This new book by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow is making some noise. Haven’t read it, but I read the unfriendly review in The Economist and it conformed pretty well to what I would expect from Hawking (don’t know the other bloke). Hawking is an exceptionally brilliant mathematical physicist, and an admirable human being; but from recollection of occasional comments of his that I’ve caught over the past 30-odd years, I wouldn’t go to him for insight on extracurricular topics.
This exchange between Richard Dawkins and David Attenborough is more nutrient-rich, though short. Their remarks on thinking especially struck a chord.
RD: Very few people say, “I think I’ll have an hour’s thinking now.”
DA: Mathematicians do. I had an uncle who was a mathematician, and one of his students said, “How long can you think for?” He said, “I sometimes manage two or three minutes.” And this young man said, “I’ve never managed more than 90 seconds.” Of course, that’s abstract thinking, and by and large I’m not an abstract thinker.
I made the same point on NRO a while ago:
“The sustained exercise of thought” is not entirely “unknown to me.” The number of times I have experienced it, though, is so small I believe I can remember every one of them. I think there have been around six. They ranged in length from one to about five hours — say a lifetime total of twenty hours. The rest of the time, I have been pretty much on cruise control, or asleep, or having, like Sir Edmund [Gosse], small, unconnected, inconsequential thoughts about “little palpable things.”
People’s claims to have arrived at some conclusion or other by sustained, connected thinking should always be received with skepticism.