What do you think?
Rate this book
বৈজ্ঞানি� আত্মজীবনী � অন্যান্য নিবন্ধ
In this fascinating autobiography from one of the foremost geniuses of twentieth-century physics, Max Planck tells the story of his life, his aims, and his thinking. Published posthumously, the papers in this volume were written for the general reader and make accessible Planck's scientific theories as well as his philosophical ideals, including his thoughts on ethics and morals.
104 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1949
32 people are currently reading
546 people want to read
About the author
Max Planck
237books166followersMax Karl Ernst Ludwig Planck was a German theoretical physicist who originated quantum theory, which won him the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1918.
Planck made many contributions to theoretical physics, but his fame rests primarily on his role as originator of the quantum theory. This theory revolutionized human understanding of atomic and subatomic processes, just as Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity revolutionized the understanding of space and time. Together they constitute the fundamental theories of 20th-century physics.
Planck made many contributions to theoretical physics, but his fame rests primarily on his role as originator of the quantum theory. This theory revolutionized human understanding of atomic and subatomic processes, just as Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity revolutionized the understanding of space and time. Together they constitute the fundamental theories of 20th-century physics.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews
April 14, 2015
Scientific Autobiography and Other Papers, by Max Planck, Philosophical Library/Open Road Media, 2014 (originally published in 1949).
Summary: This is a re-issue in e-book form of Planck’s Scientific Autobiography and other papers on some of the “big� issues of science including causality, the limits of science and the relationship of science and religion.
Max Planck is one of the giants of physics. His early work included research on entropy and thermodynamics and it was he who did the pioneering work on quantum theory, for which he won the Nobel Prize in 1918. He also was one of the first to recognize the significance of Einstein’s work on the special theory of relativity and later extended this work.
His Scientific Autobiography is just that, tracing his life in science from his early studies with mathematician Hermann Müller, initial studies in physics at the University of Munich, his later studies in Berlin under the contrasting characters of Helmholtz and Kirchoff and his interest in thermodynamics from reading Clausius resulting in his 1879 dissertation on the Second Law of Thermodynamics. After another paper of the nature of energy, he was appointed associate professor of physics at the University of Kiel. Within four years, he succeeds to Kirchoff’s chair at the University of Berlin. He chronicles the various research projects on which he worked, interacting with Ludwig Boltzmann’s work which led to a derivation eventually know as the Planck Postulate and Planck’s Constant, work that laid the groundwork for quantum theory. His narrative describes the back and forth between scientists, the competition and disagreement between theorists and through all this the emergence of theory that helps us see both the collective enterprise and individual genius behind so many scientific breakthroughs.
The remaining essays discuss various questions of his time in science. Phantom Problems in Science is his attempt to argue that some of the “problems� people argue about in science actually do not exist–they are phantoms–because they are a created problem that does not actually exist in the real world–he includes as examples perpetual motion, the assumption that some mechanism must re-invert the inverted images on our retinas, is an electron a particle or a wave, and the mind-body distinction (although recent neuroscience might suggest there is more to this than Planck believed).
He explores the Meaning and Limits of Exact Science or the idea of “science without presuppositions� that is based on exact observation alone. He argues that the closest we can get to this is what we experience through the senses of our own body and even here we may always draw wrong inferences. What science can do is bring successive degrees of order to these observations, and successive approximations of the “real�. Dealing with causality, he argues that to posit causality involves an act of faith because it is often not possible to verify actual causation of one event by another in specificity, only in general terms.of statistical probability.
His final essay turns to the controversial subject of science and religion. While he dismisses miracles, he does not dismiss religion seeing it as a parallel quest to understand one’s relation to the supernatural to science’s question to understand the natural. He concludes:
Religion and natural science are fighting a joint battle in an incessant, never relaxing crusade against scepticism and against dogmatism, against disbelief and against superstition, and the rallying cry in this crusade has always been, and always will be: “On to God!�
These papers require close attention and one is aided if one has a working knowledge of physics. But Planck offers an important contribution to the philosophy of science, articulating both its power and its limits. Perhaps the re-issuance of these works in new media (this particular version is only available as an e-book, although other versions are in print and on the web) is a helpful corrective to both the knee jerk reactions against science and the pretensions of scientism in our own age.
