Negative Positive
Title: Lacks substance
Review: Scanning the reviews of "Hyperspace" I see that many want to give this book five stars. I find myself in the 1- and 2-star minority."Hyperspace" is the kind of book that makes people think they've learned something without actually having done so.This is the problem with "learning" by analogy. The presentation of many -- perhaps most -- of the concepts covered in this book might help one learn to talk about them, but not to actually understand them. Analogy goes only so far. Experiment is the crucible and if you don't explain the experimental and theoretical basis for results, then you have taught nothing. This is a flaw of much science writing (e.g. the second half of "A Brief History of Time")."Hyperspace" started out interestingly enough, but the farther it went, the more it lost its bearings. A sense of wonder is a fine stimulus, but science is more than a word game of analogies. I read the whole thing, but the time I spent reading it felt wasted.
Is the review positive or negative? 