Take a photo of a barcode or cover
A review by aliserene
The Magic of Reality: How We Know What's Really True by Richard Dawkins
2.0
very dogmatic prose with little proof.
I like the information and analogies, but I’m not so sure that I like the way it is presented. What gets to me is that it comes across as a book designed to increase understanding of science for the lay audience, but it seems very opinionated and not very objective. It’s written very matter-of-factly without going into further detail (without sufficient proof). He comes across as a condescending know-it-all who shames the reader for thinking differently than he does. I think he alienates the audience by the smug way he presents information and opinions, which is a real shame because he could have written the book in a way less offensive and way more objective and informative way.
I wish I could have been the editor for the book. I’d be like this sentence here: it needs to go. Stop calling people charlatans without explaining why they are charlatans in sufficient detail. provide all the evidence, but don’t name-call. Just be like this is the evidence suggesting that “psychics” aren’t actually psychic. Don’t keep making jabs at those who have particular beliefs, just state the evidence that suggests why those beliefs are not compatible with current knowledge. Don’t pompously and emphatically claim certain things are the case without explaining why they are the case. For instance, he claims states that it is obvious that mountains don’t have emotions, and I don’t believe that they do either, but how can you really know whether or not they have emotions with certainty? How would you test that hypothesis without just assuming that brains are required for emotions? Certainly you could look at people who had damage to particular brain regions who afterward lost their emotional capacities, but that would simply suggest that brains are required for humans to have emotions. That does not necessarily mean that other organs, properties, or other aspects of matter do not confer emotional capabilities.
I like the information and analogies, but I’m not so sure that I like the way it is presented. What gets to me is that it comes across as a book designed to increase understanding of science for the lay audience, but it seems very opinionated and not very objective. It’s written very matter-of-factly without going into further detail (without sufficient proof). He comes across as a condescending know-it-all who shames the reader for thinking differently than he does. I think he alienates the audience by the smug way he presents information and opinions, which is a real shame because he could have written the book in a way less offensive and way more objective and informative way.
I wish I could have been the editor for the book. I’d be like this sentence here: it needs to go. Stop calling people charlatans without explaining why they are charlatans in sufficient detail. provide all the evidence, but don’t name-call. Just be like this is the evidence suggesting that “psychics” aren’t actually psychic. Don’t keep making jabs at those who have particular beliefs, just state the evidence that suggests why those beliefs are not compatible with current knowledge. Don’t pompously and emphatically claim certain things are the case without explaining why they are the case. For instance, he claims states that it is obvious that mountains don’t have emotions, and I don’t believe that they do either, but how can you really know whether or not they have emotions with certainty? How would you test that hypothesis without just assuming that brains are required for emotions? Certainly you could look at people who had damage to particular brain regions who afterward lost their emotional capacities, but that would simply suggest that brains are required for humans to have emotions. That does not necessarily mean that other organs, properties, or other aspects of matter do not confer emotional capabilities.