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 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. ( )

Pretty much what any Dawkins fan has come to expect. Intricate, imaginative, and intellectually stimulating, or author walks us through the idea that science is a beautiful thing to be celebrated in the arts, and that while good poetry can enhance or scientific experience and understudying, bad poetry can misguide us (intentionally or unintentionally. You'll learn a lot of wonderful things about the natural world and roll your eyes at embarrassing bastardizations or misapplications of science like the dreaded astrology. ( )

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 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. ( )

Yup the magic is there and it is real. ( )

Cuando Newton, con un simple prisma, descompuso la luz blanca en el espectro de colores que se oculta tras ella, ¿despojó de lirismo al arco iris, como le recriminó Keats en un célebre poema? ¿Acaso la ciencia, ese peculiar modo de entender el mundo, priva al universo de todo sentido poético? Richard Dawkins demuestra que la ciencia –desde la astronomía hasta la genética, pasando por el lenguaje y la realidad virtual– también entraña belleza, y que el descubrimiento de los mecanismos que rigen los fenómenos naturales no sólo no destruye su poesía sino que la ensalza, revelándonos aspectos sorprendentes que de ninguna otra manera podríamos apreciar o imaginar.