Unweaving the Rainbow: Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder

Rating:
Summary: Of science and poetry (and how they coexist)
Review: I am a scientist. I am a poet. I do not find these mutually incompatible. And as such a believer in the extreme beauty and mystery and majesty of science, I found Dawkins' book to be absolutely refreshing. He shows how science does not diminish wonder and magic in the world, it enhances it. As one who has experienced that sharp intake of breath at the incredible poetry of science as I stare through a microscope, I appreciate this answer to all those naysayers who feel that the rainbow is less beautiful if they know what it is. I say it is more. The beauty that exists in the world is so much more incredible and wonderous from the standpoint of science than it could ever be from the standpoint of mysticism. Dawkins, as usual, has a sharp, interesting writing style, and makes his work very readable. He is one of the more accessible scientists of our age (even when you don't agree with what he said, you are glad he said it).

Rating:
Summary: Kangaroo scientific method!
Review: In this book we come accross a man of strong faith and intellectual ability. A man who is capable of the most incredible leaps of faith: from the prebiotic soup (which lies beyond the reach of empirical verification) to microevolution, and then to macroevolution, and then from here to a naturalist world view and even after that to imperialistic aspirations into all the fields of life, including the arts and religious sentiment. Richard Dawkins has develloped (by some strange form or meme replication) what it looks to me as a "Kangaroo sientific method". The essence of this method is: "just keep jumping!". Forget about the problem of the generation of huge amounts of information in the biological systems, forget about irreducible complexity of the mollecular systems, forget about the complex specified patterns of DNA, forget about the fossil record, forget about the dozens of "antropic coincidences", forget about the difficult questions surrounding the big bang and anti-gravity. Just keep jumping! In this book we learn a bit more about our selfish genes. Besides being selfish, they also have a sofisticated appetite for wonder, something they surely cultivate in their spare time, when they are not busy trying to survive. As the caring Pastor of our selfish genes, Richard Dawkins wants each and every "ghost in the machine" to be at peace when he starts feeling strange sentiments of wonder and awe before the magnificent cosmos that seem to point to its transcendent meaning. Far from being some kind of expression of the image of God in us, or some evidence of the meaninfulness of our inner selves, these sentiments are just another natural characteristic of our selfish genes, nothing that should disturb our naturalistic worldview. Richard Dawkins' care and counseling helps each "ghost in the machine" to assure himself that he and his deepest feelings are nothing more than the result of the blind, casual and ultimately meaningless interaction between matter (no matter how it got here), chance (broadly define so to include all evidence of design) and natural selection. One has to wonder where Dawkins'appetite for storytelling comes from. Well, just keep jumping, man of strong faith. Or shall I call it "naturalistic superstition"? As a paradigm of the kangaroo scientific method, this book is worth a whole cosmos (including an infinite number of fictional ones), although Amazon.com only allows me five stars.

Rating:
Summary: A persuasive point of departure
Review: In "Unweaving the Rainbow", Richard Dawkins believes he can drawon our poetic sensibilities by merely bringing about in us a"straightforward understanding" of some fascinating scientificfacts. He wants to satisfy our appetite for wonder without resortingto mysticism.

I came to read this book with some importantprepossessions. I have always been charmed and intrigued by two linesof thought in general science. One is an anthropocentric reading ofthe Big Bang. It underscores that with the Big Bang certain criticalconditions had to be fulfilled for the possibility of the evolution oflife, and, therefore, of human life. One condition is a critical rateof expansion. During the first infinitesimally small fractions of timeafter the Big Bang, the rate of expansion of the embryonic universecould not have been too slow. It would then have collapsed on itselfand imploded after existing for less than a second. The rate of expansioncould also not have been too rapid. This would have led to a rarefieduniverse where particles of matter, too far removed from each other,could not flex their gravitational muscles on each other. Atoms ofhydrogen, helium and lithium (present three minutes after the BigBang) would not have been marshaled into the dense clumps thateventually became the seeds of our own existence. There would havebeen no stars. Yet the rate of expansion was such that matter could befreed from the domination of radiation. This critical rate ofexpansion is known and had to be fulfilled to a staggering degree ofprecision. Thus stars were formed that could pick up the baton ofelement creation from the Big Bang. Deep in their cores, they forgedhelium from hydrogen, carbon from helium, and beyond. These elementsbecame the basis of life. As stars died, they exploded and seededplanets, themselves the detritus of defunct stars, with theseelements. On this view, the possibility of the evolution of humanexistence, and, therefore, that of human consciousness, and that ofyour now reading this review on your computer screen, was determinedby the initial rate of expansion of the universe after the BigBang.

