Rating: 
Summary: The Uniqueness of Western Civilization
Review:
Charles Murray, the leading Sociologist of our time, sets out on a topic worthy of his talents when he investigates the great human achievements of civilization. Murray begins by operationalizing achievement, that is, measuring accomplishments in arts and sciences. To do so Murray examines texts on various subjects and those achievements that are mentioned most often receive the highest rating. Measuring accomplishment will strike some as subjective rather than objective. Hence, many readers will be put off in the early stages of the book. It's a shame, since the operationalizing of accomplishment is only his first step. And the data itself should strike no one as surprising or biased. Is there any doubt that Newton made the most significant individual contributions to Physics? Or that Pasteur was the most important figure in medicine? Perhaps the arts are harder to measure, but is there any doubting the dominance of Shakespeare in literature, or that of Michelangelo in art? After gathering the data on accomplishment, Murray begins to break it down. By far the most striking feature of the data is the fact that a stunning 97 percent of human accomplishment comes from Europe and North America in years since 1400. Why should this be? Some of Murray's answers are not surprising: Freedom contributes to achievement, and Western Civilization has generally been the freest. Similarly, belief in God and a higher purpose contributes to an individual's willingness to tax himself harder in order achieve something for the greater good. More surprisingly, however, are some of the unique characteristics of Western Civilization that are not found elsewhere: An emphasis on individualism rather than familism, debate instead of consensus, work rather than duty. All these traits are necessary for the advancement of scientific progress. Without them individuals will not take risks, tackle the status quo, or devote themselves unceasingly to esoteric projects. Western Civilization in past six hundred years has been the only culture to have had these traits. Our contributions to Civilization are a direct result of the way our culture is organized. If we are to continue to make progress it is imperative that these traits not disappear.
Rating: 
Summary: Ehhh, It Was a Good Attempt
Review:
This book was tiresome reading at times, with many mathematical tables of which were put in the book to provide an alibi for whomever might disagree with the man and how he came to the conclusions he had done. I must agree with one of the reviwers of this book --- " Who cares?". I mean ultimately, it will be the readers themselves that will judge what exactly was the greatest and productive findings in history.
The Techonologically inclined will say that Science is the master of all that is and the more liberal arts type will insist that the Arts is what defines a culture. The fact is that both do because both hold a sea-saw effect, without imagination there is no science and without science there is no reason for a human being to think beyond what reality tells him to be so. It is science that produces better paints, better materials that lets the Artist craft and produce --- so why pit them against eachother?
It is that point that I will give this particular book 2 stars, as well as the way it was made. The side notes in a terrible headache making Blue with white type was a horrible idea. The reading was very drawn out and I've read better on far more drier material. The fact the guy took a good few years of his life to do this seems kind of odd, and I question it --- one should wonder, why? Somone could have made the arguement that the West had a far more promenint mark on the world in far fewer pages and time then this particular author has done.
Rating:
Summary: Art is NOT Science. Science is NOT Art.
Review: "The Pursuit of Arts and Sciences" is a great monumental book. However, like many writer, social commentators, and social scientists, Charles Murray does not understand the difference between Art and Science.
Isaac Newton and William Shakespeare are greats but they are in different realms of human creation. Newton (Universal Gravitation) is the foundation of modern knowledge of the natural world.
Shakespeare is "literature" and just that. Literature is the use of language to create stories, poems etc. etc. Shakespeare may go out of fashion. Some may find his work, old, stilted, boring and violence-prone.
Shakespeare may disappear from the world in a hundred years. However, discoveries about the natural world like Newton, Einstein, and Maxwell on Electromagnetism is for all times, and all places.
Arts is just "pretty" "beautiful". and that's all. It cannot help us build rockets to the Moon, Mars and Jupiter.
If you ask 20 people about a work of art.... You will get 20 different answers.
If you ask 20 people about electricity.....If they know what they are talking about... you will get 20 identical answers.
Art is NOT Science. Science is NOT Art. Social Writers not trained in the sciences who do not understand this well do not know the difference. Unfortunately, Murray suffers from the same misunderstanding.
