Status
Available
Call number
Collections
Publication
Folio Society. Bound in cloth, blocked with an illustration of a cochlea redrawn by Neil Gower. 320 pages; 24 pages of colour and black & white plates. 9½" × 6¼". Set in Sabon with Optima display.
Description
Did Newton unweave the rainbow by reducing it to its prismatic colors, as Keats contended? Did he, in other words, diminish beauty? Far from it, says acclaimed scientist Richard Dawkins; Newton's unweaving is the key to much of modern astronomy and to the breathtaking poetry of modern cosmology. Mysteries don't lose their poetry because they are solved: the solution often is more beautiful than the puzzle, uncovering deeper mysteries. With the wit, insight, and spellbinding prose that have made him a best-selling author, Dawkins takes up the most important and compelling topics in modern science, from astronomy and genetics to language and virtual reality, combining them in a landmark statement of the human appetite for wonder. This is the book Richard Dawkins was meant to write: a brilliant assessment of what science is (and isn't), a tribute to science not because it is useful but because it is uplifting.… (more)
Media reviews
So the first thing to be said about Richard Dawkins's ''Unweaving the Rainbow,'' which argues that scientific fact is both intellectually and esthetically more pleasing than pseudoscientific fantasy, is that he is to be congratulated for his courage in attempting it. Does he avoid all the pitfalls
Show More
that threaten those who tilt at the windmills of antiscience? Well, no. Too often he sounds like Prof. Eat Your Peas, and he can't resist preaching to the choir. But he's a good enough writer to get away -- sometimes -- with ignoring the old dictum that no good deed goes unpunished. Show Less
User reviews
LibraryThing member Devil_llama
Dawkins sets out to answer the common complaint that science takes the beauty out of everything. For the most part, he succeeds, but one chapter, on DNA, is far too technical for a book aimed at a lay audience. To be fair, however, he does instruct people in the introduction to skip that chapter if
Show More
they wish. Show Less
LibraryThing member ecmanaut
Dawkins sets out to convey the beauty of discovering, understanding and conveying truth in nature and mechanism, and succeeds beyond my already high expectations. The part on what he calls "good poetry" and "bad poetry" (on basis not of how strung together words flow and feel -- but on whether they
Show More
help you reach correct and deeper insights, and the extent it keeps you from jumping to incorrect, misguided conclusions) about choices of metaphor, is particularly insightful: does the author's ego, writing style and pet peeves take center stage, or the reader's easy and accurate grasp on (and mastery of) the content of their topic win? Show Less
LibraryThing member m.gilbert
Dawkins is one of those Oxford profs who wags his finger at anyone who doesn't completely embrace empiricism and common sense. Actually, I don't mind that--he's part of that old intellectual tradition after all. I remember reading Hobbes' Leviathan in college where he says "Metaphors, and senseless
Show More
and ambiguous words are like ignes fatui" or "foolish light". Dawkins quotes Hobbes but doesn't go quite that far (thank God). His thesis is that science can be as full of beauty and wonder as poetry, and that unraveling a scientific mystery does not necessarily de-mystify the "poetry" of its intricacies. He is very good in some areas (towards the end where he shares his remarkable scholarship in biology, zoology, and evolution), and irritating in others (where he rants against bogus ideologies that misappropriate science to validate certain "truths"). He calls that "bad poetic science." I am still not clear about what he means by "good poetic science." Anyway, Dawkins is my favorite atheist, but this isn't his best work. Whether he succeeds in proving that science evokes the same awe and wonder as art (in the traditional sense) is open to debate. But the man shows a real faith is reason--if that makes sense--and his writing, always clear and very, very smart, expresses his ever-constant devotion to the scientific cause. Show Less
LibraryThing member abraxalito
Whilst Dawkins deserves kudos for his work in the past, I'm overall no fan of his. Here are a few pointers to why I find Dawkins' thinking unimpressive. Let's start with the fact that the title has a subtext on 'delusion' (pre-echos of the rather tedious 'The God Delusion') - Dawkins is ill-placed
Chapter 8 of 'Unweaving' to me makes the most interesting reading, that's because I have a psychological bent and in this chapter Dawkins tells us (unwittingly) rather a lot about his modes of thinking.