The other line of thought is closely related. It is the ideathat human evolution consists of matter reaching awareness ofitself. It is an idea that derives from the writings of peopleinspired by Teilhard de Chardin, a Jesuit paleontologist. In many waysit could be construed to be a particularly "specieist" view ofevolution, with humanity considered as the climax of allevolution.

On reading "Unweaving the Rainbow", I thought Iwould discover whether these two intuitively attractive convictionsare what Richard Dawkins dismisses as "egregious examples of badpoetic science". I still do not know after a careful reading ofthis fine book. I note that he considers Teilhard de Chardin a primeperpetrator of bad poetic science. But, to me at least, his excursionon memes in the last chapter are in parts sometimes indistinguishablefrom some of the ratiocinations of Teilhard de Chardin. Despite theseobservations, I cannot but wholeheartedly support the broad thrust ofthe argument and concerns that underlie "Unweaving theRainbow".

As an aside, I, as a consultant anaesthetist at a SouthAfrican university teaching hospital, have to point out to the authorthat we do not routinely test for the porphyria gene beforeadministering anaesthesia in this country (p 104) - a minor inaccuracystated in an otherwise eloquent, persuasive book.

Rating:
Summary: Winston Loves Big Brother
Review: Well, this book was beautiful and brilliant. Dawkins always is. He scares a lot of people. But he needn't.

" Those who fear the facts will forever try to discredit the fact-finders. " -- Dan Dennett

I'm mostly writing this review just to tell Winston from Washington that the Allegory of the Cave was in Plato's Republic -- not the Apology. I thought the review from " Winston " was very funny. As a parody of the muddle-headed is was delightful. If, on the other hand, he is actually serious ... well ... I'm very scared.

Julia

Rating:
Summary: Worth reading
Review: I'm glad to see there's a healthy variety of opinions about this book. In reading the comments below, both pro and con, I'm inspired to address issues that never would have occurred to me simply from reading the book. For that, I thank all the previous reviewers! And I should also say that while I didn't like the book at all, it is not my intention in writing this review to dissuade people from reading it. As with any other book, the reader should avoid knee-jerk agreement, or disagreement, with the author. With a few exceptions, the previous reviewers seem to have done just that. I hope to do the same.

First off, in terms of Dawkins' prose, I feel that his "voice" is a tad monotonous. Part of the problem is his overuse of adjectives and adverbs, which makes for a lot of plodding sentences. Nabokov once said that he never read adjectives; he'd be able to breeze through "Unweaving the Rainbow" in about half an hour. Certainly, Dawkins never met an adverb he didn't like; he invents them out of whole cloth and deploys them in ways that would put Thomas Carlyle to shame. Or as I might say if I were Dawkins, his prose is "hopelessly, unendingly, wincemakingly, crashingly, interminably, offputtingly" burdened by excessive and often clumsy modifiers. This gives one the feeling of being bullied; if something is truly obvious, it suffices to state it and offer one's proof. For me, most of Dawkins' rhetorical techniques are no more persuasive than typing in capital letters for emphasis would be.

There's a bit of a debate, it seems, over whether Dawkins is "right or wrong." My guess is that on the scientific side, he's right about some things, wrong about others. I hope this is not too controversial a statement! On the rhetorical side, I do believe it's wrong to heap scorn, ridicule, and invective on the heads of people with whom one disagrees rather slightly. His treatment of Gould is a perfect example of the venomous side of Dawkins' nature; right or wrong, it's an unlovely sight to behold. I couldn't agree more with the reviewers who fear that the angry tone of this book will scare undecided readers away. Whether this is Dawkins's loss or humanity's is not for me to say. But I will say that I admire charity in a writer, and that Dawkins lacks this quality almost entirely.

