Partial plagiarism of his central thesis?, 02 Nov 2008
Reading these reviews leads me immediately to the realisation that this work may possibly be little better than plagiarism. Siméon-Denis Poisson first examined the statistical modelling of low-probability events in 1838, within a much wider corpus of scientific research in pure and applied natural and social sciences. One immediate conclusion is that the probability of low-odds events occurring (where there is no impedement to frequent possible events) is much higher than normal binomial probability suggests. As this is the heart of Taleb's thesis, he's at best reinvented the wheel.
On the basis of his introduction, examining the work of Umberto Eco, I suspect he falls into a trap of his own pretentiousness, insofar as Professor Eco sometimes espouses hermetic doctrines in his fictional works established long before our days by the Vatican and other similar bodies. His is not the work of a freelance research student, but of an acolyte, affirmed by his other publications of a non-fictional character, displaying the formation of his mentation. It is not therefore appropriate to suggest that there is much of a serendipitous nature about his well-researched, yet doctrinally conformist, theses, and that disables Taleb's first shuffle.
I therefore conclude that as both foundations to his thesis, namely his starting point and the incremental progression thenceforward, appear to be weak, this may not arrive at any logically coherent conclusions at all. Those of a religious disposition might choose to develop that objection further, insofar as the inexplicable Poisson anomaly has sometimes been argued as a scientifically-rigourous case for a non-bounded ontological eidos (or in plain language, "there are more things in heaven and earth, Nicholas, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."), but each to his own: at the very least, he is not doing fresh research by a very long way, as this was very old hat in our market modelling in the 1980s.

Scintillating , 25 Oct 2008
One of the most intelligent pieces of writing I have come across in my reading career.

It opens up some many new ways of viewing life and its events. Delivered with a delightful touch of arrogance, sudden humour, and iconoclastic precision - the book unearths a paradigm which is so overarchingly pervasive yet consciously ignored by people.

The author's tribute to, and coverage of Benoit Mandelbrot, along with the pooh-poohing of the 'normal' model of reality is a salient highlight, and should not be missed by any serious empiricist.

The book is a black swan.

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition..., 21 Oct 2008
This book is a black swan because against all the odds it got published. It has one idea swollen unappealingly to almost 400 pages. It is full of stereotypes, rich in "imaginative" anecdotes and insufferably pompous. If you want to read about chance and probability then try Ian Stewart; for Chance and Necessity read Jacques Monod (1972).

most insightful book I've read in a long time, 18 Oct 2008
Yes, I understand the criticism that Mr Taleb is full of himself - undoubtedly it shows throughout the book.
However, the amount of insights he provides and the many different angles in which he looks at the problem hammers the point through our hard-wired brains, and in my case, provided a fundamental change to the way I think and approach problems.
Definitely, a must read book.

The Emperor has no clothes, 10 Oct 2008
The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable
A highly disappointing text from an erudite and capable author. The book is fallacious, misleading and mischievous. The abuse of simple statistical distributions alone warrants not taking it seriously. It is oversold by the blurb and does not do what it says on the cover. Extremely disappointing.

Partial plagiarism of his central thesis?, 02 Nov 2008
Reading these reviews leads me immediately to the realisation that this work may possibly be little better than plagiarism. Siméon-Denis Poisson first examined the statistical modelling of low-probability events in 1838, within a much wider corpus of scientific research in pure and applied natural and social sciences. One immediate conclusion is that the probability of low-odds events occurring (where there is no impedement to frequent possible events) is much higher than normal binomial probability suggests. As this is the heart of Taleb's thesis, he's at best reinvented the wheel.
On the basis of his introduction, examining the work of Umberto Eco, I suspect he falls into a trap of his own pretentiousness, insofar as Professor Eco sometimes espouses hermetic doctrines in his fictional works established long before our days by the Vatican and other similar bodies. His is not the work of a freelance research student, but of an acolyte, affirmed by his other publications of a non-fictional character, displaying the formation of his mentation. It is not therefore appropriate to suggest that there is much of a serendipitous nature about his well-researched, yet doctrinally conformist, theses, and that disables Taleb's first shuffle.
I therefore conclude that as both foundations to his thesis, namely his starting point and the incremental progression thenceforward, appear to be weak, this may not arrive at any logically coherent conclusions at all. Those of a religious disposition might choose to develop that objection further, insofar as the inexplicable Poisson anomaly has sometimes been argued as a scientifically-rigourous case for a non-bounded ontological eidos (or in plain language, "there are more things in heaven and earth, Nicholas, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."), but each to his own: at the very least, he is not doing fresh research by a very long way, as this was very old hat in our market modelling in the 1980s.

Scintillating , 25 Oct 2008
One of the most intelligent pieces of writing I have come across in my reading career.

It opens up some many new ways of viewing life and its events. Delivered with a delightful touch of arrogance, sudden humour, and iconoclastic precision - the book unearths a paradigm which is so overarchingly pervasive yet consciously ignored by people.

The author's tribute to, and coverage of Benoit Mandelbrot, along with the pooh-poohing of the 'normal' model of reality is a salient highlight, and should not be missed by any serious empiricist.

The book is a black swan.

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition..., 21 Oct 2008
This book is a black swan because against all the odds it got published. It has one idea swollen unappealingly to almost 400 pages. It is full of stereotypes, rich in "imaginative" anecdotes and insufferably pompous. If you want to read about chance and probability then try Ian Stewart; for Chance and Necessity read Jacques Monod (1972).

most insightful book I've read in a long time, 18 Oct 2008
Yes, I understand the criticism that Mr Taleb is full of himself - undoubtedly it shows throughout the book.
However, the amount of insights he provides and the many different angles in which he looks at the problem hammers the point through our hard-wired brains, and in my case, provided a fundamental change to the way I think and approach problems.
Definitely, a must read book.

The Emperor has no clothes, 10 Oct 2008
The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable
A highly disappointing text from an erudite and capable author. The book is fallacious, misleading and mischievous. The abuse of simple statistical distributions alone warrants not taking it seriously. It is oversold by the blurb and does not do what it says on the cover. Extremely disappointing.

Cop Out, 13 Dec 2007
The book is an assemblage of good answers to some good questions.

So why didn't I enjoy it?

I think because in keeping faith with the contributors of answers, several answers to one question are included and a lot of each answer is the same, though expressed slightly differently.

