|
John Horgan is an American science journalist best known for his 1996 book ''The End of Science''. He has written for many publications, including ''National Geographic'', ''Scientific American'', ''The New York Times'', ''Time'', ''Newsweek'', and ''IEEE Spectrum''. His awards include two Science Journalism Awards from the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the National Association of Science Writers Science-in-Society Award. His articles have been included in the 2005, 2006 and 2007 editions of ''The Best American Science and Nature Writing''. Since 2010 he has written the "Cross-check" blog for ScientificAmerican.com.〔(John Horgan - Biography ), accessed October 21, 2007〕 Horgan graduated from the Columbia University School of Journalism in 1983. Between 1986 and 1997 he was a senior writer at ''Scientific American''.〔 ==1990s assertions== His October 1993 ''Scientific American'' article, "The Death of Proof", claimed that the growing complexity of mathematics, combined with "computer proofs" and other developments, were undermining traditional concepts of mathematical proof. The article generated "torrents of howls and complaints" from mathematicians, according to David Hoffman (one of the mathematicians Horgan interviewed for the article).〔David Hoffman, (book review of ''The End of Science: Facing the Limits of Knowledge in the Twilight of the Scientific Age'' ), ''Notices of the AMS'', Volume 45, Number 2 (February 1998), pp. 263. Accessed October 21, 2007.〕 Horgan's 1996 book ''The End of Science'' begins where "The Death of Proof" leaves off: in it, Horgan argues that pure science, defined as "the primordial human quest to understand the universe and our place in it," may be coming to an end. Horgan claims that science will not achieve insights into nature as profound as evolution by natural selection, the double helix, the big bang, relativity theory or quantum mechanics. In the future, he suggests, scientists will refine, extend and apply this pre-existing knowledge but will not achieve any more great "revolutions or revelations." Nobel laureate Phil Anderson wrote in 1999 "The reason that Horgan's pessimism is so wrong lies in the nature of science itself. Whenever a question receives an answer, science moves on and asks a new kind of question, of which there seem to be an endless supply."〔Philip W. Anderson, (Why Do They Leave Physics? ), ''Physics Today'', Sep99, Vol. 52〕 A front-page review in the ''New York Times'' called the book "intellectually bracing, sweepingly reported, often brilliant and sometimes bullying."〔Natalie Angier, (The Job Is Finished ), ''The New York Times'', June 30, 1996〕 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「John Horgan (journalist)」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|