Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.99 AVERAGE
3.99 AVERAGE
A wonderfully easy look at basic science, filled with photos and images that keep the material light-hearted and easy to follow. Loved the inclusions of cultures from around the world!
This book is intended for kids, to give them a chance to fully grasp the beauty of science. And boy is it efficient! Dawkins explores many ancient myths which are kind of cool. And gives their counterpart scientific explanation, which is even cooler!
Another must read.
Another must read.
An interesting book to be sure, but lacking in certain departments. It kinda feels all over the place, without much reference to the overarching goal.
Although that could have gone over my head.
What I mainly missed was how the human body interprets the data from our senses. And how our reality is subjective: there are many animals that can see or hear a much wider range of colors or sounds that we do.
Although that could have gone over my head.
What I mainly missed was how the human body interprets the data from our senses. And how our reality is subjective: there are many animals that can see or hear a much wider range of colors or sounds that we do.
This wonderful introduction to the sciences is somewhat sullied by Dawkins' condescending tone towards religious beliefs.
Rating: 3 out of 5*. Already when this book was published I had decided not to read it. But lo' n' behold, in an overcrowded airport book shop, it managed to creep into my possession nonetheless. I should have stayed with my initial assesment.
It's not really a bad book. It's superbly written for 10-12 year olds. My biggest problem was the condescending tone of the narrative and the fact that I did not learn a single new fact, if you disregard a few myths I hadn't encountered before. It's just a rehash - tremendously simplified - of things I've been over many times before.
Buy it for your children, nephews or nieces. If you're the least bit scientifically inclined, you do not need to read it for yourself.
It's not really a bad book. It's superbly written for 10-12 year olds. My biggest problem was the condescending tone of the narrative and the fact that I did not learn a single new fact, if you disregard a few myths I hadn't encountered before. It's just a rehash - tremendously simplified - of things I've been over many times before.
Buy it for your children, nephews or nieces. If you're the least bit scientifically inclined, you do not need to read it for yourself.
I'm in no way a scientific genius. My brain is ruled by myth and magic more than logic and hard facts. That's not to say that I don't adore learning about the world and learning about the reality of the times in which we live. I suppose that's why I was drawn to this book- 'The Magic of Reality'. What a fantastic title! I was also encouraged by the fact that this book was written 'for people of all generations' and yes, it was easy to understand. Dawkins has a remarkable ability to flawlessly simplify really difficult science. I think there's something very appealing about a scientist who can make physics and chemistry appealing and relateable. My only issue was that, at times, it was patronising and holier than thou. I may not be a religious person, but even then I felt that Dawkins took some cheap shots against religious beliefs. Yes yes, we all get it, science and religion are on opposite wavelengths. You don't need to be a jackass about it.
Not bad, but definitely one for younger readers. As always, Dawkins makes science very accessible and easy to understand.
Very approachable read in science, reason, and logic. I enjoyed the examples and would definitely recommend this to young readers and old alike. Go Dawkins!
I did really like this book, however I gave it theee stars due to the amibuous nature of the narrative voice. I was unsure whether it was aimed at children, teenagers, adults or beginners of all kinds and that didn't sit well with me as I read.
Other than that Dawkins does a fantastic job of outlining first the mythical interpretations of phenomena or events. He makes very cogent links between the similarities across much myth systems to show how in different places and in different times fantastical explanations have been reached about rainbows for example or the sun. He then clearly dispells this with a scientific explanation that provides just the right level of knowledge to undertand for example how light is bent in raindrops to form rainbows rather than through breaking an egg at the beginning of time. He admits when there is a lack in his own knowledge and cleverly stops discussion from becoming too tehnical to ensure hos points are stream-lined and meaningful. Altogether a handy primer of basic scientific fact that refutes mythical and religious interpretation at its most ridiculous.
I felt that overall Dawkins did a good job of not ridiculing religious believers but gently showing them empirical evidence. The only real criticism I have (and area that I can speak with knowledge about) is that I thought his explanations of earthquakes was very flimsy and actually danced around the point, not really explaining earthquakes in any meaningful way. Whether this is the same for other points and I'm too scientifically ignorant to discern I can't say however.
Other than that Dawkins does a fantastic job of outlining first the mythical interpretations of phenomena or events. He makes very cogent links between the similarities across much myth systems to show how in different places and in different times fantastical explanations have been reached about rainbows for example or the sun. He then clearly dispells this with a scientific explanation that provides just the right level of knowledge to undertand for example how light is bent in raindrops to form rainbows rather than through breaking an egg at the beginning of time. He admits when there is a lack in his own knowledge and cleverly stops discussion from becoming too tehnical to ensure hos points are stream-lined and meaningful. Altogether a handy primer of basic scientific fact that refutes mythical and religious interpretation at its most ridiculous.
I felt that overall Dawkins did a good job of not ridiculing religious believers but gently showing them empirical evidence. The only real criticism I have (and area that I can speak with knowledge about) is that I thought his explanations of earthquakes was very flimsy and actually danced around the point, not really explaining earthquakes in any meaningful way. Whether this is the same for other points and I'm too scientifically ignorant to discern I can't say however.
Informational text #1
Good introduction. read it from your own free will and don't feel pressured into reading it.
Good introduction. read it from your own free will and don't feel pressured into reading it.