So it would have been better (to my way of thinking) to include each contributor's answer ONLY as far as it added to a previous answer.

Certainly make for a better read.

No, it's not because they wear a tuxedo, 23 Nov 2007
I wasn't sure about this book, but then I bought DO ANTS HAVE ARSEHOLES? And laughed myself silly. This book is on the same scale.

The book contains questions we've all wondered about, but were afraid to ask. And here they are. With the answers. The great thing about WHY DON'T PENGUINS' FEET FREEZE is that it can be read by adults and children. PG rating. The ideas range from history to physics, to chemistry and strophysics, so you won't be bored, but neither will you be overwhelmed. For other great books, I'd reommend DON'T STOP ME NOW and the book DRESS YOUR FAMILY IN CORDUORY by David Sedaris.

Good compilation of facts, 12 Oct 2007
This book is a collection of questions asked, and answered, by readers of 'New Scientist' magazine. If you've never read the magazine, the questions are fairly light-hearted and vary a lot in content. Paraphrasing, examples are 'Why are windows in ships round?', 'What is the diameter of a lightning bolt?', 'Do the living outnumber the dead?' and 'Would polar bears and penguins survived if they swapped poles?'.

The answers are often quite detailed in their replies, or require some level of scientific knowledge, but can be quite entertaining. I've got a reasonable scientific background and got the idea most of the time, but I certainly didn't understand everything as some of the answers contain a lot of jargon and specialised knowledge can help. Obviously the editor has picked some good examples, so the quality of the book is generally pretty good. My only real complaint has been raised by other reviewers - some of the replies aren't really answers, they're more like educated guesses, and sometimes they contradict one another. In a way that adds to the charm as the book doesn't take itself too seriously.

A good book if you want to learn something but don't want to think to hard while you're doing it.

Quite dissapointing, 19 Sep 2007
I've been a big fan of New Scientist for a number of years, and was so excited to see this book, and "Does anything eat wasps?". I decided to buy this one over the first one, for a reason unbeknown to me, and I was quite dissapointed with the content and replies to the questions.

I was expecting set-in-stone scientific reasons for each question, and much of the time it is simply a persons opinion, and there may even be 3 or 4 answers to the same question each saying something different, which then makes me beg the question..What's the point? I'm still non the wiser!

I thought this book would appeal to me much more than it actually does, it seemed like a book full of answers to questions I reguarly annoy friends and family with, but many of the questions seem like they were asked for the sake of asking, and that New Scientist were clutching at straws to get enough content to fill the book.

There are some interesting facts which can be taken, but nothing which can't be found on the internet.

BORED, 29 Jun 2007
Sorry , maybe its because i read a great book before this one (PAUL McGRATH BACK FROM THE BRINK), but this did very little for me.A few interesting details , but not great, sorry not for me

Partial plagiarism of his central thesis?, 02 Nov 2008
Reading these reviews leads me immediately to the realisation that this work may possibly be little better than plagiarism. Siméon-Denis Poisson first examined the statistical modelling of low-probability events in 1838, within a much wider corpus of scientific research in pure and applied natural and social sciences. One immediate conclusion is that the probability of low-odds events occurring (where there is no impedement to frequent possible events) is much higher than normal binomial probability suggests. As this is the heart of Taleb's thesis, he's at best reinvented the wheel.
On the basis of his introduction, examining the work of Umberto Eco, I suspect he falls into a trap of his own pretentiousness, insofar as Professor Eco sometimes espouses hermetic doctrines in his fictional works established long before our days by the Vatican and other similar bodies. His is not the work of a freelance research student, but of an acolyte, affirmed by his other publications of a non-fictional character, displaying the formation of his mentation. It is not therefore appropriate to suggest that there is much of a serendipitous nature about his well-researched, yet doctrinally conformist, theses, and that disables Taleb's first shuffle.
I therefore conclude that as both foundations to his thesis, namely his starting point and the incremental progression thenceforward, appear to be weak, this may not arrive at any logically coherent conclusions at all. Those of a religious disposition might choose to develop that objection further, insofar as the inexplicable Poisson anomaly has sometimes been argued as a scientifically-rigourous case for a non-bounded ontological eidos (or in plain language, "there are more things in heaven and earth, Nicholas, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."), but each to his own: at the very least, he is not doing fresh research by a very long way, as this was very old hat in our market modelling in the 1980s.

Scintillating , 25 Oct 2008
One of the most intelligent pieces of writing I have come across in my reading career.

It opens up some many new ways of viewing life and its events. Delivered with a delightful touch of arrogance, sudden humour, and iconoclastic precision - the book unearths a paradigm which is so overarchingly pervasive yet consciously ignored by people.

The author's tribute to, and coverage of Benoit Mandelbrot, along with the pooh-poohing of the 'normal' model of reality is a salient highlight, and should not be missed by any serious empiricist.

The book is a black swan.

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition..., 21 Oct 2008
This book is a black swan because against all the odds it got published. It has one idea swollen unappealingly to almost 400 pages. It is full of stereotypes, rich in "imaginative" anecdotes and insufferably pompous. If you want to read about chance and probability then try Ian Stewart; for Chance and Necessity read Jacques Monod (1972).

most insightful book I've read in a long time, 18 Oct 2008
Yes, I understand the criticism that Mr Taleb is full of himself - undoubtedly it shows throughout the book.
However, the amount of insights he provides and the many different angles in which he looks at the problem hammers the point through our hard-wired brains, and in my case, provided a fundamental change to the way I think and approach problems.
Definitely, a must read book.

The Emperor has no clothes, 10 Oct 2008
The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable
A highly disappointing text from an erudite and capable author. The book is fallacious, misleading and mischievous. The abuse of simple statistical distributions alone warrants not taking it seriously. It is oversold by the blurb and does not do what it says on the cover. Extremely disappointing.

Cop Out, 13 Dec 2007
The book is an assemblage of good answers to some good questions.

So why didn't I enjoy it?

I think because in keeping faith with the contributors of answers, several answers to one question are included and a lot of each answer is the same, though expressed slightly differently.

So it would have been better (to my way of thinking) to include each contributor's answer ONLY as far as it added to a previous answer.

Certainly make for a better read.

No, it's not because they wear a tuxedo, 23 Nov 2007
I wasn't sure about this book, but then I bought DO ANTS HAVE ARSEHOLES? And laughed myself silly. This book is on the same scale.