_____________________________________
Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the publisher through Netgalley. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255 : “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.�
Summary: This is a re-issue in e-book form of Planck’s Scientific Autobiography and other papers on some of the “big� issues of science including causality, the limits of science and the relationship of science and religion.
Max Planck is one of the giants of physics. His early work included research on entropy and thermodynamics and it was he who did the pioneering work on quantum theory, for which he won the Nobel Prize in 1918. He also was one of the first to recognize the significance of Einstein’s work on the special theory of relativity and later extended this work.
His Scientific Autobiography is just that, tracing his life in science from his early studies with mathematician Hermann Müller, initial studies in physics at the University of Munich, his later studies in Berlin under the contrasting characters of Helmholtz and Kirchoff and his interest in thermodynamics from reading Clausius resulting in his 1879 dissertation on the Second Law of Thermodynamics. After another paper of the nature of energy, he was appointed associate professor of physics at the University of Kiel. Within four years, he succeeds to Kirchoff’s chair at the University of Berlin. He chronicles the various research projects on which he worked, interacting with Ludwig Boltzmann’s work which led to a derivation eventually know as the Planck Postulate and Planck’s Constant, work that laid the groundwork for quantum theory. His narrative describes the back and forth between scientists, the competition and disagreement between theorists and through all this the emergence of theory that helps us see both the collective enterprise and individual genius behind so many scientific breakthroughs.
The remaining essays discuss various questions of his time in science. Phantom Problems in Science is his attempt to argue that some of the “problems� people argue about in science actually do not exist–they are phantoms–because they are a created problem that does not actually exist in the real world–he includes as examples perpetual motion, the assumption that some mechanism must re-invert the inverted images on our retinas, is an electron a particle or a wave, and the mind-body distinction (although recent neuroscience might suggest there is more to this than Planck believed).
He explores the Meaning and Limits of Exact Science or the idea of “science without presuppositions� that is based on exact observation alone. He argues that the closest we can get to this is what we experience through the senses of our own body and even here we may always draw wrong inferences. What science can do is bring successive degrees of order to these observations, and successive approximations of the “real�. Dealing with causality, he argues that to posit causality involves an act of faith because it is often not possible to verify actual causation of one event by another in specificity, only in general terms.of statistical probability.
His final essay turns to the controversial subject of science and religion. While he dismisses miracles, he does not dismiss religion seeing it as a parallel quest to understand one’s relation to the supernatural to science’s question to understand the natural. He concludes:
Religion and natural science are fighting a joint battle in an incessant, never relaxing crusade against scepticism and against dogmatism, against disbelief and against superstition, and the rallying cry in this crusade has always been, and always will be: “On to God!�
These papers require close attention and one is aided if one has a working knowledge of physics. But Planck offers an important contribution to the philosophy of science, articulating both its power and its limits. Perhaps the re-issuance of these works in new media (this particular version is only available as an e-book, although other versions are in print and on the web) is a helpful corrective to both the knee jerk reactions against science and the pretensions of scientism in our own age.
_____________________________________
Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the publisher through Netgalley. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255 : “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.�
June 20, 2021
Planck is surprisingly humble. Given that he pretty much instigated research into quantum mechanics, I expected a little more chest-thumping. Instead, his Scientific Autobiography is a sparse 40 pages in which he acknowledges he tried to fit his elementary quantum of action into classical theory but it just wouldn’t fit. He throws credit to Bohr and Schroedinger for advancing his theory in a way which more reasonably fit with classical theory. Comfortable with his own contribution, he seemed to find considerable satisfaction in the numerous lectures he “always complying willingly� went to when invited. Pg. 51. These lectures on the meaning of science, relationship to religion, and the connection between causality and free-will make up the second half, or the and Other Papers half, of the book.
The second half reveals a more personal Planck. A man who reconciled his belief in God with the mandates of religion. He found conjunction of science and religion in a more candid faith. One that ended with God after rigorous exploration of the world:
However, Planck’s faith in the “crown of the edifice� is where faith must remain; perpetually out of reach. It is our duty to search in Planck’s view, because it is in searching that we grow. It is in perpetually wondering that we move ourselves, and our species, forward.
The second half reveals a more personal Planck. A man who reconciled his belief in God with the mandates of religion. He found conjunction of science and religion in a more candid faith. One that ended with God after rigorous exploration of the world:
Therefore, while both religion and natural science require a belief in God for their activities, to the former He is the starting point, to the latter the goal of every thought process. To the former He is the foundation, to the latter the crown of the edifice of every generalized world view. Pg. 184.