As to the flap over Dawkins' espousal of the biotech cause, I have to confess that I find his official position as "Professor of the Public Understanding of Science" a little sinister. His contempt--if not loathing--for the public is manifest in everything I've read of his, but never more so than in this book, which insists on a downright Comtean view of the public's role in government. The role Dawkins ordains for the public is one of essentially passive admiration of technological advances. Again and again in this book, he stresses the ignorance and gullibility of the public--and warns us that unscrupulous individuals can profit from it--but he never seems to consider the idea that there might be unscrupulous profiteers engaged in scientific work (at Monsanto, for instance). In the wake of Sellafield and BSE, I don't know why the British public would be inclined to take governmental or scientific assurances of safety at face value. To Dawkins, however, for the public to do so is nothing less than a duty.

(We're all liable to be swayed by public figures whom we find credible. For an interesting take on these issues, I strongly recommend the new book "Trust Us, We're Experts," which deals with scientists who prostitute their credibility to ideological causes on the right and left. It's available through Amazon.)

Then there's the issue of what psychologists--admittedly a dodgy group themselves--call "pseudocertainty." No one is immune to holding opinions for which no empirical basis exists, and Dawkins is as unremarkable in his occasional bouts of stubborn wishful thinking as he is in everything else except ill-temper. There's no doubt that Dawkins is a passionate exponent of his beliefs, and there's no doubt that a good deal of what he says is correct. But in his viciousness, his unfairness, and his strident self-confidence, he loses more ground than he gains with this reader.

A bit off the subject, but...a Mr. Taudarian from England invokes the Luddites--long a convenient straw-man for supposedly anti-irrationalist moderns--in his defense of Dawkins. I would suggest that he consult a few primary sources on the Luddite movement; he might be surprised to learn that their objection was not to technological progress per se, but to being forced into starvation by their employers. Of course, this is an unaccceptably fine distinction, to some.

Rating:
Summary: Good at many things, but not the best at any one thing
Review: This was a good book, and I've read several of Dawkins books. But I didn't find it the best at covering any one particular subject. In fact, I think Dawkins skims many scientific areas which most laypeople with some interest in science are already familiar with. In other words, you already know some of this stuff. Carl Sagan writes a more definitive defense of science (Science as a Candle in the Dark), and Matt Ridley (Genome: History of Species in 23 Chapters) along with Enrico Coen (The Art of Genes) do a better job of explaining genetics in laymans terms. I found The Art of Genes especially helpful in explaining how the a gene's influence unfolds. If you've got no experience with pop science books, try something like Carl Sagan's Cosmos first. Don't get me wrong, this book was good, just not the best. Yes, it's somewhat poetic, by I found that Ridley and Coen write better prose.

Rating:
Summary: A symphony of words
Review: Beautifull, inspiring and insiteful - Dawkins eloquetly argues the point that regretably few people see: that science is not dry, desolate or cold. At it's best science aspires in beauty to the level fo the greatest symphonies. In capasity to invoke awe in the minds and hearts of people, it far surpasses the cheap thrills of mysticism and day-dreams of the supernatural. And if that was not enough, it's useful too...

I would recommend this book to any student strugling to find motivation to weed through the more tedious parts of their science education - and also to any layman who dares to open their mind to a world of discovery and wonder.

-Jarno

Rating:
Summary: Not Dawkins best, but still...
Review: It's disappointing to compare this book with the Dimbleby Lecture he gave before he published it. Dawkins' points were much better put in the hour or so of the lecture than they are in this book. That said it's still worth shelling out for as the message is important even if it isn't delivered with Dawkins' usual clarity, wit and style.

In response to the viewer below here's a few things to consider :- 1. A lot of GM plants are modified to be infertile thus cross-pollination may not occur at all. Critics seem to envisage potatoes crossing with different species, ignoring the fact that a lot of potatoes can't even pollinate other potatoes. I would suggest the risk to be a lot less than the reviewer seems to indicate. 2. Likewise critics of GM seem to think that this DNA can get into our own systems. If that were the case they'd be vegetables already (or maybe they are....) 3. GM foods can be engineered to be more nutritious, drought resistant or pest resistant, and have a greater resistance to spoilage. This is a great help for third world people who are the ones suffering from hunger rather than us in the west. To deny them this technology is to literally condemn them to needless death.

