Download Book ☆ Unweaving the Rainbow Science Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder Ç 352 pages

Richard Dawkins Ç Unweaving the Rainbow Science Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder Text

Download Book ☆ Unweaving the Rainbow Science Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder Ç 352 pages » ➷ [Reading] ➹ Unweaving the Rainbow Science Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder By Richard Dawkins ➬ – Did Newton unweave the rainbIes don't lose their poetry because they are solved the solution often is 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 astr One of the Goodreads reviews on this book relates simply that the writer of the review had been on a cruise ship with the author prior to reading the book When she DID read the book she regretted that she didn't do some kind of small violence to his person while on the cruise with himIn many ways that sums up my take beautifully This was the most interesting book I've ever despised Certainly I have a brain not suited to the exigencies of science But when he wasn't losing me in a web of convoluted explanation he was was looking down his nose at me like a curmudgeonly professor who is inordinately piued that an average undergraduate had the audacity to drop by during office hours and ask a stupid uestionThat said I learned a lot and while I did not become a convert to his thesis that science can be as beautiful as poetry I will admit that were my brain suited to the beauty of say probability I would have been in ecstasy while perusing the pages of this tome In discussing how we discover our world; we arrived by being born and we didn't burst conscious into the world but accumulated awareness gradually through babyhood The fact that we slowly apprehend our world rather than suddenly discover it should not subtract from its wonder And maybe that's where he lost me I haven't accumulated enough awareness to see what he sees And to believe what he believes But condescension does not encourage me to become aware It encourages me to shrug and go back to my music or my poetry or my philosophy All of that said there were several aha moments; some I never knew that before aha some I never thought about it that way before aha and some I had totally forgotten about that aha Like his analogy about how expansive the earth's past is; Fling your arms wide in an expansive gesture to span all of evolution from its origin at your left fingertip to today at your right fingertip All the way across your midline to well past your right shoulder life consists of nothing but bacteria Many celled invertebrate life flowers somewhere around your right elbow The dinosaurs originate in the middle of your right palm and go extinct around your last finger joint The whole story of Homo sapiens and our predecessor Homo erectus is contained in the thickness of one nail clipping As for recorded history; as for the Sumerians the Babylonians the Jewish patriarchs the dynasties of Pharohs the legions of Rome the Christian Fathers the Laws of the Medes and Persians which never change; as for Troy and the Greeks Helen and Achilles and Agamemnon dead; as for Napolean and Hitler the Beatles and Bill Clinton they and everyone that knew them are blown away in the dust from one light stroke of a nail fileIn my opinion that ualifies as scientific poetry But that's because it takes an idea and sketches it with metaphor and examples that are accessible and understandable to my way of thinking And Dawkins too often refuses to stoop to that levelFor example consider this uote from astrophysicist Chandrasekhar; beauty is that to which the human mind responds at its deepest and most profound Indeed Of course I left out the beginning of the uote which talks about math and how it relates to nature That's not beautiful to me I understand why it's beautiful to those whose brains process math differently But my brain does not work that way My mind responds to a different beauty Does that make my idea of beauty any less valid? Dawkins would undoubtedly say Yes Then he'd kick me out of his office and grumble discontentedly as he adjusted his suspenders and wandered back to his deskBut when Dawkins DOES lower himself to my level and speak my language he pulls me right in; his discussion on coincidence and how in our multi media age we are likely to see a pattern where there is none was eye opening And his fascinating riff on the fact that science is an affront to common sense made me smile in satisfaction; For example every time you drink a glass of water you are imbibing at least one molecule that passed through the bladder of Oliver Cromwell there are many molecules in a glass of water than there are glasses of water in the sea solid matter even a hard diamond consists almost entirely of empty space Another riff that gave me pause was Dawkins' take on God's covenant with Abraham; He didn't promise Abraham eternal life as an individual But he did promise something else 'And I will make my covenant between me and thee and will multiply thee exceedingly and thou shalt be a father of many nations And I will make thee exceeding fruitful and I will make nations of thee and kings shall come out of thee' Abraham was left in no doubt that the future lay with his seed not his individuality God knew his DarwinismThat is what I was looking for in this book Someone with the title Professor of the Public Understanding of Science should really like average thoughtful humans a bit than Dawkins seems to And if one is going to celebrate the diversity of life one should also celebrate the diversity of ways of looking at life We can't all think like Dawkins It is hubris of Dawkins to expect all of us to try And to belittle us when we fail Rather he could have made his case for why his way of thinking is a valid and valuable addition to the layers of awareness that allow us to continually find beauty in our universe But to discount and belittle the other ways of finding beauty was a mistake He should have calculated that in some sort of euation before he published

Book ë Unweaving the Rainbow Science Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder Ç Richard Dawkins

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 Myster The actual science bits in here are great Learned heaps about the workings of light and colour sound and hearing was even reminded that the idea of superstitious behavior in animals is attributed to Skinner and not sadly my own idea Much geeky excitement experienced all round by yours truly Dawkins does a fine job of explaining complex ideas clearly and wellThat's what was good about Unweaving the RainbowSadly what feels like way than half of the book was spent painstakingly trying to argue people out of believing in astrology ghosts remote viewing etc using logic and scientific fact Its starts about one third the way in My problem with this is threefold1 Dawkins is assuming that logic and scientific fact would have persuasive power for anyone believing in what he calls superstition or ad hoc magic And really why would it? I think believers would be the first to point out that this sort of thing is beyond the purview of science2 Dawkins assumes that these deluded people are reading his book I can't say for sure but personally I would be surprised if a diehard believer in ESP or astrology would be interested in reading Dawkins' explanation of Fraunhofer lines the electromagnetic spectrum and other fairly hardcore sciencey topics that fill the first third of this book Seems like a different sort of audience So he ends up preaching to the choir and there is something rather uncomfortably self righteous about this Not to mention dull3 Dawkins I don't mean to be unkind but I can't think of any other to state the fact embarrasses himself when he wanders out of the world of science and into literature and the humanities Critiues of the scientific accuracy of Wordsworth poems or a fantasy story by Mark Twain are cringe makingWhat Dawkins doesn't understand about human psychology is a lot I think his whole crusade against religion has been a waste of a good scientific mind and has done a lot of damage to the discussion His aggressive dismissive and disrespectful approach has only put people on the defensive and set an unfortunate exampleI was hoping for a lot wonder of science Instead I felt like I was getting lectured at length for something I didn't even do What do I care about astrology??Anyhow I was hoping for wonders of science and less railing Disappointing Better books on science and wonder that I'd recommend

Ebook Unweaving the Rainbow Science Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder

Unweaving the Rainbow Science Delusion and the Appetite for WonderOnomy 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 uplifti 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 chapter is really great as well about memes and language