Dawkins considers himself above the general argument of this chapter, which is that there really are metaphors unhelpful to understanding of science. He admits that 'Selfish gene' uses the word 'selfish' in a rather unusual way, but then claims that his use of selfish really is justified in this case. I argue, along with Denis Noble that it clearly isn't and that this is just special pleading.
Later in this chapter, the author takes Stephen Jay Gould to task. Its obvious that Dawkins doesn't like Gould as he's careful to point that that his criticism doesn't stem from personal rancour. However the wording he uses shows that he considers Gould a good writer but a very poor scientist because he's seduced by his own inappropriate metaphors.
Dawkins considers that its the 'calibre' of the scientist which determines whether or not they get hoodwinked by misleading metaphors - into the calibre where there's a lot of delusional thinking he puts such luminaries as Kauffman, Leakey and Lewin - clearly Gould doesn't make it even this high in his estimation. And so on... if you'd like more debunking please drop me a message.
Show More
to reveal other scientists' delusions precisely because he's subject to so many of his own.Chapter 8 of 'Unweaving' to me makes the most interesting reading, that's because I have a psychological bent and in this chapter Dawkins tells us (unwittingly) rather a lot about his modes of thinking.
Dawkins considers himself above the general argument of this chapter, which is that there really are metaphors unhelpful to understanding of science. He admits that 'Selfish gene' uses the word 'selfish' in a rather unusual way, but then claims that his use of selfish really is justified in this case. I argue, along with Denis Noble that it clearly isn't and that this is just special pleading.
Later in this chapter, the author takes Stephen Jay Gould to task. Its obvious that Dawkins doesn't like Gould as he's careful to point that that his criticism doesn't stem from personal rancour. However the wording he uses shows that he considers Gould a good writer but a very poor scientist because he's seduced by his own inappropriate metaphors.
Dawkins considers that its the 'calibre' of the scientist which determines whether or not they get hoodwinked by misleading metaphors - into the calibre where there's a lot of delusional thinking he puts such luminaries as Kauffman, Leakey and Lewin - clearly Gould doesn't make it even this high in his estimation. And so on... if you'd like more debunking please drop me a message.
Show Less
LibraryThing member amaraduende
This book has some of my favorite lines in it, ever.
Like, Bill Nye the Science Guy is apparently a populist whore.
It's also a very interesting collection of ideas. But, like other Dawkins books, it takes a certain fortitude to withstand his attitude and get to the good stuff. It was a good read.
Like, Bill Nye the Science Guy is apparently a populist whore.
It's also a very interesting collection of ideas. But, like other Dawkins books, it takes a certain fortitude to withstand his attitude and get to the good stuff. It was a good read.
LibraryThing member hungeri
There are really fascinating facts in this book.
However, I was bored by reading again and again about the bad guys who do not believe in science and are not impressed by the explanation of a phenomenon (e.g. the rainbow). E.g. Dawkins cannot stop castigating Keats just because he found Newton's
I am really a fan of science, sceptic and agnostic. But I can also tolearate Keats' opinion. And somehow I am not really interested in how Dawkins argues with others. The book would have been much more enjoyable and appealing without the constant rage.
Of course, that would have been another book - not one about scientific thinking, but just a collection of fascinating phenomena.
However, I was bored by reading again and again about the bad guys who do not believe in science and are not impressed by the explanation of a phenomenon (e.g. the rainbow). E.g. Dawkins cannot stop castigating Keats just because he found Newton's
Show More
rational explanation disappointing.I am really a fan of science, sceptic and agnostic. But I can also tolearate Keats' opinion. And somehow I am not really interested in how Dawkins argues with others. The book would have been much more enjoyable and appealing without the constant rage.
Of course, that would have been another book - not one about scientific thinking, but just a collection of fascinating phenomena.
Show Less
LibraryThing member iayork
INSIGHTFUL...POETIC!: This is a beautiful work presented in a prose that captures a great thinkers' insights poetically; a pure pleasure to read and savor!
LibraryThing member undemalum
Though at times this book can be somewhat redundant, the overall message, themes, and various explanations of complex scientific inquiries packaged for the reader into palatable paragraphs makes Dawkins' writing well worth the read.
LibraryThing member Helenliz
This should have been really insipring, but I found it slightly disappointing. Dawkins is plainly on a crusade against anyone who believes in anything that cannot be proven by science. I find blind faith in religion inexplicable, but I can admire it is some ways. However I find the determined non
I entirely agree that understanding how a rainbow is produced doesn't destroy the beauty of the rainbow, but I found little beauty or illumination in the rest of this book. Disappointing - an anti-recommend from me.
Show More
belief in his writing depressing in a different way. I entirely agree that understanding how a rainbow is produced doesn't destroy the beauty of the rainbow, but I found little beauty or illumination in the rest of this book. Disappointing - an anti-recommend from me.
Show Less
LibraryThing member Michael_Rose
The title goes to the ethos of the book. A rainbow isn't any less beautiful because we've come to understand it, and we've gained so much through its understanding (radios, televisions, computers, etc.)
LibraryThing member milti
A lot of sense, a lot of wit, and a new way of looking at things. However I will say that he tends to get stuck on one point for a number of chapters. His arguments are too random at times and take a bit of back-and-forth hopping to follow.
LibraryThing member yakov.perelman
It is like if Richard, once having made plainly clear and explain thoroughly a couple of things: a) God does (very very likely) not exist; b) Evolution is a fact; c) Evolution works like this; and d) Genes do not work as you would like to think; then he is finally in the position to enjoy science.
Show More
And that's what this book is about, enjoying science. Of course, not everything will be easy, and Richard will share with you amazing and very disturbing thoughts. As any Dawkins' book, simply a jewel. Show Less
LibraryThing member kevn57
Enjoyed this book a lot especially the chapters on how humans delude themselves or allow others to delude them, including newspapers that include astrology columns. That seems very fitting for todays world where politicians yell fake news if they don't like the story about themselves. The final
Show More
chapter is really great as well about memes and language. Show Less
LibraryThing member JBarringer
Not nearly as focused or convincing as The God Delusion. Dawkins comes across in this one as a grumpy ageing man who has spent too long being the voice of atheism and needs a vacation, and maybe a habit of mindfulness meditation or similar relaxation techniques such as Sam Harris promotes. And, the
Show More
genetics in this book is outdated. I remember when the DNA between protein coding sequences was called 'junk', but since then we know all sorts of cool stuff about epigenetics and alternative sequences that utilize those sections of our DNA. There are still some good ideas and points in this book, but I suspect that Dawkins has more recent and better books covering these points. Also, I listened to the audiobook of this one, and the male voice, which I am assuming is Dawkins, sounds like he has a sore throat for much of the book. I don't normally pick up on such details but listening to this one for a while actually gave me a sympathetic sore throat too. It's a fun demonstration of psychosomatic illness, but folks sensitive to this sort of affect might want to just read this one in print. Show Less
LibraryThing member ecw0647
I must admit to being somewhat disappointed with this book. It's a collection of essays that vary considerably in both interest and quality.
LibraryThing member BruceAir
These collected essays by Dawkins make a compelling and (literally) wonderful case for science as an awe-inspiring profoundly satisfying way to understand the world.
LibraryThing member setnahkt
Richard Dawkins preaching to the choir again. The title comes from Keats’ poem Lamia; the poet complains that the rainbow was once awe-inspiring but is now “In the dull catalogue of common things…”. Dawkins’ theme, then, is that the natural world and scientific investigation of it are
There are a couple of things that bear a little more analysis; one is Dawkins comments on law and lawyers. Dawkins criticizes the systematic exclusion of people who have some knowledge of probability theory and/or science from juries in cases where probability or science is relevant. On the surface, this seems reasonable; why wouldn’t you want experts on the jury? After all, a juror who had a PhD in mathematics could see through probabilistic arguments by the lawyers and presumably render a more accurate judgement. The catch here is that juries are supposed to base their judgement solely on the arguments presented by the lawyers, not on their own knowledge. If a legal case involves probability and/or science, and there is a scientist or mathematician on the jury, that juror effectively becomes an expert witness who cannot be cross-examined.