However, Planck’s faith in the “crown of the edifice� is where faith must remain; perpetually out of reach. It is our duty to search in Planck’s view, because it is in searching that we grow. It is in perpetually wondering that we move ourselves, and our species, forward.
The more the child matures, and the more complete his world picture becomes, the less frequently he finds reason to wonder. And when he has grown up, and his world picture has solidified and taken on a certain form, he accepts this picture as a matter of course and ceases to wonder. Is this because the adult has fully fathomed the correlations and the necessity of the structure of the world picture? Nothing could be more erroneous than this idea. No!- The reason why the adult no longer wonders is not because he has solved the riddle of life, but because he has grown accustomed to the laws governing his world picture. But the problem of why these particular laws and no others hold, remains for him just as amazing and inexplicable for the child. He who does not comprehend this situation, misconstrues its profound significance, and he who has reached the stage where he no longer wonders about anything, merely demonstrates that he has lost the art of reflective reasoning. Pgs. 92-93.
February 15, 2022
Unlike my other reviews, this will be a short review. The book titled "Scientifical Autobiography and Other Papers" is an insightful book, provided one makes notes, reflects upon, and analyzes the points made in it. This is not a book for light reading. The book is divided into two parts - the autobiography, as well as "other papers" which is basically a collection of the transcripts of his various guest lectures. Not every argument of his makes sense, but then no book has ever got everything right. Despite, some (and only 'some') disagreements, I have with Planck's view on various aspects, the book is indeed insightful, and if I were to apply the metric of wisdom per page, the book would be significantly high on my list. The concepts of "phantom problems", unintuitive doctrines, "multiple viewpoint analysis" and so on were extremely insightful, and something I intend to experiment with by applying to other areas of life. I find these concepts incredibly exciting, and useful.
When it comes to the subject of life, some of his views, I find similar to mine -
(a) that you do not have a legal right to happiness, and life has no guarantee to provide
you with the same;
(b) that every hour of happiness is an obligation or a debt due from you to strive to work
on your duty, which is the ultimate purpose of life.
Of course, my views are not exactly the same but similar:
(a) that the goal of my life is not happiness, but achieving what I have set out to achieve,
and then leave this place - whatever the goal is (reducing family, and eventually societal
suffering) (Marcus Aurelius),
(b) that happiness, if at all such a concept exists, can only be a mere by product of striving
for or achieving a goal that is larger than myself.
On the topic of religion, Planck undertakes mental gymnastics to defend religion, although there were some interesting aspects. Nothing wrong with his personal ethical views not being grounded in evidence. He can believe what helps him sleep at night. But I had disagreements with all of his arguments, which in my notes I think I have sufficiently countered.. Of course, it will be an exercise in narcissism for me to term my arguments as 'refutations'.
However, I found one argument of Planck, with respect to religion, made in the final pages, very interesting, which I have reproduced below:
"However, in spite of this unanimity a fundamental difference must also be observed. T o the
religious person, God is directly and immediately given. He and His omnipotent W ill are the fountainhead of all life and all happenings, both in the mundane world and in the world of the spirit. Even though H e cannot be grasped by reason, the religious symbols give a direct view of Him , and He plants His holy message in the souls of those who faithfully entrust themselves to Him . In contrast to this, the natural scientist recognizes as immediately given nothing but the content of his sense experiences and of the measurements based
on them. He starts out from this point, on a road of inductive research, to approach as best he can the supreme and eternally unattainable goal of his quest� God and His world order. Therefore, while both religion and natural science require a belief in God for their activities, to the former He is the starting point, to the latter the goal of every thought process. T o the former He is the foundation, to the latter the crown of the edifice of every generalized world view. This difference corresponds to the different roles of religion and natural science in human
life. Natural science wants man to learn, religion wants him to act. The only solid foundation for learning is the one supplied by sense perception; the assumption of a regular world order functions here merely as an essential condition for formulating fruitful questions. But this is not the road to be taken for action, for man's volitional decisions cannot wait until cognition has become complete or he has become omniscient. W e stand in the midst of life, and its manifold demands and needs often make it imperative that we reach decisions or translate our mental attitudes into immediate action. Long and tedious reflection cannot enable us to shape our decisions and attitudes properly; only that definite and clear instruction can which we gain from a direct inner link to God. This instruction alone is able to give us the inner firmness and lasting peace of mind which must be regarded as the highest boon in life. And if we ascribe to God, in addition to His omnipotence and omniscience, also the attributes of goodness and love, recourse to Him produces an increased feeling of safety and happiness in the
human being thirsting for solace. Against this
conception not even the slightest objection can
be raised from the point of view of natural
science, for as we pointed it out before, questions
of ethics are entirely outside of its realm"
I disagree with his argument, in the specific context of religion, since he underestimates the degree of damage caused by dogmatic compliance with traditional religious doctrines.
