Alexander RosenbergCritiques

The American philosopher of science Alex Rosenberg (b. 1946) has a very black and white view of reality: anything that is not based on scientific ground is no good. His ‘faith’ (pun intended) is scientism, pure and simple. In this book, Rosenberg focuses on narratives, and historical narratives in particular. In this review, I’m going to focus on his critique of narratives in general.
Since the postmodern wave in the second half of the twentieth century, we know that narratives are ubiquitous; we use the frame of stories to interpret and express both the banal reality of everyday as well as fundamental issues; “everything is a story” has become a very inflationary expression. Well, says Rosenberg, these narratives just are bullshit, and what's more, they're harmful: “all narratives are wrong – wrong in the same way and for the same reason”.
To prove his point, he elaborates on the ‘Theory of Mind’-technique, that is the instrument we use to imagine how other people function, what their motives and desires are. It’s a method that homo sapiens has developed throughout its evolutionary history, and that allowed it to survive. It was such a success that we have completely internalized, and still use it throughout the day.
According to Rosenberg this development has come with a vengeance. Through a very detailed and technical overview of neuro-cognitive studies, he shows that this Theory of Mind constantly misleads us; because there’s no way we can be sure we’re on the right track of motives and desires of others, and that’s why we constantly make bad choices. If we have to believe Rosenberg, neurosciences even have proven that this instrument makes no sense, it even has no neurological basis at all.
The only remedy according to Rosenberg is to renounce our addiction to narratives, and resolutely turn to science, through the simple registration of events and actions, sticking to factual information and expressing that in tables, graphs, etc. It’s no wonder Rosenberg ventures into a rehabilitation of the long-discredited behaviorism.
Look, I could demonstrate extensively how fundamentally wrong Rosenberg is. But I’m going to limit myself to two points of criticism. To begin with, Rosenberg is purely misleading: if you read carefully, his critique of (historical) narratives focuses almost exclusively on the process of attributing motives and desires to others (hence his focus on the Theory of Mind); that is a serious limitation of the concept of narrative. Isn’t it strange that an intelligent person like Rosenberg does not even notice that he is constantly using narratives (in the broader sense of the word) himself, almost constantly throughout this book. How could it be different: they’re ubiquitous, remember?
And secondly, his scientism is so out of line (“science and nothing but science”) that he simply ignores entire chunks of (human) reality. Try this exercise: replace the ‘Theory of Mind’-method with "friendship" or "love", two other forms of human relating; it is quite simple to show that friendship and love in many cases are just illusions, are neuro-cognitive based on nothing, and very often are rather harmful. This critique can easily be justified with logical and rational arguments. But does this mean we just have to throw them overboard, and deny that they are fundamental to the possibility of a ‘good life’?
Well, I know it sounds derogatory, but I actually feel very sorry for Rosenberg: he is clearly someone who can only think in binary (scientific or non-scientific) terms, and as a result simply wishes to ignore fundamental parts of human reality. I’m not saying this book isn’t interesting (it absolutely is thought provoking), and I’m not saying Rosenberg is wrong all the time, but his central message just is wrong.
In my historical account on Goodreads, I explore more in depth the (ir)relevance of this book for historians: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/4988720518

(...) when I learned Rosenberg had written a book about our addiction to stories, I couldn’t resist and bought it. This book is a very different read than Darwinian Reductionism: a whole lot more accessible, written for a somewhat larger audience – although this is still no pop science book. While not without problems, it is very much worth your time if you have a serious, academic interest in human behavior, theory of mind, and narrative – Rosenberg’s scope is both broad and deep.

How History Gets Things Wrong: The Neuroscience of Our Addiction to Stories biggest shortcoming is its title. It’s great from a marketing point of view, but it is a bit misleading. Yes, history features, as do stories, but in the end, they are a sideshow. Rosenberg uses the fallacies of narrative history to frame his central argument, which is a refutation of the most commonly held (folk) ‘theory of mind‘. He does so mainly with recent findings from neuroscience.

(...)

One more remark before the jump, maybe a crucial one, I don’t know. Neural circuits in the brain do not have content or represent something indeed, but it is obvious that their material output (our speech, our writing, to a certain extent maybe our conscious thoughts as well, …) does. The brain lacks content, sure, but it forms content. I would think that you cannot treat the brain as a closed system, and that we need to take its extensions so to say into account as well.

I’m not sure what this means for Rosenberg’s overall theory. Maybe it is not much more than a matter of sharper definitions. Rosenberg talks about cell circuitry that does not ‘represent’ or ‘interpret’ etc. – but again, what about their output? Is that part of the brain as well? Or part of its representation/interpretation/aboutness?

Or maybe his main beef shouldn’t be with narrative history and theory of mind, but narrative history and the folk theory of mind that presupposes rational, non-causally determined agency of human actors. The neuroscience and other points raised could easily support that.

(...)

Full review on Weighing A Pig

(...)

I will not get into the nuts and bolts of every argument. Aside from a general appraisal of the book, I’ll elaborate a bit on two small – yet fundamental – elements of critique, and end with a list of nuggets of wisdom I found while reading – a list that is probably of interest to those readers not interested in the general content of this book, yet who do have a healthy interest in science.

(...)

While I don’t claim to be a specialist nor a philosopher, there’s two issues I want to bring up.

1. While I agree words matter, a part chapter 8 (the final chapter) actually revolves around semantics: there is a difference between ‘causation’ and ‘determinism’, but it is crystal clear that PKU (an inherited metabolic disease) is caused by some combination of genes. The fact that one can alter the environment to deal with this disease (change one’s diet) does make these genes less (or not fully) determining in one sense. True, genes don’t necessarily cause the disease as one can change one’s diet, but in that case, the genes do cause the need for dietary changes. In that respect, there still is determination.

Similarly, the fact that not merely one gene or group of genes causes this or that effect, but that often different genetic pathways also lead to a similar outcome, doesn’t make the overall statement that genes determine less true. It only refutes a very narrow approach to genetic determinism. A part of Rosenberg’s refutation of genetic determinism boils down to ‘it’s too complex to describe’; but that’s obviously not a valid argument.

All things considered, it seems that Rosenberg is fighting a specific, very narrow definition of genetic determinism. It’s obvious that genes are not the full story, but they – and all the molecular structures related to them – irrefutably do their part in materialistically determining biological outcome.

2. I missed Rosenberg’s stand on free will. It is the elephant in the room that isn’t addressed at all in this book. In chapter 8, on human behavior, Rosenberg only talks about genetic determinism, while in much of the rest of the book, he often talks about the more general macromolecular reductionism. Why not go the full mile, and write a chapter about the consequences of general material determinism?

I think he didn’t go there out of fear for controversy – but that’s kind of strange in the light of the rest of the book, which was/is also controversial: a large part of biologists apparently are physicalists yet anti-reductionist – something I can’t wrap my head around.

(...)

Full review on Weighing A Pig Doesn't Fatten It

I thought this book was excellent. Rosenberg has a terrific grasp of the historical and human realities of the borderlands between Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany before, during and after the War. The book is well written, the suspense well maintained, and the characters artfully developed. Well worth the read.

'Tis not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger.'

This review is also available on my blog: Under Literary Construction

The Girl from Krakow follows Rita's life from meeting her husband at university to changing her identity in order to survive the Nazi's mission to rid the world of Jews. A love affair, a lost child and a secret that can change the outcome of the war and put than her life in danger. Along the way she meets those willing to help her survive despite the risk to their own lives and many anti-Semitics siding with Hitler's mission. Her wits and ability to think quickly are just a few things keeping Rita and her newfound companion, Dani, alive until the America's enter the war and the Nazi regime falls.

I enjoyed this book, but there were some hurdles for me to enjoy it, mainly the language. I am not well-versed, nor have I ever claimed to be, in any language outside of English. I know the bare minimum of being able to scrape by an understanding, but that has never impeded my ability to read and enjoy a book.

This book, however, had me looking up the phonetic alphabet in order to pronounce names like Tadeusz, which I think I am still pronouncing wrong. Then there are the Nazi terms, the German terms, the Polish slang and the majority of these items weren't available for "translation" or lookup in my Kindle's dictionary. Every time I came across a new word, I would look it up and often have to leave my page and go to the internet browser to look it up there and hope there was a translation or at least a pronunciation if I could figure out what the term meant through context clues.
But let's put this aside because the novel does take place in Paris, Germany, Poland, and Moscow. Unfamiliar terms are bound to be abundant and I am willing to look past this.

I enjoyed the beginning, the middle was what kept my attention, but the end fell apart for me. If it weren't for the fact that the historical details were accurate, as far as I can tell (I am not a History major by any means), I think I would have given a lesser star review for this book.

The characters are well built and described in enough detail to form an image in my mind. Rita the Jewess that looks more German than Jew, according to Hitler's image of Jews, and speaks fluent German. I could see her in my mind, along with Urs, Tadeusz, and even Dani. All of the characters were well-formed in my mind, which is the most important aspect of a book for me because the characters tell the story.

One of my biggest issues, however, was the constant point of view shift throughout the book. At one point, it interrupted with the timeline sending the story backwards in order to catch up another characters timeline and I was a little confused as to what was going on and what year it was in the end. At one point, the shift was within a paragraph. We are understanding things from Rita's perspective and then the next sentence is from her landlady's perspective and then right back to Rita's.

I also found it hard to believe that Rita and Dani were able to learn so many languages so quickly. Rita already knows Polish and German. She then picks up on Russian, Yiddish and English. Dani just so happens to speak and understand English, but this is not known until the Americans arrive. I have difficulty believing that they are able to learn this many languages in a way that allows them to effectively communicate so quickly.

The sex scenes were a source of love/hate. I am all for adult scenes in novels meant for adults and these are actually beautifully written. Not overly erotic, not tawdry, but told in a matter-of-fact way that paints an image. But, they often don't add to the story. Of course, Rita's affair would involve sex scenes, but then there are other times the sex occurs in the story that doesn't contribute to what is occurring at the time. Sex for the sake filling a page is where the hate part of the love/hate comes in, but these are well written and didn't make me cringe to read.

Rita seems to catch a lot of lucky breaks. She happens to speak German like a German not a Jew. She meets Erich, who provides her with the right documentation. She crosses paths with Mikolaj Bilek, who also helps provide her passage at just the right time. Even when she has been "caught," she is let free because the war is coming to an end and the man in charge, the Sturmscharführer, understands that letting her go will look better for him in the end then sending her and Dani to jail. It just seems a little far-fetched that she survives as much as she does and does so without much effort.

The ending felt thrown together as if the author and editor at the last minute realized there were items not addressed. It was a little sad for me because the bulk of the story was enjoyable and lead up to this ending that just fell flat like a deflated balloon.

Now, it probably seems that there was a lot I found wrong, but as I mentioned the characters are well-developed and the historical aspects accurate. That alone made me enjoy the read. There are also some very memorable quotes that are applicable even today, such as:

Ideas spread like the germs of a disease. Like the deadliest diseases, they die out because they kill their hosts before they can jump to new ones.

I also really liked how Rosenberg effectively and easily explained Darwin's theories. Darwin is complicated and not always easy to understand. The Nazis used his theories to their benefit, but Rosenberg tells the other side of the story using Darwin's theories to explain why the Nazis will lose and how the entire war doesn't have a divine reason, but is just a part of the evolution process. Freddy explains this argument to Rita who grabs hold of it and runs, explaining it to anyone along the way in such a way that it makes sense regardless of who she is explaining it to. It was a highlight for me every time she used the Nazis reasoning against them, of course not directly to their face.

Do I wish there was a better ending? Absolutely. Were there parts of it that were boring or unbelievable? Definitely. Did that take away from my overall enjoyment of the novel? Not one bit.

Reads this backwards, everything was pretty much something I already knew, except for some very ( to me ) interesting questions in the last two chapters. ( Hope I can get his book about economics someday )

I really feel like there is a good story in here... Somewhere. But it's definitely not on the page.

My first error with this book came with my misunderstanding that it was fiction as opposed to non-fiction. Totally my fault, but I wouldn't have requested it had I realized that. I stay away from fiction around this time period/subject matter for a lot of reasons that I won't go into.