Just dismiss the sections on Arts, because no one even know what Art is. However, no one can ever ignore science..i.e. Gravity or Electricity.
The dominance of Europe and North America.... the world has to ponder. India, China, Africa, South America has made little or no technical contributions to the modern world. East Asians reportedly have higher IQ than Europeans.
What is the cause of no innovation in science and technology in China. This is a great question to ponder. Why has Europe invented the modern world and the rest of the world in static no innovation, no changes... Billion Dollar Question.
Rating: 
Summary: Neglects Cambodians!
Review: Around 1100 AD, a Cambodian nobleman sat down in his study at Angkor Wat and decided to write a survey of human accomplishment.At the time of his writing, Angkor Wat was a metropolis as large as Los Angeles today, containing about a million human beings. It had the most sophisticated canal system in the world, and indeed the entire city was a masterpiece of know-how and urban planning. Not surprisingly, the Cambodian decided that his fellow Cambodians were outstanding examples of human accomplishment. He also paid some attention to the Chinese and Japanese, but he paid no attention at all to the Europeans, who in the year 1100 AD were hardly worth glancing at. Their big cities, London and Paris, contained barely 35,000 occupants, and they were ruled by a crowd of religious fanatics in Rome, who were the sworn enemies of civilization. Charles Murray actually mentions Angkor Wat in his survey of "human accomplishment." That is to say, he writes the name of the metropolis. But he furnishes no further information. To say that Murray's book is culture-bound is to state the extremely obvious. To say that it is enslaved by its own time is also very self-evident. Why would anyone want to buy this self-congratulatory slop? Unless they felt in need of congratulating themselves, of course!
Rating: 
Summary: Valid Attempt
Review: Charles Murray is a controversy writer, ever since his "Bell Curve" it has been obvious that he poses convictions (or maybe prejudices) that moves him. Although I approach this book with skepticism, and may not be in total agreement with his conclusions, I have to admit he has done a valid attempt to measure Human Accomplishments (not an easy task, and certainly an elusive one). It's logical that some relativity has to be involved in such a measure, anyone trying to do so will inevitably have to define a method, which in turn will definitely have to use subjective or indirect indicators. So, even if I'm not 100% convinced by his methods or in agreement with all his conclusions, I have to admit he has done a tremendous effort and a great job, Charles Murray deserves credit for this, and for making an otherwise coffe table book an excellent read.
Rating:
Summary: Valid Attempt
Review: Charles Murray is a controversy writer, ever since his "Bell Curve" it has been obvious that he poses convictions (or maybe prejudices) that moves him. Although I approach this book with skepticism, and may not be in total agreement with his conclusions, I have to admit he has done a valid attempt to measure Human Accomplishments (not an easy task, and certainly an elusive one). It's logical that some relativity has to be involved in such a measure, anyone trying to do so will inevitably have to define a method, which in turn will definitely have to use subjective or indirect indicators. So, even if I'm not 100% convinced by his methods or in agreement with all his conclusions, I have to admit he has done a tremendous effort and a great job, Charles Murray deserves credit for this, and for making an otherwise coffe table book an excellent read.