The book contains questions we've all wondered about, but were afraid to ask. And here they are. With the answers. The great thing about WHY DON'T PENGUINS' FEET FREEZE is that it can be read by adults and children. PG rating. The ideas range from history to physics, to chemistry and strophysics, so you won't be bored, but neither will you be overwhelmed. For other great books, I'd reommend DON'T STOP ME NOW and the book DRESS YOUR FAMILY IN CORDUORY by David Sedaris.

Good compilation of facts, 12 Oct 2007
This book is a collection of questions asked, and answered, by readers of 'New Scientist' magazine. If you've never read the magazine, the questions are fairly light-hearted and vary a lot in content. Paraphrasing, examples are 'Why are windows in ships round?', 'What is the diameter of a lightning bolt?', 'Do the living outnumber the dead?' and 'Would polar bears and penguins survived if they swapped poles?'.

The answers are often quite detailed in their replies, or require some level of scientific knowledge, but can be quite entertaining. I've got a reasonable scientific background and got the idea most of the time, but I certainly didn't understand everything as some of the answers contain a lot of jargon and specialised knowledge can help. Obviously the editor has picked some good examples, so the quality of the book is generally pretty good. My only real complaint has been raised by other reviewers - some of the replies aren't really answers, they're more like educated guesses, and sometimes they contradict one another. In a way that adds to the charm as the book doesn't take itself too seriously.

A good book if you want to learn something but don't want to think to hard while you're doing it.

Quite dissapointing, 19 Sep 2007
I've been a big fan of New Scientist for a number of years, and was so excited to see this book, and "Does anything eat wasps?". I decided to buy this one over the first one, for a reason unbeknown to me, and I was quite dissapointed with the content and replies to the questions.

I was expecting set-in-stone scientific reasons for each question, and much of the time it is simply a persons opinion, and there may even be 3 or 4 answers to the same question each saying something different, which then makes me beg the question..What's the point? I'm still non the wiser!

I thought this book would appeal to me much more than it actually does, it seemed like a book full of answers to questions I reguarly annoy friends and family with, but many of the questions seem like they were asked for the sake of asking, and that New Scientist were clutching at straws to get enough content to fill the book.

There are some interesting facts which can be taken, but nothing which can't be found on the internet.

BORED, 29 Jun 2007
Sorry , maybe its because i read a great book before this one (PAUL McGRATH BACK FROM THE BRINK), but this did very little for me.A few interesting details , but not great, sorry not for me

it got me interested in magic squares , 17 Nov 2008
this book admittedly is not laid out in an obviously systematic way but i m not sure that matters. it got me interested in some things that i thought were rather boring, and on the whole though i haven t read it all through yet it does seem to the makings of a very good read, though inevitably some of the puzzles will be very familiar.

the version that i have has an incorrect printing of the 3x3 "nearly magic" square on p66, the first of the two examples. the fix is fairly easy though and provides a nice additional problem for anyone interested!



Falls between two stools, 28 Oct 2008
For me this book is neither a "mathematical puzzle book" or an easy to read account of mathematical curiosities. It seems to be a haphazard melange of both and subsequently, due to their being no real effort to put individual puzzles/essays into easy categories, quite frankly a bit of a mess. Much of the stuff here has been done to death (the 4 colour map problem anyone?) but there is some new stuff here as well as some interesting and fun problems which justifies a 3 star review.

I just wish it had been better organised

fascinating, 22 Oct 2008
a well written and witty look at hundreds of mathematical puzzles, stories and jokes. I am a maths teacher and there is so much material here, it's amazing. I have already used a few of these with my classes and the puzzles have really caught their imagination. Highly recommended

although the solution to the problem on page 143 is wrong

Partial plagiarism of his central thesis?, 02 Nov 2008
Reading these reviews leads me immediately to the realisation that this work may possibly be little better than plagiarism. Siméon-Denis Poisson first examined the statistical modelling of low-probability events in 1838, within a much wider corpus of scientific research in pure and applied natural and social sciences. One immediate conclusion is that the probability of low-odds events occurring (where there is no impedement to frequent possible events) is much higher than normal binomial probability suggests. As this is the heart of Taleb's thesis, he's at best reinvented the wheel.
On the basis of his introduction, examining the work of Umberto Eco, I suspect he falls into a trap of his own pretentiousness, insofar as Professor Eco sometimes espouses hermetic doctrines in his fictional works established long before our days by the Vatican and other similar bodies. His is not the work of a freelance research student, but of an acolyte, affirmed by his other publications of a non-fictional character, displaying the formation of his mentation. It is not therefore appropriate to suggest that there is much of a serendipitous nature about his well-researched, yet doctrinally conformist, theses, and that disables Taleb's first shuffle.
I therefore conclude that as both foundations to his thesis, namely his starting point and the incremental progression thenceforward, appear to be weak, this may not arrive at any logically coherent conclusions at all. Those of a religious disposition might choose to develop that objection further, insofar as the inexplicable Poisson anomaly has sometimes been argued as a scientifically-rigourous case for a non-bounded ontological eidos (or in plain language, "there are more things in heaven and earth, Nicholas, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."), but each to his own: at the very least, he is not doing fresh research by a very long way, as this was very old hat in our market modelling in the 1980s.

Scintillating , 25 Oct 2008
One of the most intelligent pieces of writing I have come across in my reading career.

It opens up some many new ways of viewing life and its events. Delivered with a delightful touch of arrogance, sudden humour, and iconoclastic precision - the book unearths a paradigm which is so overarchingly pervasive yet consciously ignored by people.

The author's tribute to, and coverage of Benoit Mandelbrot, along with the pooh-poohing of the 'normal' model of reality is a salient highlight, and should not be missed by any serious empiricist.

The book is a black swan.

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition..., 21 Oct 2008
This book is a black swan because against all the odds it got published. It has one idea swollen unappealingly to almost 400 pages. It is full of stereotypes, rich in "imaginative" anecdotes and insufferably pompous. If you want to read about chance and probability then try Ian Stewart; for Chance and Necessity read Jacques Monod (1972).

most insightful book I've read in a long time, 18 Oct 2008
Yes, I understand the criticism that Mr Taleb is full of himself - undoubtedly it shows throughout the book.
However, the amount of insights he provides and the many different angles in which he looks at the problem hammers the point through our hard-wired brains, and in my case, provided a fundamental change to the way I think and approach problems.
Definitely, a must read book.

