afterword
by Richard Dawkins
"Danger —brilliant
minds at work...A brilliant book: exhilarating,
hilarious, and chilling." The
Evening Standard (London) "A
selection of the most explosive ideas of our
age." Sunday Herald "Provocative" The
Independent "Challenging notions
put forward by some of the world's sharpest minds" Sunday
Times "A titillating compilation" The
Guardian "Reads like an intriguing
dinner party conversation among great minds in
science" Discover
What
We Believe but Cannot Prove:
Today's Leading Thinkers on Science in the Age of
Certainty
Introduction by Ian McEwan
"An
unprecedented roster of brilliant minds, the
sum of which is nothing short of an oracle — a
book ro be dog-eared and debated." Seed "Scientific
pipedreams at their very best." The
Guardian "Makes
for some astounding reading." Boston
Globe Fantastically
stimulating...It's like the crack cocaine of
the thinking world.... Once you start, you can't
stop thinking about that question." BBC
Radio 4 "Intellectual
and creative magnificence" The
Skeptical Inquirer
Harvard
Coop, December 24, 2007 |
|
MARTIN
SELIGMAN
Psychologist,
University of Pennsylvania, Author, Authentic
Happiness
We
Are Alone |
JOSEPH
LEDOUX
Neuroscientist,
New York University; Author, The Synaptic Self
Like
many scientists in the field of memory, I used to think
that a memory is something stored in the brain and
then accessed when used. |
KARL
SABBAGH
Writer
and Television Producer; Author, The
Riemann Hypothesis
I
used to believe that there were experts and non-experts
and that, on the whole, the judgment of experts is
more accurate, more valid, and more correct than
my own judgment. |
DOUGLAS
RUSHKOFF
Media
Analyst; Documentary Writer; Author, Get Back
in the Box: Innovation from the Inside Out
The
Internet |
PIET
HUT
Professor
of Astrophysics, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton
Explanations |
HOWARD
GARDNER
Psychologist,
Harvard University; Author, Changing Minds
Wrestling
with Jean Piaget, my Paragon |
DONALD
HOFFMAN
Cognitive
Scientist, UC, Irvine; Author, Visual Intelligence
Veridical Perception |
MICHAEL
SHERMER
Publisher
of Skeptic magazine, monthly columnist for Scientific
American; Author, Why Darwin Matters
The
Nature of Human Nature |
JAMES
O'DONNELL
Classicist;
Cultural Historian; Provost, Georgetown University;
Author, Augustine: A New Biography
I
stopped cheering for the Romans |
COLIN
TUDGE
Science
Writer; Author, The Tree: A Natural History of
What Trees Are, How They Live, and Why They Matter
The
Omniscience and Omnipotence of Science |
IRENE
PEPPERBERG
Research
Associate, Psychology, Harvard University; Author, The
Alex Studies
The
Fallacy of Hypothesis Testing |
MARCELO
GLEISER
Physicist,
Dartmouth College; Author, The Prophet and the
Astronomer
To
Unify or Not: That is the Question |
FREEMAN
DYSON
Physicist,
Institute of Advanced Study, Author, A Many
Colored Glass
When facts change your mind,
that's not always science. It may be history. I changed
my mind about an important historical question: did
the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki bring
World War Two to an end? |
ED
REGIS
Science
Writer, Author, Nano
Predicting the Future |
DAVID
BRIN
Physicist;
Technical Consultant; Science Fiction Writer;
Author, The Transparent Society
Sometimes you are glad to discover
you were wrong. My best example of that kind of
pleasant surprise is India. I'm delighted to see
its recent rise, on (tentative) course toward economic,
intellectual and social success. |
RUDY
RUCKER
Mathematician, Computer Scientist; CyberPunk Pioneer;
Novelist; Author, Lifebox,
the Seashell, and the Soul
Can Robots See God?
|
NICK
BOSTROM
Philosopher, University of Oxford; Author,
Everything
|
GINO
SEGRE
Physicist,
University of Pennsylvania; Author: Faust In Copenhagen:
A Struggle for the Soul of Physics
The Universe's Expansion
|
ARNOLD
TREHUB
Psychologist,
University of Massachusetts, Amherst; Author: The
Cognitive Brain
I have never questioned the
conventional view that a good grounding in the
physical sciences is needed for a deep understanding
of the biological sciences. It did not occur to
me that the opposite view might also be true. |
MARK
PAGEL
Evolutionary
Biologist, Reading University, England
We Differ More Than We Thought
|
CHARLES
SEIFE
Professor
of Journalism, New York University; formerly
journalist, Science magazine; Author, Zero:
The Biography Of A Dangerous Idea
I
used to think that a modern, democratic society
had to be a scientific society. |
DAVID
BODANIS
Writer;
Consultant; Author, Passionate
Minds
The
Bible Is Inane |
HAIM
HARARI
Physicist,
former President, Weizmann Institute
of Science
Clear
and simple is not the same as provable and
well defined |
TIMOTHY
TAYLOR
Archaeologist,
University of Bradford; Author, The
Buried Soul
Relativism |
LEON
LEDERMAN
Physicist
and Nobel Laureate; Director Emeritus, Fermilab;
Coauthor, The God Particle
The
Obligations and Responsibilities of The Scientist |
DAN
SPERBER
Social
and cognitive scientist; Directeur de Recherche,
CNRS, Paris; Author, Rethinking Symbolism
How
I Became An Evolutionary Psychologist |
|
"The
Edge 2008 question (with answers) is
in. This year, the question is: 'What
did you change your mind about and
why?'. Answers are featured from scientists
as diverse as 