Another is Dawkins’ comments on Stephen J. Gould. Dawkins concedes that Gould is a skilled and “poetic” writer, but holds that Gould is also misleading which makes his writing skill that much more dangerous. Dawkins uses a quote by John Maynard Smith to illustrate: “Gould occupies a rather curious position, particularly on his side of the Atlantic. Because of the excellence of his essays, he has come to be seen by non-biologists as the preeminent evolutionary theorist. In contrast the evolutionary biologists with whom I have discussed his work tend to see him as a man whose ideas are so confused as to be hardly worth bothering with…”. This might be a little too harsh; Gould was certainly somewhat off the wall when it came to the “Cambrian explosion”, but his other writings are not that far off base.
I don’t want to seem too critical; this is overall an excellent book. Again bringing up Gould vs. Dawkins, Gould is a better writer than Dawkins, but Dawkins is a better explainer. No illustrations, footnotes, or endnotes, and the index is sparse; I couldn’t find some things I wanted. But there are lots of literary and poetic quotations that illustrate Dawkins theme and ideas.
Show More
more wonderful than anything poets can produce, and he goes on to explain using rainbows, spectroscopy, music, DNA, paleontology, and genetics as examples, while jumping on pseudoscience and postmodernism with both feet. By and large I’m in his camp; but now it seems sometimes like the tide has turned; you can only mock postmodernism so much before that mockery gets kind of old.There are a couple of things that bear a little more analysis; one is Dawkins comments on law and lawyers. Dawkins criticizes the systematic exclusion of people who have some knowledge of probability theory and/or science from juries in cases where probability or science is relevant. On the surface, this seems reasonable; why wouldn’t you want experts on the jury? After all, a juror who had a PhD in mathematics could see through probabilistic arguments by the lawyers and presumably render a more accurate judgement. The catch here is that juries are supposed to base their judgement solely on the arguments presented by the lawyers, not on their own knowledge. If a legal case involves probability and/or science, and there is a scientist or mathematician on the jury, that juror effectively becomes an expert witness who cannot be cross-examined.
Another is Dawkins’ comments on Stephen J. Gould. Dawkins concedes that Gould is a skilled and “poetic” writer, but holds that Gould is also misleading which makes his writing skill that much more dangerous. Dawkins uses a quote by John Maynard Smith to illustrate: “Gould occupies a rather curious position, particularly on his side of the Atlantic. Because of the excellence of his essays, he has come to be seen by non-biologists as the preeminent evolutionary theorist. In contrast the evolutionary biologists with whom I have discussed his work tend to see him as a man whose ideas are so confused as to be hardly worth bothering with…”. This might be a little too harsh; Gould was certainly somewhat off the wall when it came to the “Cambrian explosion”, but his other writings are not that far off base.
I don’t want to seem too critical; this is overall an excellent book. Again bringing up Gould vs. Dawkins, Gould is a better writer than Dawkins, but Dawkins is a better explainer. No illustrations, footnotes, or endnotes, and the index is sparse; I couldn’t find some things I wanted. But there are lots of literary and poetic quotations that illustrate Dawkins theme and ideas.
Show Less
Language
Original language
English
Original publication date
1998
ISBN
no ISBN
Local notes
In his poem ‘Lamia’, Keats laments that Newton’s explanation of the prismatic colours of light has 'unwoven the rainbow', removing mystery and romance. Not so, is Dawkins’s resounding response. Properly understood, science opens our eyes to the wonder of the universe – from the chemical composition of stars billions of light years away, to the microscopic world, where creatures have evolved to fit into the joint of an ant’s antennae.
An odyssey through seas of science and culture aiming to reclaim the poetic sense of wonder for ‘real science’.
An odyssey through seas of science and culture aiming to reclaim the poetic sense of wonder for ‘real science’.