The Emperor has no clothes, 10 Oct 2008
The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable
A highly disappointing text from an erudite and capable author. The book is fallacious, misleading and mischievous. The abuse of simple statistical distributions alone warrants not taking it seriously. It is oversold by the blurb and does not do what it says on the cover. Extremely disappointing.

Cop Out, 13 Dec 2007
The book is an assemblage of good answers to some good questions.

So why didn't I enjoy it?

I think because in keeping faith with the contributors of answers, several answers to one question are included and a lot of each answer is the same, though expressed slightly differently.

So it would have been better (to my way of thinking) to include each contributor's answer ONLY as far as it added to a previous answer.

Certainly make for a better read.

No, it's not because they wear a tuxedo, 23 Nov 2007
I wasn't sure about this book, but then I bought DO ANTS HAVE ARSEHOLES? And laughed myself silly. This book is on the same scale.

The book contains questions we've all wondered about, but were afraid to ask. And here they are. With the answers. The great thing about WHY DON'T PENGUINS' FEET FREEZE is that it can be read by adults and children. PG rating. The ideas range from history to physics, to chemistry and strophysics, so you won't be bored, but neither will you be overwhelmed. For other great books, I'd reommend DON'T STOP ME NOW and the book DRESS YOUR FAMILY IN CORDUORY by David Sedaris.

Good compilation of facts, 12 Oct 2007
This book is a collection of questions asked, and answered, by readers of 'New Scientist' magazine. If you've never read the magazine, the questions are fairly light-hearted and vary a lot in content. Paraphrasing, examples are 'Why are windows in ships round?', 'What is the diameter of a lightning bolt?', 'Do the living outnumber the dead?' and 'Would polar bears and penguins survived if they swapped poles?'.

The answers are often quite detailed in their replies, or require some level of scientific knowledge, but can be quite entertaining. I've got a reasonable scientific background and got the idea most of the time, but I certainly didn't understand everything as some of the answers contain a lot of jargon and specialised knowledge can help. Obviously the editor has picked some good examples, so the quality of the book is generally pretty good. My only real complaint has been raised by other reviewers - some of the replies aren't really answers, they're more like educated guesses, and sometimes they contradict one another. In a way that adds to the charm as the book doesn't take itself too seriously.

A good book if you want to learn something but don't want to think to hard while you're doing it.

Quite dissapointing, 19 Sep 2007
I've been a big fan of New Scientist for a number of years, and was so excited to see this book, and "Does anything eat wasps?". I decided to buy this one over the first one, for a reason unbeknown to me, and I was quite dissapointed with the content and replies to the questions.

I was expecting set-in-stone scientific reasons for each question, and much of the time it is simply a persons opinion, and there may even be 3 or 4 answers to the same question each saying something different, which then makes me beg the question..What's the point? I'm still non the wiser!

I thought this book would appeal to me much more than it actually does, it seemed like a book full of answers to questions I reguarly annoy friends and family with, but many of the questions seem like they were asked for the sake of asking, and that New Scientist were clutching at straws to get enough content to fill the book.

There are some interesting facts which can be taken, but nothing which can't be found on the internet.

BORED, 29 Jun 2007
Sorry , maybe its because i read a great book before this one (PAUL McGRATH BACK FROM THE BRINK), but this did very little for me.A few interesting details , but not great, sorry not for me

it got me interested in magic squares , 17 Nov 2008
this book admittedly is not laid out in an obviously systematic way but i m not sure that matters. it got me interested in some things that i thought were rather boring, and on the whole though i haven t read it all through yet it does seem to the makings of a very good read, though inevitably some of the puzzles will be very familiar.

the version that i have has an incorrect printing of the 3x3 "nearly magic" square on p66, the first of the two examples. the fix is fairly easy though and provides a nice additional problem for anyone interested!



Falls between two stools, 28 Oct 2008
For me this book is neither a "mathematical puzzle book" or an easy to read account of mathematical curiosities. It seems to be a haphazard melange of both and subsequently, due to their being no real effort to put individual puzzles/essays into easy categories, quite frankly a bit of a mess. Much of the stuff here has been done to death (the 4 colour map problem anyone?) but there is some new stuff here as well as some interesting and fun problems which justifies a 3 star review.

I just wish it had been better organised

fascinating, 22 Oct 2008
a well written and witty look at hundreds of mathematical puzzles, stories and jokes. I am a maths teacher and there is so much material here, it's amazing. I have already used a few of these with my classes and the puzzles have really caught their imagination. Highly recommended

although the solution to the problem on page 143 is wrong

Turns life inside out, 28 Oct 2008
The author writes about living things as if the gene is the animal and the animal is simply a seed for the gene. He basically turns life inside out. It's a powerful mind tool to get a different perspective on life but don't get too carried away with the idea. The whole theory of evolution is valuable in understanding the world but like a lot of science it starts to become too difficult to use. So in conclusion I don't believe that the author has discovered the secret of life, he just has another way of looking at things that you may find useful. It should be one of the books you have read.

jean genie, 05 Oct 2008
Dawkins is excellent while he sticks to biology
however he may have lost the plot in the last chapter
as he has in thinking promoting science involves attacking
religion
If an evangalist is someone who does not leave people to work
it out for themselves but pushes his point of view Dawkins is one
Nutty Baptists and Dawkins looked similar on channel 4 for example
ie they both spin world events too far to promote a point of view

Imaginative guessing, 13 Sep 2008
I have attempted to read Dawkins's books on a few occasions but seldom get beyond the first 100 pages. I simply find his style of writing boring and his theories pure imaginative guesswork; I cannot take this author's ideas onboard yet biology fascinates me and especially that of epigenetics which seems to disprove all that this author advocates. I suspect that there is a snobbery value to those who support him. Irrespective of his academic standing I cannot avoid regarding the author as an imposter as I constantly want to wage war with his views. Admittedly, he comes across publicly as a very plausible academic but, that does not sway me.

Blind theorizing, 27 Jun 2008
Dawkins writes that "the argument of this book is that we, and all other animals, are machines created by our genes" (p.xxi) and that "We are survival machines - robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes" (p.xxi). Yet, according to him, this book "is not science fiction; it is science" (p.xxi)!

Dawkins contrives to overlook the twin discoveries that:
1. the observable traits of organisms are mostly conditioned by the interactions of many genes;
2. most genes have multiple effects on many of these traits.

