An Increasingly divisive politics. Media technologies that reinforce and radicalise every fleeting opinion. An absolute tsunami of conspiracy theories.
Out of the noise and anxiety of our current moment comes a slew of new books that may make 2025 the moment humanity turned a corner, and replaced the heat of partisanship and tribalism with enlightened discourse and real debate. Many of them explain why we think the way we do about the world, and show us how we can change our minds without losing them in the process. They are informed by new and freshly interpreted data, and sometimes showcase years of original study.
Joe Pierre鈥檚 (Oxford University Press, June) is the most direct of them: a decades-in-the-making examination of rule-of-thumb thinking (without which we couldn鈥檛 function) and how it necessarily gives rise to a long list of demons 鈥� think cognitive bias, cognitive dissonance and much more. So the Enlightenment idea of a life lived according to the dictates of reason isn鈥檛 wrong exactly, but we have to be realistic about how our minds actually work.
Advertisement
What we absolutely cannot afford to do is to stop thinking, in the fond hope that we can simply 鈥渇ollow the data鈥�. (W. H. Allen, January) by data journalist Kiko Llaneras makes this point very well, while still being a refreshingly positive take on number and measurement. The trick to thinking with data is to stop taking the stuff on trust, and start learning how to use it. Practical tools and shortcuts make this a compelling, intellectual self-help book.
The more we understand just why we disagree, the calmer our discourse becomes
For those who want a deeper take on our relationship with data, here are two promising new books. (Princeton University Press, April) leverages author Diane Coyle鈥檚 work in public policy to argue that, as societies change their character, the kind of data they collect must also change. For example, gross domestic product (GDP) was an excellent index of societal health in the 1940s. Assuming it works as well now is just lazy.
Maja Bak Herrie, meanwhile, is interested in how we perceive, and misperceive, even the most appropriate data. (Stanford University Press, March) shows how visualising data triggers all sorts of aesthetic biases. A picture may be worth a thousand words, but the truth buried in that picture is still hard to get at.
In (Profile Books, March), Adam Kucharski explains why getting at the truth of just about anything is incredibly hard. There鈥檚 fascinating technical detail here, and a moral: the more we appreciate how hard proof is to come by, the better we can bridge the widening gulf between experts and sceptics. To put this another way: the more we understand just why we disagree, the calmer our discourse becomes.
In that spirit, dyed-in-the-wool atheists really should have a look at (Oneworld, January) by the Christian apologist Alister McGrath. Accepting the unknown isn鈥檛 a failure of rational thought, he says, but an existential necessity. Cynics may well say that he is riding psychology鈥檚 coat-tails to slip one by us; this atheist isn鈥檛 so sure.
By the way, did the mention of that last book 鈥� which argues that believing without evidence isn鈥檛 at all a bad thing 鈥� evoke your scepticism? Fair enough. Did it raise your hackles, or even offend you? Then you may be suffering from cognitive rigidity.
Two of next year鈥檚 books hammer home the obvious but oh-so-welcome point that it doesn鈥檛 matter nearly so much what you believe as how you believe it. Paul Dolan鈥檚 (The Bridge Street Press, May) gives the lie to the idea that fixed beliefs are our only defence against witless credulity. Truths are complex, and this means that those who disagree with us are almost certain to be right about something. What we need, and rather desperately, is a return to ideas of citizenship that value agreement.
The neuroscientist (of politics) Leor Zmigrod brings fascinating original experimental work to bear here in (Viking, March). For instance, she demonstrates how a simple card-sorting game can reveal one鈥檚 entire approach to life: struggling to adapt to new rules in such tasks apparently mirrors the rigidity with which you hang onto social and political ideologies. We can all try to be more flexible, but some of us are more susceptible to dogmatic thinking. If I had to pick one, Zmigrod鈥檚 would be my book to watch out for in 2025.