The scientists don't know all the answers but for Gods sake can we let them find out without interference from Green Luddites ? After all we've had nuclear power for decades and we don't have any 50 foot mutant ants so far. And I personally wouldn't declare myself the enemy of an author on emotional grounds alone, I'd need a decent reason to do so. Surely whether the author is right must have some bearing on the worth of their work ?

Rating:
Summary: For fans only
Review: I completely agree with the many reviewers who found this book to be too angry. And it was especially frustrating because sometimes, when Mr. Dawkins was talking about science, I found myself craving more information, and I couldn't help thinking that he'd have room to provide it if he'd cut out a bit of the blustering.

It doesn't matter to me whether Mr. Dawkins' is right or wrong. If he's right, so are the many other people who share his perfectly common, widely accepted ideas (some of whom have also written books). What I care about is his skill as a writer and what I perceive to be his qualities as a human being. (This last bit may sound harsh, but don't most of us make such judgments when reading an author?) He disappoints me on both points.

But does it matter? Mr. Dawkins probably knows his audience. Maybe he wishes to delight his fans and villify his detractors, and figures that by devoting (by my estimate) a quarter of his book to angry polemics he can kill both birds with one stone.

If that's what's going on, then maybe it's not fair to consider this book a failure. But as someone who previously had no settled opinion about Richard Dawkins, I'd have to say that I'm firmly in the enemy camp after reading "Unweaving the Rainbow." And in case anyone's wondering, I'm not a bit religious and don't believe in horoscopes or ESP!

As if to reinforce my negative feelings about his book, Richard Dawkins has just written a revealing article (called "They Were Wrong") about the 27 protesters who destroyed a genetically engineered crop on a British farm (and were acquitted by a sympathetic jury). He says, "I genuinely don't know what to think about genetically modified crops, and nor should anyone else. The evidence is not yet in. Particular kinds of genetic modification may be a very bad idea. Or they may be a very good idea. It is precisely because we don't know that we have to find out."

If something is going to prove to be a "very bad idea", some of us may prefer not to find out firsthand! More to the point, he fails to mention that the crop was growing on British farmland, near conventional crops that could be cross-pollinated, not in an experimental laboratory where people can "find things out" safely. There's a lot of this sort of selective attention to facts in "Unweaving the Rainbow," too.

A moment later, in the same article, he says, "Scientists do not know all the answers and should not claim to." I think the clearest complaint I can make about "Unweaving the Rainbow" is that I find it hard to believe that the same man who wrote it, wrote the sentence I've just quoted!

Rating:
Summary: Disjointed, but lots of good parts
Review: I agree with both the positive and negative reviews below. His use of metaphor to explain difficult concepts is excellent, and I found many segments of the book both informative and entertaining. On the other hand, I was a bit put off by his angry tone, the way he attacked those with whom he disagreed, rather than simply debating the point. He leaves no room for appreciation of multiple ways of approaching the world. If perhaps there is more beauty in understanding the world the way it really works, that doesn't necessarily mean that there is no beauty in imagining impossible worlds. I was particularly puzzled by his lengthy attack on Gould, as someone generally on his side. Without the benefit of a counter-argument from Gould, it was impossible to evaluate the merits of each side, but even if Dawkins were completely right, his vilification of Gould seemed out of proportion to the minor (in the big picture)points he made. Based on his actually previewing his attack in the introduction, I expected something more significant. Instead, I came away wondering whether there was actually a personal conflict behind the whole thing.

A bigger problem I had with the book was a lack of cohesion. It seemed he was trying too hard to work in his theme. In the middle of otherwise excellent passages, he would suddenly throw in bits about "good poetry" and "bad poetry." The whole thing would've been better if he'd left out the theme and called it a collection of essays. It just seemed very choppy.

All that said, I still give it a 3 to tip it over the edge of being worth buying as there is still a lot of good content in it.

<< 1 2 3 4 5 6 .. 9 >>