Dawkins transfers characteristics with which he is familiar from human behaviour on the macro-level to the inanimate components, "genes", of which we are physically constructed. He then proceeds to argue that these impersonal entities, which he imagines to possess characteristically human traits, infallibly generate the same unpleasant traits in human behaviour on the macro-level. So he writes: "The gene is the basic unit of selfishness" (p.36).

The absurdity is evident in that genes or other nonconscious entities cannot be either selfish or unselfish. They cannot "compete" against anything or "choose" anything.

If Dawkins were right, what would be the point of declaring, as he does: "Let us try to *teach* generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish" (p.3)? For if we really were machines, as he believes, even these very concepts would be meaningless to us. And certainly his oratory could have no effect whatever on our actual behaviour.

In fact genes do not force us to behave in any particular way. Neither can they possess the ability to direct or to comprehend all that is required to adopt a course of either heartless selfishness or heartfelt, sacrificial compassion.

The arguments in this review have been challenged by the claim that Dawkins himself answers these charges. His claim is, in effect, that that "the evolution of behavioural reactions or patterns via natural selection" and "control by nonconscious mechanisms" are two vastly different ideas. Also it is said that Dawkins does not deny a freedom of choice as the very last lines in this book itself "celebrate the human ability to make choices that transcend genetic control and instinctive reactions." So it is said that Dawkins "repeatedly draws clear distinctions" to prevent his readers from jumping to the conclusions expressed above.

However, there is a vast difference between asserting that such distinctions exist and actually laying a solid theoretical foundation for such distinctions. To lay the kinds of foundations which Dawkins does and then to go on to insist that these foundations do not lead to their logical conclusion is nothing less than an act of faith on Dawkins' part. It certainly does not bestow any validity upon Dawkins alleged distinctions. The bottom line is that Dawkins' presuppositions simply do not lead logically to the sort of distinction which he asserts.

Essentially this debate is an argument not about data, but about underlying assumptions. Here is a example of what I mean:

ASSUMPTION: 1. "evolution is true";
DATUM: 2. "human beings have consciousness";
ASSUMPTION: 3. "therefore evolution is capable of generating consciousness".

Once again, it is a case of "garbage in, garbage out" (as Dawkins himself would say).



Scientifically sound but philosophically flawed, 29 May 2008
Darwin's theory of evolution is no doubt a successful scientific hypothesis, and Prof. Dawkins brings across this very clearly. However, I do have some doubts regarding his philosophical assertions.

Essentially Prof. Dawkins believes that:

1) Selfishness and competition is at the root of all biological phenomena - nature as "red in tooth and claw"
2) There is no basic "dis-continuity" between humanity and other animals - humans are not qualitatively different from other animals
3) There is however no ethical dilemma between this basic fact and the human desire for goodness - since descriptive and normative realities are intrinsically separate (what is and what should be are independent of each other)

Yet the basis for point 3) - the inherent seperation of "what is" and "what ought to be" is just a philosophical assertion. Prof. Dawkins is very correct in stating that the belief in God and all other religious assertions should be treated and critically analysed as scientific hypotheses. However, strictly speaking this should go beyond the subject of religion to include every other field of human intellectual activity, including of course philosophy itself. If we treat the assertion "'what is' is fundamentally separate from 'what ought to be'" as a strict scientific hypothesis in the same sense that "God exists" is treated as such a hypothesis, then it has to be said that it is no more than just a blank assertion without any kind of empirical justification.

In other words, Prof. Dawkins is mistaken in assuming that his particular view of evolution and Darwinism does not leave us with an ethical dilemma, because it evidently does. The only argument Prof. Dawkins has offered against this is the mere assertion that "what ought to be" must be seperate from "what is", yet this assertion, just like religious assertions regarding God, cannot be scientifically or empirically proven.

It's hard to talk about The Origin of Species without making statements that seem overwrought and fulsome. But it's true: this is indeed one of the most important and influential books ever written, and it is one of the very few groundbreaking works of science that is truly readable.

To a certain extent it suffers from the Hamlet problem--it's full of clichés! Or what are now clichés, but which Darwin was the first to pen. Natural selection, variation, the struggle for existence, survival of the fittest: it's all in here.

Darwin's friend and "bulldog" T. H. Huxley said upon reading the Origin, "How extremely stupid of me not to have thought of that." Alfred Russel Wallace had thought of the same theory of evolution Darwin did, but it was Darwin who gathered the mass of supporting evidence--on domestic animals and plants, on variability, on sexual selection, on dispersal--that swept most scientists before it. It's hardly necessary to mention that the book is still controversial: Darwin's remark in his conclusion that "Light will be thrown on the origin of man and his history" is surely the pinnacle of British understatement. --Mary Ellen Curtin, Amazon.com

Partial plagiarism of his central thesis?, 02 Nov 2008
Reading these reviews leads me immediately to the realisation that this work may possibly be little better than plagiarism. Siméon-Denis Poisson first examined the statistical modelling of low-probability events in 1838, within a much wider corpus of scientific research in pure and applied natural and social sciences. One immediate conclusion is that the probability of low-odds events occurring (where there is no impedement to frequent possible events) is much higher than normal binomial probability suggests. As this is the heart of Taleb's thesis, he's at best reinvented the wheel.
On the basis of his introduction, examining the work of Umberto Eco, I suspect he falls into a trap of his own pretentiousness, insofar as Professor Eco sometimes espouses hermetic doctrines in his fictional works established long before our days by the Vatican and other similar bodies. His is not the work of a freelance research student, but of an acolyte, affirmed by his other publications of a non-fictional character, displaying the formation of his mentation. It is not therefore appropriate to suggest that there is much of a serendipitous nature about his well-researched, yet doctrinally conformist, theses, and that disables Taleb's first shuffle.
I therefore conclude that as both foundations to his thesis, namely his starting point and the incremental progression thenceforward, appear to be weak, this may not arrive at any logically coherent conclusions at all. Those of a religious disposition might choose to develop that objection further, insofar as the inexplicable Poisson anomaly has sometimes been argued as a scientifically-rigourous case for a non-bounded ontological eidos (or in plain language, "there are more things in heaven and earth, Nicholas, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."), but each to his own: at the very least, he is not doing fresh research by a very long way, as this was very old hat in our market modelling in the 1980s.