The dialogue was so wooden and unrealistic. This isn't helped by the esoteric conversations all of these philosophy minors college dropouts, factory workers, and doctors keep having. I don't know much about political philosophy of the times, and I didn't appreciate this narrative making me feel like I would need to take a college level course on the subject to figure out the undertones here. Nothing was expanded upon to help the reader along, instead all these conversations just felt like word vomit on the page.

The plot was just a chore to trudge through. I don't intimately know what happened in Poland after they were invaded, which made a lot of the events fly over my head. Even when the holocaust was beginning to be touched on it was hard for me to tell because of how blandly and matter-of-factly they described what was going on. There was no emotion, only facts.

I'm not giving this book the (1) star that it was to me because I'm certain that someone with more knowledge and interest in the time period/place/events would be interested in reading it. For me though I was just bored and disconnected the entire way through from all of the characters, even when terrible things were happening.

Copy courtesy of Lake Union Publishing, via Netgalley in exchange for an honest review.

Normally if there's a murder in a book, I'm out. And if someone is framed for said murder, well I'm double out. But I guess if you couch it in enough fascinating historical detail (and describe the actual act of murder as little as possible), I'm willing to go along for the ride. This was very much the case for Alex Rosenberg's thrilling new novel, Autumn in Oxford.

Tom Wrought is a Pulitzer Prize winning academic at Oxford. He joined the Communist party when he was a very young man and despite having left the party long ago, faced enough problems in a US in the grips of McCarthyism to have decamped for Britain before his passport could be confiscated and his livelihood closed off to him. While in England, despite both of them being married, he falls in love with his neighbor, Liz Spencer, and they embark on an affair. They might just be the love of each other's lives. When Liz's husband is pushed in front of a Tube train, Tom is accused of his murder. What looks like a simple case of a love triangle ending in murder turns into something much more far reaching and politically disturbing once Tom's background as an OSS and then CIA spy comes to light. It is up to Liz, Alice, the lawyer she hires, and Tom himself, to find out the truth about who framed Tom for the murder and why before it's too late.

Told from several different perspectives, Tom's, Liz's, and Alice, as well as several of the more minor characters, the novel covers a lot of political ground. Set in the late 1950s, when McCarthyism was at its height in the US, J. Edgar Hoover was in charge of the FBI, several high profile Brits had defected to the Soviet Union, espionage was rampant, and race relations in the US were incredibly volatile, the novel weaves a hypnotic story of the intertwining all of these varying facts and more. Rosenberg takes some little known or mostly forgotten historical happenings and ties them all together through his character of Tom Wrought. Choosing to have Tom write out his back story in a journal from prison as a way to help his lawyer try to uncover who might have a stake in framing Tom is an ingenious way to give the reader a lot of information that might not otherwise fit well in the framework of the story. The Cold War politics vital to the plot and Tom's relationship to them is revealed slowly and deliberately as the tension ratchets up. Liz and Alice, as the two main investigators in the race to clear Tom, are both written as strong and intelligent female character although there were times when Liz, in particular, seemed to act out of character as the mother of young children to whom she was devoted but perhaps her cloak and dagger investigation demanded this small anachronism. Over all, this was a riveting mystery/thriller. It will certainly appeal to anyone fascinated by the Cold War era and its spies, those who appreciate eminently plausible conspiracy theories, and those who enjoy a twisting, turning plot that keeps the reader guessing both where the plot is going and how much of the background is based on truth. History buffs will certainly leave this entertaining book looking for primary sources on at least a few things with which they aren't familiar.½

"The Girl From Krakow" is Rita Feuerstahl, a Jew who can pass for "Aryan."  She ultimately does just that, with false papers turning her into Margarita Truschenko, an ethnic German (Volks-Deutsche) from Ukraine. The book covers the period from 1935 through 1947.  Rita's story is set mostly in Poland and Germany, and ultimately in Austria.

The other main character in the book is Rita's extramarital lover, another Jew named Tadeusz Sommermann, a gynecologist.  Besides Poland and Austria, he spends time in France, Spain (during the Civil War there, where he becomes Guillermo Romero), and Russia.  Thus the author pretty well has Europe covered for this time period, as well as various scenarios for the era - the military, the Jewish ghetto, factory work, post-war United Nations work, etc.