Until very recently, religion was the cause of discrimination against (a) those who 't adhere to it, (b) those who were lower in hierarchy "within" the religion (lower castes, classes, and women).
Further, religion works on the premise that certain laws and principles are metaphysical, and akin to natural laws, that are naturally occurring within the realms of human reason. To contrast empiricism (which I subscribe to), with metaphysics ----- empiricism says that your views, thoughts and prejudices are a product of your environment, surroundings and so on. Empiricism is extremely factual in nature. Empiricism, and its proponents, such as JS Mill, and Hume argue that what you consider to be an inviolable truth, is in fact a subconscious doctrine/prejudice which you have picked up from your surroundings. For instance, for Christians in the early 1400s, to not believe in Christ made you an infidel, and that belief in Christ was an 'a priori' claim that was naturally occurring in the minds of children/individual, INDEPENDENTLY of facts and surrounding circumstances. An empiricist could simply refute that claim by picking up a newborn child from a Christian household, and dropping him off in Antarctica, or India, and then evaluate whether the child arrives at those conclusions independently of his circumstances, which he obviously would not. Similar kinds of scrutiny could be undertaken w.r.t the concepts of Karma, Varna and so on. Are they grounded in facts? If no, then discard them, since no claim can be afforded the distinction of being 'a priori'.
A much better alternative, is to form your ethical view on the basis of philosophy (may it be eastern or western). There are no wars, or bombs thrown due to difference of views in philosophy, but the mere exchange of letters and emails. It is less dogmatic, more flexible, and most importantly offers the possibility of subscribing to empiricism, which only few select schools, in select religions offer (Budd and Hind). Of course, I am oversimplifying empiricism, and not doing justice to it, but the point is that, with the arrival of empiricism, it is difficult to make metaphysical claims, which religion, and its followers (Planck), make. This is the age of Hume and Mill, and not Plato.
But his point, if taken in a general sense and if taken outside the context of religion, then it makes sense. At some point, you need to stop focusing on trying to find an accurate world view by reading, researching and exploring………�.., and at least at some point of your life, you need to finally decide to crystallize your view (even if it is incorrect), and start taking actions according to it. There is no utility in arriving at a perfect world view at the age of 78. You need to develop your world view fast. At some point in your life, you need to graduate from being a man of ideas, to a man of action. To this extent, Planck's point is insightful. Become a man of action Rahul, a man of action.
When it comes to the subject of life, some of his views, I find similar to mine -
(a) that you do not have a legal right to happiness, and life has no guarantee to provide
you with the same;
(b) that every hour of happiness is an obligation or a debt due from you to strive to work
on your duty, which is the ultimate purpose of life.
Of course, my views are not exactly the same but similar:
(a) that the goal of my life is not happiness, but achieving what I have set out to achieve,
and then leave this place - whatever the goal is (reducing family, and eventually societal
suffering) (Marcus Aurelius),
(b) that happiness, if at all such a concept exists, can only be a mere by product of striving
for or achieving a goal that is larger than myself.
On the topic of religion, Planck undertakes mental gymnastics to defend religion, although there were some interesting aspects. Nothing wrong with his personal ethical views not being grounded in evidence. He can believe what helps him sleep at night. But I had disagreements with all of his arguments, which in my notes I think I have sufficiently countered.. Of course, it will be an exercise in narcissism for me to term my arguments as 'refutations'.
