(posted on my blog: davenichols.net)

Richard Dawkins has a knack for writing popular science books which offer poetic descriptions of the grand expanses and microscopic details. In Unweaving the Rainbow, Dawkins takes on the notion that science can be quite literally poetic. The book's title comes from the notion put forward by poet John Keats that Isaac Newton destroyed the beauty of rainbows by explaining its form. Dawkins turns that notion around and shows that the beauty and poetry of nature are greatly enhanced by explaining the details.

This wide-ranging book includes a strong mix of popular science (including biology, chemistry, astronomy, anatomy, and zoology) as well as Dawkins' characteristic philosophical thoughts. Unweaving demonstrates to the reader that the wonder of science is not that it destroys the beauty of nature, but that it allows us to gain an even greater appreciation for that beauty. From the nature of starlight and genetics to the ways in which humans are deceived by those claiming supernatural 'facts', Dawkins constantly expresses his awe of the natural world.

The latter parts of the book are centered on genetics and philosophy of mind. Here, of course, Dawkins is in his comfort zone, and the reader who has not read the authors' biology-centered books such as The Selfish Gene will explore some of the amazing characteristics of evolution and DNA. Experienced readers of Dawkins' works won't find much new information in this section, but should read it anyway since Dawkins incorporates a philosophy of science that is often skipped in the more clinical studies.

Unweaving the Rainbow is simply one of the very best widely-accessible popular science books out there. The discussion of coincidence is fantastic and should open the eyes of a reader who had never considered probabilities in this way. While it would help to have some exposure to science writing prior to picking up this book, Dawkins is very careful to introduce the nature of science softely and with much poetic contemplation. One of the best introductions to a wide-range of scientific thought and philosophy and very highly recommended to science readers at all levels. Four and one-half stars. ( )

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!

The premise is intriguing: "Did Newton unweave the rainbow by reducing it to prismatic colors, as Keats contended"? But to no-one's surprise, Dawkins thinks not. This book is his attempt to demonstrate that science can be as "uplifting" as poetry. Along the way, he tries to separate the "good" science poetry from the "bad." Unfortunately, Dawkins failed to inspire me. While some of his digressions into probability theory, genetics, and evolutionary theory are fascinating, it's hard not to feel that Dawkins is preaching to the choir (a choir I myself belong to) here. If I was really skeptical about evolutionary theory, or if I suspected that there really might be something to astrology, I'd probably not be picking up this book at the Book Fair, as I did. I don't really need to be convinced, and so Dawkins's sincere attempt to debunk "bad poetry" is kind of a drag. Worse, his arguments against Stephen Jay Gould seem out of place and a bit strident. This was my first Dawkins book, and I think I probably should have started with The Selfish Gene, which I will probably seek out in the future. ( )

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 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. ( )

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 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. ( )