Rita is not a particularly sympathetic character.  I don't mind sex in books, and I don't see anything wrong with a character being sexually promiscuous and adventurous (besides Tadeusz, she is sexually involved with her physician husband, later a gay man who shares her room in the Jewish ghetto, and even later a woman).  However, it all felt somewhat gratuitous in this book.  It felt like the author (who is male) felt he needed all this to spice up the story.

The big problem I have with this book is that author Alex Rosenberg is a philosophy professor, and the book, his first novel, felt pedantic at times, with the characters discussing atheism and nihilism and other such topics.  It seemed like the author wanted to get his points across at the expense of character development, for all the book's characters seemed pretty shallow.

I also did not find it particularly realistic that Rita would carry two large, heavy volumes of Darwin's works with her everywhere she went (despite the risks), nor the "secret" her gay roommate told her that supposedly put her life at risk.

It didn't help that audiobook narrator Michael Page was awful.  His British accent was especially annoying with his rather nasal voice, and his interpretations of the female characters in the book were grating.  He did a fine job with male-only voices in The Watch That Ends the Night, but he should stay away from audiobooks where he will be voicing female characters.

While I learned a lot and am glad I read the book, it won't be for everyone, and I will not be re-reading it.  I wish I hadn't wasted an Audible credit (albeit a free one) to purchase it.

© Amanda Pape - 2016

[This electronic audiobook was purchased from Audible with a free credit. This review also appears on Bookin' It.]½

3.5 Stars. Overall this was an enjoyable read (if you can use these words with the subject matter at hand), but at one or two points you kept thinking get on with it. It covers the period from the mid to late thirties and right through the war, as well as taking in some of the Spanish Civil War. The depravity of the times comes through strongly in this book, especially related to the ghettos and the holocaust - even worse was the way people sold out their fellow man (including people of the same faith). Overall I am very pleased to have read it.½

This novel had me confused; the historical fiction part was obvious but it was erotica also. Parts of the novel did remind me of Winds of War and the horrific acts of the Nazis. The Jewish population, the homosexual population, the Gypsy population and everyone not Blue eyes and Blonde hairs were targets for their hate.

The book does have happy ending.

Rita, a student at the Krakow University, leaves her studies to marry and bear a child. However, her marriage lacks the passion she desires. After her husband discovers that she is having an affair, she breaks it off with her lover and resolves herself to her mundane life. When WWII breaks out, her husband flees to Russia. She and her son are sent to the Ghetto.

This was a well-paced and interesting book. The characters were very realistic and dynamic. It was slow at times, but none of the slow periods lasted for long. Overall, well worth picking up.

Awarded by Goodreads. Very good telling of life between the wars, especially the hardships faced by Jews in a Europe rife with discrimination exacerbated by Hitler's quest to exterminate them. The girl in question is Jewish, unhappily married, and running from the Nazis after their conquest of Poland. Her assets include "looking Aryan", speaking German, and good luck in finding the right people to help her. But her life is complicated by knowing a secret that could change the balance of force in the war and the search for her infant son whom she sent into hiding with a courier of the Polish underground. While the story moves along well, one has the feeling that all is very predictable, but the ending manages to surprise by "contradicting" one of the underlying themes of the story. In the end a very satisfying read.

A well-researched, well-written, and thoroughly enjoyable novel about life in Nazi-occupied Eastern Europe.

Reads this backwards, everything was pretty much something I already knew, except for some very ( to me ) interesting questions in the last two chapters. ( Hope I can get his book about economics someday )

Reality...what a concept! This book is not meant to persuade anyone that there is no god. Instead, Rosenberg assumes that the reader is a nonbeliever, who wants to get a better grip on reality. An engaging read that will have your brain working overtime.

This book, along with Hausman's and Cartwright's most recent, is responsible for shaping my views of economics. The argument is typically rigorous and, I think, unanswerable. The last chapter is especially brilliant in arguing for his view of economics as a branch of applied mathematics. He's not the best philosophical writer you'll encounter, but he writes well enough about a complex subject that his argument should be perspicuous even to non-philosophers.