However, I found one argument of Planck, with respect to religion, made in the final pages, very interesting, which I have reproduced below:
"However, in spite of this unanimity a fundamental difference must also be observed. T o the
religious person, God is directly and immediately given. He and His omnipotent W ill are the fountainhead of all life and all happenings, both in the mundane world and in the world of the spirit. Even though H e cannot be grasped by reason, the religious symbols give a direct view of Him , and He plants His holy message in the souls of those who faithfully entrust themselves to Him . In contrast to this, the natural scientist recognizes as immediately given nothing but the content of his sense experiences and of the measurements based
on them. He starts out from this point, on a road of inductive research, to approach as best he can the supreme and eternally unattainable goal of his quest� God and His world order. Therefore, while both religion and natural science require a belief in God for their activities, to the former He is the starting point, to the latter the goal of every thought process. T o the former He is the foundation, to the latter the crown of the edifice of every generalized world view. This difference corresponds to the different roles of religion and natural science in human
life. Natural science wants man to learn, religion wants him to act. The only solid foundation for learning is the one supplied by sense perception; the assumption of a regular world order functions here merely as an essential condition for formulating fruitful questions. But this is not the road to be taken for action, for man's volitional decisions cannot wait until cognition has become complete or he has become omniscient. W e stand in the midst of life, and its manifold demands and needs often make it imperative that we reach decisions or translate our mental attitudes into immediate action. Long and tedious reflection cannot enable us to shape our decisions and attitudes properly; only that definite and clear instruction can which we gain from a direct inner link to God. This instruction alone is able to give us the inner firmness and lasting peace of mind which must be regarded as the highest boon in life. And if we ascribe to God, in addition to His omnipotence and omniscience, also the attributes of goodness and love, recourse to Him produces an increased feeling of safety and happiness in the
human being thirsting for solace. Against this
conception not even the slightest objection can
be raised from the point of view of natural
science, for as we pointed it out before, questions
of ethics are entirely outside of its realm"
I disagree with his argument, in the specific context of religion, since he underestimates the degree of damage caused by dogmatic compliance with traditional religious doctrines.
Until very recently, religion was the cause of discrimination against (a) those who 't adhere to it, (b) those who were lower in hierarchy "within" the religion (lower castes, classes, and women).
Further, religion works on the premise that certain laws and principles are metaphysical, and akin to natural laws, that are naturally occurring within the realms of human reason. To contrast empiricism (which I subscribe to), with metaphysics ----- empiricism says that your views, thoughts and prejudices are a product of your environment, surroundings and so on. Empiricism is extremely factual in nature. Empiricism, and its proponents, such as JS Mill, and Hume argue that what you consider to be an inviolable truth, is in fact a subconscious doctrine/prejudice which you have picked up from your surroundings. For instance, for Christians in the early 1400s, to not believe in Christ made you an infidel, and that belief in Christ was an 'a priori' claim that was naturally occurring in the minds of children/individual, INDEPENDENTLY of facts and surrounding circumstances. An empiricist could simply refute that claim by picking up a newborn child from a Christian household, and dropping him off in Antarctica, or India, and then evaluate whether the child arrives at those conclusions independently of his circumstances, which he obviously would not. Similar kinds of scrutiny could be undertaken w.r.t the concepts of Karma, Varna and so on. Are they grounded in facts? If no, then discard them, since no claim can be afforded the distinction of being 'a priori'.
A much better alternative, is to form your ethical view on the basis of philosophy (may it be eastern or western). There are no wars, or bombs thrown due to difference of views in philosophy, but the mere exchange of letters and emails. It is less dogmatic, more flexible, and most importantly offers the possibility of subscribing to empiricism, which only few select schools, in select religions offer (Budd and Hind). Of course, I am oversimplifying empiricism, and not doing justice to it, but the point is that, with the arrival of empiricism, it is difficult to make metaphysical claims, which religion, and its followers (Planck), make. This is the age of Hume and Mill, and not Plato.
But his point, if taken in a general sense and if taken outside the context of religion, then it makes sense. At some point, you need to stop focusing on trying to find an accurate world view by reading, researching and exploring………�.., and at least at some point of your life, you need to finally decide to crystallize your view (even if it is incorrect), and start taking actions according to it. There is no utility in arriving at a perfect world view at the age of 78. You need to develop your world view fast. At some point in your life, you need to graduate from being a man of ideas, to a man of action. To this extent, Planck's point is insightful. Become a man of action Rahul, a man of action.
