The Math Gene: How Mathematical Thinking Evolved and Why Numbers Are Like Gossip [Paperback]

Dr. Devlin, a mathematician, views the brain through the prism of mathematics. Done properly, this book could have provided us with an interesting and unconventional point of view, but instead Dr. Devlin is too rooted in his own mathematical thinking to see clearly; his prism distorts the image of the brain beyond all recognition. His readings in biology, neurophysiology, linguistics, and especially human evolution are too thin to give him a strong grasp of the messy complexity of biological systems. He tries to establish his credibility by scattering references to other works and odd tidbits of fact through the book, but it seems to me that his overall grasp of the subject matter is too weak to justify his writing a book on the evolution of mathematical thinking.

Lastly, I will fault the book for an almost tautological thesis. If you strip out all the intellectual filigrees and clever digressions, Dr. DevlinÕs thesis can be boiled down to this: ÒMathematics is the science of patterns and symbol manipulation. Language is the means by which humans developed the ability to manipulate symbols. Therefore, mathematics evolved from language (and is its most perfect expression).Ó Dr. Devlin would no doubt protest that there is much more to his thesis than this simplistic and tautological statement. And while it is true that the book does contain many other claims and factoids, this other material seems to dance around the central thesis without expanding it. I think that my boiled-down version of his thesis is a brutal but fair condensation.

There is a need for a book detailing the evolution of mathematical thinking. This book does not fill that need. The best alternative I can suggest is The Nothing That Is: A Natural History of Zero, by Robert Kaplan. This book doesnÕt address the development of all mathematical thinking; it concerns only the development of a single mathematical concept, the notion of zero. But it does so brilliantly. Unlike Devlin, Kaplan has completely mastered his subject. Unlike Devlin, Kaplan is a brilliant writer; I was flabbergasted by some of his exquisite turns of phrase. Unlike Devlin, Kaplan is blessedly concise.

I will close on a positive note: Devlin does seem to have a solid grip on ChomskyÕs work, and that is no mean feat. DevlinÕs quickie exposition on Chomskian deep structure is one of the few clear presentations I have encountered.

I thoroughly enjoyed this book, and have recommended it to friends and colleages alike. I would also recommend another one of Devlin's books, The Language of Mathematics, for a glimpse into the diverse and beautiful world of math any person could understand and appreciate.