SUMÁRIO:

[011] - Agradecimentos.
(.)
[013] - 01 POR QUE FILOSOFIA DA CIÊNCIA?
[013] - 01.01 Visão Geral;
[013] - 01.01.01 A relação entre ciência e filosofia;
[018] - 01.01.02 Questões científicas e questões sobre ciência;
[021] - 01.01.03 A ciência moderna como filosofia;
[027] - 01.01.04 Ciência e civilização ocidental.
(.)
[033] - 01.02 RESUMO;
[033] - 01.03 QUESTÕES DE ESTUDO;
[034] - 01.04 SUGESTÕES DE LEITURA.
(.)
[037] - 02 EXPLICAÇÃO, CAUSAÇÃO E LEIS
[037] - 02.01 Visão Geral;
[038] - 02.01.01 O positivismo lógico estabelece a agenda;
[042] - 02.01.02 Definindo a explicação científica;
[051] - 02.01.03 Por que as leis explicam?
[056] - 02.01.04 Contraexemplos e a pragmática da explicação.
(.)
[065] - 02.02 RESUMO;
[066] - 02.03 QUESTÕES DE ESTUDO;
[066] - 02.04 SUGESTÕES DE LEITURA.
(.)
[069] - 03 EXPLICAÇÃO CIENTÍFICA E SEUS DISSABORES
[069] - 03.01 Visão Geral;
[070] - 03.01.01 Leis inexatas e probabilidades;
[079] - 03.01.02 Causação teleologia;
[085] - 03.01.03 Da inelegibilidade à necessidade.
(.)
[091] - 03.02 RESUMO;
[092] - 03.03 QUESTÕES DE ESTUDO;
[093] - 03.04 SUGESTÕES DE LEITURA.
(.)
[095] - 04 A ESTRUTURA E A METAFÍSICA DAS TEORIAS CIENTÍFICAS
[095] - 04.01 Visão Geral;
[097] - 04.01.01 Como as teorias funcionam?
[109] - 04.01.02 Redução, substituição e o progresso da ciência;
[113] - 04.01.03 O problema dos termos teóricos e as coisas que eles nomeiam;
[129] - 04.01.04 Teorias e modelos;
[136] - 04.01.05 Um estudo de caso: a teoria da seleção natural.
(.)
[142] - 04.02 RESUMO;
[144] - 04.03 QUESTÕES DE ESTUDO;
[144] - 04.04 SUGESTÕES DE LEITURA.
(.)
[147] - 05 A EPISTEMOLOGIA DA TEORIZAÇÃO CIENTÍFICA
[147] - 05.01 Visão Geral;
[148] - 05.01.01 Uma breve história do empirismo como epistemologia da ciência;
[152] - 05.01.02 A epistemologia do teste científico;
[157] - 05.01.03 A indução como pseudoproblema: a estratégia de Popper;
[163] - 05.01.04 Estatísticas e probabilidades são a salvação?
[179] - 05.01.05 Subdeterminação.
(.)
[181] - 05.02 RESUMO;
[183] - 05.03 QUESTÕES DE ESTUDO;
[184] - 05.04 SUGESTÕES DE LEITURA.
(.)
[187] - 06 O DESAFIO DA HISTÓRIA E DO PÓS-POSITIVISMO
[187] - 06.01 Visão Geral;
[188] - 06.01.01 Um lugar para a história?
[201] - 06.01.02 Há lugar para a filosofia primeira?
[209] - 06.01.03 São os programas de pesquisa científica racionais?
(.)
[214] - 06.02 RESUMO;
[216] - 06.03 QUESTÕES DE ESTUDO;
[216] - 06.04 SUGESTÕES DE LEITURA.
(.)
[219] - 07 O CARÁTER DUVIDOSO DA CIÊNCIA E AS QUESTÕES FUNDAMENTAS DA FILOSOFIA
[219] - 07.01 Visão Geral;
[220] - 07.01.01 Ao longo da história, da filosofia ao pós-modernismo
[230] - 07.01.02 Cientificismo, sexismo e verdades significativas
[236] - 07.01.03 Liderando com o relativismo: poderia a Terra ser realmente plana?
(.)
[245] - 07.02 RESUMO;
[246] - 07.03 QUESTÕES DE ESTUDO;
[246] - 07.04 SUGESTÕES DE LEITURA.
(.)
[249] - Glossário.
(.)
[259] - Bibliografia.
(.)
[263] - Índice de nomes.
(.)