November 8, 2014
Strictly speaking, only a small part of the book can be called an autobiography of Max Planck, hence the title is a ‘Scientific Autobiography�. The autobiography section portrays a man who appreciates that he is sitting on the shoulders of giants and that he is grateful for it, as well as his good fortune to have progressed in his field. There is also a sense that he feels he is merely part of an ongoing narrative of science.
The rest of the book begins to delve into essays in which Planck wrestles with different concepts associated with science, as well as the way it sits with religion. At times his discussions resonate strongly with philosophers such as Schopenhauer (Planck’s explanations are much easier to follow).
Although it is helpful at times to have some basic knowledge of physics, Planck is clearly trying to make his writing as accessible as possible. He does work through the concepts in such a methodical manner that it is possible to follow his discussions without losing the key points of his arguments. What does come over is the value of empirical work to test a theoretical concept and that confirmation enables further development of a theory. He clearly understands the value of collegial cooperation.
This may not be an autobiography as such, but a persistent reader will be rewarded with insights into Planck’s capacity for original thought, in being able to see the gaps between theories and concepts and pursue them, while at the same time understanding that whatever conclusions he may come to will need further refining. His enthusiasm for his work and life in general appears to be fuelled by insatiable curiosity of how the world around him works and the need to think a great deal about it. Humour and playfulness also seep through the writing.
Apart from correspondence and interviews with people who knew him, this is an interesting way of getting to know an intriguing man and may well stimulate further reading to find out more about him.
The rest of the book begins to delve into essays in which Planck wrestles with different concepts associated with science, as well as the way it sits with religion. At times his discussions resonate strongly with philosophers such as Schopenhauer (Planck’s explanations are much easier to follow).
Although it is helpful at times to have some basic knowledge of physics, Planck is clearly trying to make his writing as accessible as possible. He does work through the concepts in such a methodical manner that it is possible to follow his discussions without losing the key points of his arguments. What does come over is the value of empirical work to test a theoretical concept and that confirmation enables further development of a theory. He clearly understands the value of collegial cooperation.
This may not be an autobiography as such, but a persistent reader will be rewarded with insights into Planck’s capacity for original thought, in being able to see the gaps between theories and concepts and pursue them, while at the same time understanding that whatever conclusions he may come to will need further refining. His enthusiasm for his work and life in general appears to be fuelled by insatiable curiosity of how the world around him works and the need to think a great deal about it. Humour and playfulness also seep through the writing.
Apart from correspondence and interviews with people who knew him, this is an interesting way of getting to know an intriguing man and may well stimulate further reading to find out more about him.
Read
August 14, 2019good
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
September 11, 2022
Type of course: Appetizer
The content is easy to digest, and it's read well before sleep. Reading Max Planck's autobiography (or his diary) is like looking at the current way of scientific conduct through his lenses. For instance, achieving a meaningful scientific result is possible when science is done without presumption. However, since we are living in an imperfect world with a lot of instrumental and idea noises, this is always out of reach like Plato's Utopia. I guess one way to get closer to the ideal is to adorn the way with skeptics, but not the toxic ones, to keep ourselves on the right path which hopefully and eventually leads toward to better results that yield more meaningful interpretations.
Max Planck plows the field from science to philosophy and religion and gives some advice, and perspectives to fellow researchers. I highly recommend it to whom like to mix up science and philosophy and like to get a bird's eye-view of past scientific developments which significantly changed society.
The content is easy to digest, and it's read well before sleep. Reading Max Planck's autobiography (or his diary) is like looking at the current way of scientific conduct through his lenses. For instance, achieving a meaningful scientific result is possible when science is done without presumption. However, since we are living in an imperfect world with a lot of instrumental and idea noises, this is always out of reach like Plato's Utopia. I guess one way to get closer to the ideal is to adorn the way with skeptics, but not the toxic ones, to keep ourselves on the right path which hopefully and eventually leads toward to better results that yield more meaningful interpretations.
Max Planck plows the field from science to philosophy and religion and gives some advice, and perspectives to fellow researchers. I highly recommend it to whom like to mix up science and philosophy and like to get a bird's eye-view of past scientific developments which significantly changed society.
