Reviews for Corals (Let's-read-and-find-out science book)

The average rating for Corals (Let's-read-and-find-out science book) based on 2 reviews is 4 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2017-08-05 00:00:00 Jeff Hans Have you ever, while sheltering in space-time under threat of a belligerent snippet of information enclosed in a flimsy lipid membrane, sat on your porch during the rain and tried to derive from first principles how it is that a rainbow forms? Trying to discard all the things you’ve learned about droplets of moisture and the refractive index of light? Imagining how you’d interpret the phenomenon from a position of scientific ignorance? For me, this brought to mind two things. First, that Keats should’ve had his testicles artfully tied into a balloon animal and smacked across the forehead so hard that his shoelaces exploded. Second, this conversation that I had recently with a friend who was thinking about attending a large social gathering. Me: Don’t do it. Them: I feel like everything will be okay. Me: Well, I’m glad you FEEL like everything will be okay. That’s little consolation for those of us who choose to engage with reality. Facts don’t care about your feelings. Them: Actually... Me: Oh god... Them: You’re proceeding off the assumption that facts exist as free floating rationales, independent of human minds, and that we are creatures primarily motivated by reason. When, in fact, research indicates just the opposite. So, in a very real sense, facts do care about my feelings, and if they can’t cohabitate then guess what gets jettisoned? Me: Alright, wiseass. You agree that reasoning backwards is not good. So this is another one of those pointless exercises you’re so fond of. Them: But the data has been politicized. If you think those numbers are inerrant, then I have a bridge to sell you. And, listen, it’s a trade off between economic loss and loss of life, and I think feelings have a great deal to say about proper governance in that situation. Score another one for feelings! Me: I didn’t say we shouldn’t have fucking feelings! As a matter of fact, I’m advocating against loss of life by telling you not to attend that meeting on Klingon and its applications to erotic role playing! I’m only making a case for responding intelligently to a situation of extreme uncertainty. I don’t think we have perfect information. But what information we do have makes very clear that you’re a dumb shit if learning how to say: “Can I play Pterodactyl when I’m about to go?” In Klingon is more important than slowing the spread of this virus! Them: Well, here’s the thing... Me: I’ll kill you. Them: What? Me: I will artfully tie your testicles into a balloon animal and smack you across the forehead so hard that your shoelaces explode. Them: ...what? Me: I made myself perfectly clear. Them: You know how I feel about String Theory. Me: Wot? Them: I thought of hidden dimensions when you mentioned balloon knots. Me: ... WHAT? Them: A Calabi–Yau manifold, specifically. Me: Wait a minute... This is me isn’t it? Me: What? Me: I will use your Fallopian tubes as an N95 surgical mask if you try to step out that door. Me: ...what? Me: You know how I feel about Giraffes. Me: Wot? Me: That Dawkins book was great, yea? Me: I loved it. What’s this book about? Well, if I had to encapsulate it in a flimsy lipid membrane, I’d say it’s something like ATCG. But if I felt oddly compelled to share my thoughts with strangers on the internet, I’d say something like: There is deep beauty hidden within the seemingly mundane aspects of our daily reality that most of us fail to apprehend due to what Dawkins calls “The Anesthetic of Familiarity” an intense beauty that makes the ramblings of mystics and untethered romantics look embarrassingly quaint by comparison. It is all around us and available to anyone motivated by genuine curiosity to utter perhaps the hardest phrase in the English language: “I don’t know.” And from there you can begin to learn a bit about the natural world, the scope of its complexity, and the thrill of knowing how shit works. As an added bonus, an appreciation for the time and effort it takes to actually ‘know’ something, will help you better prepare for existential shocks in the form of pissed off proteins. With any luck, your willingness to combat dumbfuckery will spread exponentially and lead to a more informed society, less enthralled by smoke and mirrors, and more savvy on the nefarious schemes of microorganisms and garden gnomes. This book is about how the splendor of the natural world beats all that Mickey Mouse Bull Squash people produce out of ignorance, prejudice, superstition, and doing too many whippets, so badly that its shoes go flying off with tangential force equal to a supersonic centrifuge filling with enriched pain precipitating out of liquid regret. Have you ever seen someone take an ass beating so bad that their shoes ended up on a nearby roof? Well, let me tell you about the first time I took the Lord’s name in vain. Actually, no.. Let me share this bit with you from my Science Daddy (Richard Feynman) “I have a friend who’s an artist and has sometimes taken a view which I don’t agree with very well. He’ll hold up a flower and say “look how beautiful it is,” and I’ll agree. Then he says “I as an artist can see how beautiful this is but you as a scientist take this all apart and it becomes a dull thing,” and I think that he’s kind of nutty. First of all, the beauty that he sees is available to other people and to me too, I believe. Although I may not be quite as refined aesthetically as he is … I can appreciate the beauty of a flower. At the same time, I see much more about the flower than he sees. I could imagine the cells in there, the complicated actions inside, which also have a beauty. I mean it’s not just beauty at this dimension, at one centimeter; there’s also beauty at smaller dimensions, the inner structure, also the processes. The fact that the colors in the flower evolved in order to attract insects to pollinate it is interesting; it means that insects can see the color. It adds a question: does this aesthetic sense also exist in the lower forms? Why is it aesthetic? All kinds of interesting questions which the science knowledge only adds to the excitement, the mystery and the awe of a flower. It only adds. I don’t understand how it subtracts.” Retrieve your shoes with this book!

Review # 2 was written on 2020-01-25 00:00:00 Marc Shry 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 well. That's what was good about Unweaving the Rainbow. Sadly, what feels like way more 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 threefold: 1) 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 science.) 2) 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 dull. 3) 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. Critiques of the scientific accuracy of Wordsworth poems or a fantasy story by Mark Twain are cringe-making. What 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 example. I was hoping for a lot more "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 more wonders-of-science and less railing. Disappointing. Better books on science and wonder that I'd recommend: