TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

The Dangerous Populist Science of Yuval Noah Harari

29 点作者 MrsPeaches超过 2 年前

5 条评论

matthewmacleod超过 2 年前
This is an interesting read. I wouldn&#x27;t be quite as emphatic as the article and headline here are, but personally I had a pretty negative reaction to <i>Sapiens</i>. I can&#x27;t totally describe why – it was something like an impression that the neatness, cuteness, and elegance of many of the ideas and principles described in it were just a paper-thin veneer over a much more complex and messy and ambiguous reality.<p>I don&#x27;t think I realised until I saw this article that reading it gave me a the constant back-of-the-mind feeling that I was reading a <i>story</i>. Kind of like a string of assertions with little-to-no real meat on them. I felt like I was being told &quot;this is what happened&quot;, rather than &quot;here&#x27;s what I think might have happened and why&quot;.<p>I know it&#x27;s just pop-science and all and absolutely has it&#x27;s place – it&#x27;s wildly popular and people obviously find meaning and value in it (and as someone who hasn&#x27;t sold 23 million books I&#x27;m no expert). I was just surprised about the buzz when I read it, and how few people I&#x27;ve met who felt the same way.
评论 #33200710 未加载
评论 #33200191 未加载
YeBanKo超过 2 年前
I was impressed by Sapiens, this probably am biased. But once I read it, I did not really follow Harari as a person, because there was no reason too. I probably just skimmed through a quoter of a book, where the author was speculating about the future or overall going into off-the-ramp speculations, the rest was thoroughly enjoyable and I am yet to find any pop science book where an author does not engage in some speculations. It was a good attempt at looking at the entirety of human history through a lens of evolution, biology, economy and pure randomness. But it is a pop science, not a research paper. This article, however, read like a pamphlet fueld by jealousy of someone else’ success.<p><pre><code> &gt; earning hundreds of thousands of dollars per speaking appearance. </code></pre> On par with Hillary Clinton, no?<p><pre><code> &gt; Harari concludes that, “many historical calamities, from deadly wars to ecological catastrophes, have resulted from this over-hasty jump.” As an evolutionary biologist, I have to say: this passage sets my teeth on edge. </code></pre> It is a speculation, ok. And right now, we are on the brink of a nuclear war, because of one man’s insecurities. So to suggest that our non-linear evolution afforded us means of mass and self-destruction, but no commensurable means of self-control is not such a wild conjecture. And anyway, even we want to look into science of it, there is really no much science to look at. Because when it comes to history of humanity there is a sample of one and fundamental irreproducibility. As you step away from pure biology towards any field that studies human as a species or human societies, it is ridden with unsustained claims and politicization.<p>It reminds me of Taleb’s work on black swan and skin in the game. Sure, to some devoted followers now everything is a black swan and trump and putin are the champions. But you don’t need to subscribe to his entire philosophy to agree that he brings up many good points, that might have been hidden otherwise.
评论 #33201269 未加载
评论 #33200183 未加载
specialist超过 2 年前
My review of Sapiens:<p>&quot;Lesson Relearned: First scan the expert reviews&quot; [2021]<p>&quot;Sapiens is &quot;folk history&quot;, feel good stuff that sounds true, because you&#x27;ve heard it before. First concern was really good description of perennial tension (liberty vs freedom) followed by incorrect definition of cognitive dissonance. Oops. I tried to power thru the section about money. As others noted, though he cites Graeber, he apparently hasn&#x27;t read Graeber. So then I remembered to consult r&#x2F;askhistorians&#x27; wiki. Oh. Sapiens has been widely debunked, refuted. For example, his neanderthals vs sapiens narrative is decades out of date. I don&#x27;t mind coloring book (abridged, simplified) versions of history. They can be great intros. But life&#x27;s too short for &quot;not even wrong&quot;. And it seems as though Harari hasn&#x27;t handled the critics very well (defensive, no updates). Too bad.&quot;<p>FWIW, Here&#x27;s those r&#x2F;askhistorians criticisms too:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.reddit.com&#x2F;r&#x2F;AskHistorians&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;historians_views#wiki_historians.27_views_of_yuval_noah_harari.2C_sapiens_and_homo_deus" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.reddit.com&#x2F;r&#x2F;AskHistorians&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;historians_views...</a>
boxmonster超过 2 年前
Yuval Noah Harari says civilization was a mistake but doesn&#x27;t follow up with any plan for getting rid of it
评论 #33197573 未加载
ncmncm超过 2 年前
For all that, he is less dangerous than Malcolm Gladwell.
评论 #33199517 未加载