Scintillating , 25 Oct 2008
One of the most intelligent pieces of writing I have come across in my reading career.

It opens up some many new ways of viewing life and its events. Delivered with a delightful touch of arrogance, sudden humour, and iconoclastic precision - the book unearths a paradigm which is so overarchingly pervasive yet consciously ignored by people.

The author's tribute to, and coverage of Benoit Mandelbrot, along with the pooh-poohing of the 'normal' model of reality is a salient highlight, and should not be missed by any serious empiricist.

The book is a black swan.

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition..., 21 Oct 2008
This book is a black swan because against all the odds it got published. It has one idea swollen unappealingly to almost 400 pages. It is full of stereotypes, rich in "imaginative" anecdotes and insufferably pompous. If you want to read about chance and probability then try Ian Stewart; for Chance and Necessity read Jacques Monod (1972).

most insightful book I've read in a long time, 18 Oct 2008
Yes, I understand the criticism that Mr Taleb is full of himself - undoubtedly it shows throughout the book.
However, the amount of insights he provides and the many different angles in which he looks at the problem hammers the point through our hard-wired brains, and in my case, provided a fundamental change to the way I think and approach problems.
Definitely, a must read book.

The Emperor has no clothes, 10 Oct 2008
The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable
A highly disappointing text from an erudite and capable author. The book is fallacious, misleading and mischievous. The abuse of simple statistical distributions alone warrants not taking it seriously. It is oversold by the blurb and does not do what it says on the cover. Extremely disappointing.

Cop Out, 13 Dec 2007
The book is an assemblage of good answers to some good questions.

So why didn't I enjoy it?

I think because in keeping faith with the contributors of answers, several answers to one question are included and a lot of each answer is the same, though expressed slightly differently.

So it would have been better (to my way of thinking) to include each contributor's answer ONLY as far as it added to a previous answer.

Certainly make for a better read.

No, it's not because they wear a tuxedo, 23 Nov 2007
I wasn't sure about this book, but then I bought DO ANTS HAVE ARSEHOLES? And laughed myself silly. This book is on the same scale.

The book contains questions we've all wondered about, but were afraid to ask. And here they are. With the answers. The great thing about WHY DON'T PENGUINS' FEET FREEZE is that it can be read by adults and children. PG rating. The ideas range from history to physics, to chemistry and strophysics, so you won't be bored, but neither will you be overwhelmed. For other great books, I'd reommend DON'T STOP ME NOW and the book DRESS YOUR FAMILY IN CORDUORY by David Sedaris.

Good compilation of facts, 12 Oct 2007
This book is a collection of questions asked, and answered, by readers of 'New Scientist' magazine. If you've never read the magazine, the questions are fairly light-hearted and vary a lot in content. Paraphrasing, examples are 'Why are windows in ships round?', 'What is the diameter of a lightning bolt?', 'Do the living outnumber the dead?' and 'Would polar bears and penguins survived if they swapped poles?'.

The answers are often quite detailed in their replies, or require some level of scientific knowledge, but can be quite entertaining. I've got a reasonable scientific background and got the idea most of the time, but I certainly didn't understand everything as some of the answers contain a lot of jargon and specialised knowledge can help. Obviously the editor has picked some good examples, so the quality of the book is generally pretty good. My only real complaint has been raised by other reviewers - some of the replies aren't really answers, they're more like educated guesses, and sometimes they contradict one another. In a way that adds to the charm as the book doesn't take itself too seriously.

A good book if you want to learn something but don't want to think to hard while you're doing it.

Quite dissapointing, 19 Sep 2007
I've been a big fan of New Scientist for a number of years, and was so excited to see this book, and "Does anything eat wasps?". I decided to buy this one over the first one, for a reason unbeknown to me, and I was quite dissapointed with the content and replies to the questions.

I was expecting set-in-stone scientific reasons for each question, and much of the time it is simply a persons opinion, and there may even be 3 or 4 answers to the same question each saying something different, which then makes me beg the question..What's the point? I'm still non the wiser!

I thought this book would appeal to me much more than it actually does, it seemed like a book full of answers to questions I reguarly annoy friends and family with, but many of the questions seem like they were asked for the sake of asking, and that New Scientist were clutching at straws to get enough content to fill the book.

There are some interesting facts which can be taken, but nothing which can't be found on the internet.

BORED, 29 Jun 2007
Sorry , maybe its because i read a great book before this one (PAUL McGRATH BACK FROM THE BRINK), but this did very little for me.A few interesting details , but not great, sorry not for me

it got me interested in magic squares , 17 Nov 2008
this book admittedly is not laid out in an obviously systematic way but i m not sure that matters. it got me interested in some things that i thought were rather boring, and on the whole though i haven t read it all through yet it does seem to the makings of a very good read, though inevitably some of the puzzles will be very familiar.

the version that i have has an incorrect printing of the 3x3 "nearly magic" square on p66, the first of the two examples. the fix is fairly easy though and provides a nice additional problem for anyone interested!



Falls between two stools, 28 Oct 2008
For me this book is neither a "mathematical puzzle book" or an easy to read account of mathematical curiosities. It seems to be a haphazard melange of both and subsequently, due to their being no real effort to put individual puzzles/essays into easy categories, quite frankly a bit of a mess. Much of the stuff here has been done to death (the 4 colour map problem anyone?) but there is some new stuff here as well as some interesting and fun problems which justifies a 3 star review.

I just wish it had been better organised

fascinating, 22 Oct 2008
a well written and witty look at hundreds of mathematical puzzles, stories and jokes. I am a maths teacher and there is so much material here, it's amazing. I have already used a few of these with my classes and the puzzles have really caught their imagination. Highly recommended

although the solution to the problem on page 143 is wrong

Turns life inside out, 28 Oct 2008
The author writes about living things as if the gene is the animal and the animal is simply a seed for the gene. He basically turns life inside out. It's a powerful mind tool to get a different perspective on life but don't get too carried away with the idea. The whole theory of evolution is valuable in understanding the world but like a lot of science it starts to become too difficult to use. So in conclusion I don't believe that the author has discovered the secret of life, he just has another way of looking at things that you may find useful. It should be one of the books you have read.

jean genie, 05 Oct 2008
Dawkins is excellent while he sticks to biology
however he may have lost the plot in the last chapter
as he has in thinking promoting science involves attacking
religion
If an evangalist is someone who does not leave people to work
it out for themselves but pushes his point of view Dawkins is one
Nutty Baptists and Dawkins looked similar on channel 4 for example
ie they both spin world events too far to promote a point of view

Imaginative guessing, 13 Sep 2008
I have attempted to read Dawkins's books on a few occasions but seldom get beyond the first 100 pages. I simply find his style of writing boring and his theories pure imaginative guesswork; I cannot take this author's ideas onboard yet biology fascinates me and especially that of epigenetics which seems to disprove all that this author advocates. I suspect that there is a snobbery value to those who support him. Irrespective of his academic standing I cannot avoid regarding the author as an imposter as I constantly want to wage war with his views. Admittedly, he comes across publicly as a very plausible academic but, that does not sway me.