August 18, 2020
Max Planck wasn't the Quantum theory's father only, but a great human being. Starting since an early age, with a broad curiosity, booting through the engine of a smart society where he was swallowed, soon he decided to take studies on theoretical physics. Remarkables teachers such as Clausius, Helmholtz (a bad one, actually), couldn't leave room but to motivate a young man for working hard and building up a coherent speech about nature, till the end of his days. Starting from Statistical Mechanics, but leaving back some strong principles, he was be able to explain one of the most classical physical problems, opening a new world, almost unbealievable for the current staff at nineteenth century. Besides, this personal tale, we found some interesting essays about religion, science in general, as well as, the scientific method. Pure gold! "The laws of nature, such as we know them, are only what we can say about them, through our sense and reasoning".
January 1, 2015
Max Planck, the man who made it possible for calculations in Quantum Mechanics, is a brilliant thinker and was way ahead for his time. Being a man with varied interests, he writes about several different things in the same book.
In his autobiography, he writes about the key influencers during his college days, such as Kirchoff and Helmholtz, and their styles of teaching:
' Helmholtz never prepared his lectures properly...the class bored him (Helmholtz) at least as much as it did us'
'Kirchoff was the very opposite... it would sound like a memorized text, dry and monotonous. We would admire him, but not what he was saying.'
His commentaries on his lecturers are sure to surprise the reader about how various scientists of Planck's time behaved just like many of their successors of the present.
In his assorted papers are full of several philosophical concepts that one reaches after deep self inquiry. Addressing deeply intellectual questions such as consciousness, God, religion, validity and research methods of science are all very stimulating and worth reading.
However, Planck had an obvious malady that a man of his intellectual stature might usually suffer from- complex sentence constructions! This book is not for those not scientifically oriented or not used to scientific literary style.
I thank Netgalley for an ecopy of this book so that I can review it.
In his autobiography, he writes about the key influencers during his college days, such as Kirchoff and Helmholtz, and their styles of teaching:
' Helmholtz never prepared his lectures properly...the class bored him (Helmholtz) at least as much as it did us'
'Kirchoff was the very opposite... it would sound like a memorized text, dry and monotonous. We would admire him, but not what he was saying.'
His commentaries on his lecturers are sure to surprise the reader about how various scientists of Planck's time behaved just like many of their successors of the present.
In his assorted papers are full of several philosophical concepts that one reaches after deep self inquiry. Addressing deeply intellectual questions such as consciousness, God, religion, validity and research methods of science are all very stimulating and worth reading.
However, Planck had an obvious malady that a man of his intellectual stature might usually suffer from- complex sentence constructions! This book is not for those not scientifically oriented or not used to scientific literary style.
I thank Netgalley for an ecopy of this book so that I can review it.
November 7, 2015
Sorry, Max, this just wasn’t that interesting to me. The title is fitting, though, as this is not really a personal history, more the history of some scientific advances and different peoples� disputing theories. These pieces might sound better at a seminar � indeed, they originally were lectures. The reading might be better in print, too, which made me wonder what Max Planck would have thought of ebooks.
His writing style is clear and concise, and paced as you’d expect from a good scientist. However, I read it but nothing sank in. The science may be of interest to some, and the historical context too � how things have changed since then. The “phantom problems in science� lecture turns more towards psychology vs. physiology, and the third chapter is about science itself: philosophy, theory. The last piece considers science and religion in parallel, not exactly comparing or contrasting, and still seems a relevant discussion today. So, this is a very dry read, but good to see preserved for history, coming from a great scientific mind.
Note: this book was provided through Net Galley, and my review also appears on my blog ().
His writing style is clear and concise, and paced as you’d expect from a good scientist. However, I read it but nothing sank in. The science may be of interest to some, and the historical context too � how things have changed since then. The “phantom problems in science� lecture turns more towards psychology vs. physiology, and the third chapter is about science itself: philosophy, theory. The last piece considers science and religion in parallel, not exactly comparing or contrasting, and still seems a relevant discussion today. So, this is a very dry read, but good to see preserved for history, coming from a great scientific mind.
Note: this book was provided through Net Galley, and my review also appears on my blog ().
May 31, 2014
Planck was a scientist, not a writer, and this shows. There are certain flashes of insight, but overall it seems fairly poorly written and unengaging.
October 19, 2017
Planck, and the translator of this book, have provided us with a diary of Scientific history, discoveries and achievements mostly relating to Planck's career. Very easy read, but then, a long time ago, I was a Math & Physics major. Yet, I highly recommend this book to anyone who would learn from one of the intellectual giants.
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.