Rating:
Summary: Surprisingly unsurprising
Review: Charles Murray presents three questions in this book. First, can historiometric techniques be used to produce a survey of human accomplishment in the arts and sciences over time and across cultures? Second, are there any obvious patterns in the data? And third, why are those patterns present? The answer to the first question is certainly "yes". Murray uses the extent of coverage of scientists and artists in standard reference works on each field that he investigates. Basically he counts the number of times figures are mentioned and the amount of space their work is given. He makes a heroic effort to ensure that the results are not skewed by reliance on single works or works in a single language. His inventories include: astronomy, biology, chemistry, earth sciences, physics, mathematics, medicine, technology, Chinese philosophy, Indian philosophy, western philosophy, western music, Chinese painting, Japanese art, western art, Arabic literature, Chinese literature, Indian literature, Japanese literature, and western literature. While many may deride this methodology as bunk, the surprising thing is that the listings "look right". Who will argue that Galileo and Kepler do not belong at the top of the astronomy list, that Newton and Einstein do not belong at the top in physics, or that Shakespeare and Goethe should be lower on the western literature list? We may quibble about minor differences in rankings, but few would assert that obviously significant figures have been completely misplaced. Some readers with extensive statistics backgrounds may attack the techniques used, especially those used later in the book in determining rates of accomplishment, but with my limited background (one year of undergraduate statistics courses at MIT, and a semester of statistics for research in grad school) Murray's methodology looks bulletproof. To this point, even multiculturalists should be happy, since no attempt is made to compare the accomplishments of western and non-western civilizations. Now, however, he lobs the baseball into the hornets' nest. He concludes that dead European white guys have done the best work in the sciences, that Jews are dramatically overrepresented as a percentage of total population, that women have not contributed at the expected rates even after sexist barriers were removed, and that significant contributions in non-western arts have not been made at the same rates as in the west. While Murray's observations on the sciences seem indisputable, his coverage of non-western art is probably the weakest part of the book. Murray next tries to extract some explanations from the data. His first conclusions are fairly obvious and noncontroversial to anyone with some knowledge of the history of sicence and the arts: war does not disrupt accomplishment, but economic health is required. Next, he points out that models of accomplishment provide behavior reinforcement for aspiring achievers. He also concludes that accomplishment requires freedom of action. Regimes ruled by Saddam Hussein's or Ayatollah Khomeini's are unlikely to produce much in the way of achievement. Further, Confucian duty to family and hierarchy can also stifle creativity. In the final section of the book, Murray turns back to the nature of accomplishment and the factors that contribute to it, and asks if accomplishment is in decline. Since this is the most interesting part of book, I will not telegraph all of the conclusions in this review. Suffice it to say that his conclusions are anathema to multiculturists and practititioners of literary theory. In sum, this is an excellent, thought-provoking work that will reward any open-minded reader.
Rating:
Summary: Strange book!
Review: Charles Murray wrote a brilliant book called "Losing Ground," and co-authored a highly controversial book, "The Bell Curve." The first one was better than the second one. His third book provokes only a question: why do this? Evidently he spent years reading art histories and science histories, counted up citations, and somehow convinced himself that he had constructed some sort of objective scale of greatness. Well, so what? According to his fabulous system, the second greatest artist of all time was Pablo Picasso! There's your big hint that his system has serious problems! :-) The only practical result from this book is that one can now say, "Scholarly consensus says that Abu Nuwas was the second greatest poet in Arab literature." And you can cite Murray's book to "prove it." So?? The subtitle of this book should have been "How to Waste Many Years of Your Life Doing Something Dumb!" Sorry! Not recommended!!!
Rating:
Summary: Flawed attempted to measure accomplishment
Review: Charles Murray's book Human Accomplishment was a disappointment. I saw Charles Murray speak on c-span promoting this book and was interested. After reading the book I feel that it fell short. The book had several major flaws that I felt made the book unable to fulfill its purpose. The main purpose of the book is to show human accomplishment of humans throughout time. Charles Murray tries to measure accomplishment in both the arts and sciences. The sciences are measurable to a point but I thought there were major flaws in measuring achievement in the arts. The book is also somewhat technical and the appendix explaining statistics could have been written much better.
One of the main problems in the book is the way in which Charles Murray goes about measuring accomplishment. He goes to histories of arts and sciences and looks at how many people where mentioned in each of the histories and looks at how much space was given to each person or accomplishment. Each history is given equal weight but giving equal weight to each of the histories would skew the results since the Lotka curve (Murray explains the Lotka curve in the book) shows that a few of the histories should be much better then the rest and therefore be given much more weight in the evaluation process.
Another problem with the book is the assumption that experts can objectively evaluate which art is better then others. Which art is considered better than others is a subjective choice especially when looking at art of different eras. What the experts consider good or bad has to do with their training and personal preference not on some objective standard that doesn't exist.
Rating:
Summary: Finally...
Review: Finally Charles Murray confirms what we all have suspected for years: that senior fellows at the American Enterprise Institute have no business in the social sciences.
|