Blind theorizing, 27 Jun 2008
Dawkins writes that "the argument of this book is that we, and all other animals, are machines created by our genes" (p.xxi) and that "We are survival machines - robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes" (p.xxi). Yet, according to him, this book "is not science fiction; it is science" (p.xxi)!

Dawkins contrives to overlook the twin discoveries that:
1. the observable traits of organisms are mostly conditioned by the interactions of many genes;
2. most genes have multiple effects on many of these traits.

Dawkins transfers characteristics with which he is familiar from human behaviour on the macro-level to the inanimate components, "genes", of which we are physically constructed. He then proceeds to argue that these impersonal entities, which he imagines to possess characteristically human traits, infallibly generate the same unpleasant traits in human behaviour on the macro-level. So he writes: "The gene is the basic unit of selfishness" (p.36).

The absurdity is evident in that genes or other nonconscious entities cannot be either selfish or unselfish. They cannot "compete" against anything or "choose" anything.

If Dawkins were right, what would be the point of declaring, as he does: "Let us try to *teach* generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish" (p.3)? For if we really were machines, as he believes, even these very concepts would be meaningless to us. And certainly his oratory could have no effect whatever on our actual behaviour.

In fact genes do not force us to behave in any particular way. Neither can they possess the ability to direct or to comprehend all that is required to adopt a course of either heartless selfishness or heartfelt, sacrificial compassion.

The arguments in this review have been challenged by the claim that Dawkins himself answers these charges. His claim is, in effect, that that "the evolution of behavioural reactions or patterns via natural selection" and "control by nonconscious mechanisms" are two vastly different ideas. Also it is said that Dawkins does not deny a freedom of choice as the very last lines in this book itself "celebrate the human ability to make choices that transcend genetic control and instinctive reactions." So it is said that Dawkins "repeatedly draws clear distinctions" to prevent his readers from jumping to the conclusions expressed above.

However, there is a vast difference between asserting that such distinctions exist and actually laying a solid theoretical foundation for such distinctions. To lay the kinds of foundations which Dawkins does and then to go on to insist that these foundations do not lead to their logical conclusion is nothing less than an act of faith on Dawkins' part. It certainly does not bestow any validity upon Dawkins alleged distinctions. The bottom line is that Dawkins' presuppositions simply do not lead logically to the sort of distinction which he asserts.

Essentially this debate is an argument not about data, but about underlying assumptions. Here is a example of what I mean:

ASSUMPTION: 1. "evolution is true";
DATUM: 2. "human beings have consciousness";
ASSUMPTION: 3. "therefore evolution is capable of generating consciousness".

Once again, it is a case of "garbage in, garbage out" (as Dawkins himself would say).



Scientifically sound but philosophically flawed, 29 May 2008
Darwin's theory of evolution is no doubt a successful scientific hypothesis, and Prof. Dawkins brings across this very clearly. However, I do have some doubts regarding his philosophical assertions.

Essentially Prof. Dawkins believes that:

1) Selfishness and competition is at the root of all biological phenomena - nature as "red in tooth and claw"
2) There is no basic "dis-continuity" between humanity and other animals - humans are not qualitatively different from other animals
3) There is however no ethical dilemma between this basic fact and the human desire for goodness - since descriptive and normative realities are intrinsically separate (what is and what should be are independent of each other)

Yet the basis for point 3) - the inherent seperation of "what is" and "what ought to be" is just a philosophical assertion. Prof. Dawkins is very correct in stating that the belief in God and all other religious assertions should be treated and critically analysed as scientific hypotheses. However, strictly speaking this should go beyond the subject of religion to include every other field of human intellectual activity, including of course philosophy itself. If we treat the assertion "'what is' is fundamentally separate from 'what ought to be'" as a strict scientific hypothesis in the same sense that "God exists" is treated as such a hypothesis, then it has to be said that it is no more than just a blank assertion without any kind of empirical justification.

In other words, Prof. Dawkins is mistaken in assuming that his particular view of evolution and Darwinism does not leave us with an ethical dilemma, because it evidently does. The only argument Prof. Dawkins has offered against this is the mere assertion that "what ought to be" must be seperate from "what is", yet this assertion, just like religious assertions regarding God, cannot be scientifically or empirically proven.

something every bookshelf should have, 02 Apr 2008
This is of corse the basis for modern evolutionary works ,that being so it's not quite acurate to todays knowlege so this book is more of a historical book.This particular book is of good quality and structure with detailed image of the different species used as examples.

A FANTASTIC CLASSIC, 05 Jan 2008
Yes, it's dense but a must for evolution buffs. A vastly more entertaining read: NATURAL SELECTION by Dave Freedman, all about the evolution of a new species of flying predator! What makes it fantastic is that while a work of fiction it's brilliantly researched, actually teaches you what evolution really is. It gets into the evolution of the brain, the lung, flight - really cool stuff - but unlike dry textbooks, does it at warp speed. I literally could not put this book down, read it cover to cover in 2 days. A tremendous "fictional complement" to Darwin's master work.

Great Scientist, 29 Dec 2005
Many people assume that Darwin's initial account of natural selection is so out of date that it is to be avoided in favour of more recent text books of evolutionary theory. While it is true that huge gains have been made in the one and a half centuries since the first publication of "The Origin", there is nothing in this work which is wrong. Darwin was too good a scientist and too cautious.

Some claim that Darwin admitted of the possibility of Lamarkian mechanisms. They have not read the original. Darwin knew nothing of the molecular basis of genetics, but knew that natural selection did not need a Lamarkian mechanism. He simply did not rule it out, although he found it improbable. Everything that is stated in this great classic is as true today as it was at the time of first publication.