Of course, it may help to remember that the brain itself is a hypothesis generator. After all, if we couldn鈥檛 imagine, we wouldn鈥檛 perceive anything. In (Bloomsbury Circus, January), neurologist Adam Zeman reveals just how radically different we all are, even as we reach common conclusions about a shared world. Pria Anand explores similar territory through an account of her clinical practice. In (Virago, June), she shares the strangeness and sheer wonder of our brains in a testament to the wildness inside us all.
Elsewhere, Ciara Greene and Gillian Murphy鈥檚 (Princeton University Press, March) shows how we use our brains for things they weren鈥檛 necessarily evolved for, and argues that maintaining mental stability is more of a communal effort than we like to admit. Indeed, other people actually keep us healthy 鈥� they are our best medicine, says Nicole Karlis in (University of California Press, March), a powerful reminder of the importance and power of connection in crisis-filled times.
From rocks to hard places
[image_container wp-image=2461157] [/image_container]
What we create depends on what we can extract from Earth. Philip Marsden鈥檚 (Granta, February) turns this plain proposition into a tale of struggle, innovation and the odd catastrophe.
But some of these materials come from space: the earliest iron artefacts were smelted from meteorites. New Scientist鈥榮 Joshua Howgego鈥檚 (Oneworld, February) tells the stories of the world鈥檚 best meteorite hunters and reveals what we can learn about the history of the solar system from their findings. Astronomer Govert Schilling is more interested in the space rocks hurtling towards us in (The MIT Press, April).
But let鈥檚 not forget how Earth is holding up right now. Friederike Otto鈥檚 (Greystone Books, May) looks at the impact of extreme weather on the world鈥檚 most vulnerable, while Mike Berners-Lee鈥檚 (Cambridge University Press, March) explores why, when we have most of the technology we need to combat the climate crisis, we still aren鈥檛 doing enough.
Smothered mothers
[image_container wp-image=2461163] [/image_container]
It is no secret that one of the least tolerable aspects of motherhood is other people鈥檚 expert advice.
Two books bravely hack away at this ever-burgeoning thicket of good counsel. Alex Bollen鈥檚 (Verso, March) explains how hoary, old, nature-versus-nurture cliches have stuck mothers in a place where they can do no right. And Hannah Zeavin鈥檚 (The MIT Press, April) shows how the technology that is supposed to help makes this even worse.
Browbeaten and exasperated by all that oh-so-helpful guidance, a pregnant Helen Jukes turned to the natural world for solace.
(Elliott & Thompson, February) is her evidenced, coherent and passionate plea to revalue and celebrate motherhood in the light of how the whole process works in the real world.
Anna Blix鈥檚 (Hachette, March) is a perfect companion to Jukes鈥檚 work. It is also built around the author鈥檚 pregnancy, but this book is altogether more wild and wonderful in its scope.
Evolution and other relationships
[image_container wp-image=2461161] [/image_container]
Foundational theories say little about how living things evolve other than by natural selection. John Damuth and Lev Ginzburg鈥檚 heavyweight (University of Chicago Press, July) is a rare journey into a different and important force at work beyond the individual level.
Sophie Pavelle鈥檚 (Bloomsbury Wildlife, May) spins symbiosis for the lay reader, while our relationship with plants in particular is the focus of Robert Spengler鈥檚 (University of California Press, May).
Robert Macfarlane鈥檚 (Hamish Hamilton, May) explores the idea that a river can be a living being, answering the question of its title with a resounding affirmative.
In (University of Chicago Press, May), Liz Kalaugher reveals the risks when we run roughshod over ecologies we don鈥檛 fully understand.
And Nature鈥檚 Genius (Canongate, May) by David Farrier argues that one day we will not only understand ecologies, but will be able to assemble them.
Simon Ings is a writer and critic based in London. He writes New Scientist鈥檚 film column
New Scientist book club
Love reading? Come and join our friendly group of fellow book lovers. Every six weeks, we delve into an exciting new title, with members given free access to extracts from our books, articles from our authors and video interviews.