It is also said that Charles Darwin was a lesser intellectual when compared to most other great names of science; that he was a plodder, a naturalist, a sort of gentleman stamp collector who pressed flowers into his books and barely a scientist in the contemporary sense. This is nonsense. Darwin was one of the giants of rigorous systematic thinking; the kind of rigorous thinking and critical attitude that asks the right questions and provides the capacity to answer them. Let me buttress this claim with one example.

At the end of chapter six Darwin noted that the theory of natural selection could not account for structures or behaviors found in one species that exist solely for the benefit of another unrelated species. In setting out the theoretical terms for the refutation of the theory in this way, he anticipated Karl Popper, that analytical non-nonsense philosopher of science, by more than a century.

I recommend you read this book with an attentive curious analytical mind. You will find yourself walking in the footsteps of an intellectual giant.

Can't tell a book by its cover, 18 Jun 2004
This is a review of ISBN: 0517123207, with a cover that was defiantly made to be provocative. It depicts an (ape) allying view of going from all fours to upright. If this is what you are looking for then you need to read " 2001 : A Space Odyssey" by Arthur Charles Clarke.
This is a quick review of the book not a dissertation on Darwin or any other subject loosely related. At first I did not know what to expect. I already read " The Voyage of the Beagle : Charles Darwin's Journal of Researches" ISBN: 014043268X (see my review May 24, 2000). I figured the book would be similar. However I found "Origin" to be more complex and detailed.
Taking in account that recent pieces of knowledge were not available to Charles Darwin this book could have been written last week. Having to look from the outside without the knowledge of DNA or Plate Tectonics, he pretty much nailed how the environment and crossbreeding would have an effect on natural selection. Speaking of natural selection, I thought his was going to be some great insight to a new concept. All it means is that species are not being mucked around by man (artificial selection).
If you picked up Time magazine today you would find all the things that Charles said would be near impossible to find or do. Yet he predicted that it is doable in theory. With an imperfect geological record many things he was not able to find at the writing of this book have been found (according to the possibilities described in the book.)
The only draw back to the book was his constant apologizing. If he had more time and space he could prove this and that. Or it looks like this but who can say at this time. Or the same evidence can be interpreted 180 degrees different.
In the end it is worth reading and you will never look at life the same way again.

Buy this book and decide for your self!!, 18 Mar 2003
The Origin of Species is a great read and of interest to anyone who would like to make there own mind up about Darwinism rather than take for granted some ones else's opinion. Darwin makes this book very readable to the masses I my self am not I Biology student but managed to understand the book with relative ease and Darwin helps this along by using everyday language. This book is also of particular interest to any one who is interested in ideas and philosophies of the period since Darwin frequently referees to the ideas of his peers and fellow "naturalists".

I would also like to say that maybe this book might not have all the up-to-date scientific information in it (after all it was published in the 1850's) and yes it is true we know allot more about evolution than Darwin did but for the average person like my self who has little education the Biology field I can say I learnt allot about evolution, ideas of the time and of Darwin himself.

I urge everyone to read this book whether Atheist, Christian, Buddhist or anything else because this book is not the devilish attack on religion it has been distorted to be over the years but simply an ordinary guy who liked to watch his pigeons and flowers grow and change between generations. He then came up with the idea that creatures and plants evolved between generations to suit there environment and were not all created by god in there current forms. I also believe Darwin to be a very tasteful writer who took care to upset as few people as possible and wrote in a very humble way in fact he dedicates a whole chapter to the problems of his theory.

A great read what ever you believe buy this book and make your own mind up about evolution!!

Partial plagiarism of his central thesis?, 02 Nov 2008
Reading these reviews leads me immediately to the realisation that this work may possibly be little better than plagiarism. Siméon-Denis Poisson first examined the statistical modelling of low-probability events in 1838, within a much wider corpus of scientific research in pure and applied natural and social sciences. One immediate conclusion is that the probability of low-odds events occurring (where there is no impedement to frequent possible events) is much higher than normal binomial probability suggests. As this is the heart of Taleb's thesis, he's at best reinvented the wheel.
On the basis of his introduction, examining the work of Umberto Eco, I suspect he falls into a trap of his own pretentiousness, insofar as Professor Eco sometimes espouses hermetic doctrines in his fictional works established long before our days by the Vatican and other similar bodies. His is not the work of a freelance research student, but of an acolyte, affirmed by his other publications of a non-fictional character, displaying the formation of his mentation. It is not therefore appropriate to suggest that there is much of a serendipitous nature about his well-researched, yet doctrinally conformist, theses, and that disables Taleb's first shuffle.
I therefore conclude that as both foundations to his thesis, namely his starting point and the incremental progression thenceforward, appear to be weak, this may not arrive at any logically coherent conclusions at all. Those of a religious disposition might choose to develop that objection further, insofar as the inexplicable Poisson anomaly has sometimes been argued as a scientifically-rigourous case for a non-bounded ontological eidos (or in plain language, "there are more things in heaven and earth, Nicholas, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."), but each to his own: at the very least, he is not doing fresh research by a very long way, as this was very old hat in our market modelling in the 1980s.

Scintillating , 25 Oct 2008
One of the most intelligent pieces of writing I have come across in my reading career.

It opens up some many new ways of viewing life and its events. Delivered with a delightful touch of arrogance, sudden humour, and iconoclastic precision - the book unearths a paradigm which is so overarchingly pervasive yet consciously ignored by people.

The author's tribute to, and coverage of Benoit Mandelbrot, along with the pooh-poohing of the 'normal' model of reality is a salient highlight, and should not be missed by any serious empiricist.

The book is a black swan.

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition..., 21 Oct 2008
This book is a black swan because against all the odds it got published. It has one idea swollen unappealingly to almost 400 pages. It is full of stereotypes, rich in "imaginative" anecdotes and insufferably pompous. If you want to read about chance and probability then try Ian Stewart; for Chance and Necessity read Jacques Monod (1972).

most insightful book I've read in a long time, 18 Oct 2008
Yes, I understand the criticism that Mr Taleb is full of himself - undoubtedly it shows throughout the book.
However, the amount of insights he provides and the many different angles in which he looks at the problem hammers the point through our hard-wired brains, and in my case, provided a fundamental change to the way I think and approach problems.
Definitely, a must read book.

The Emperor has no clothes, 10 Oct 2008
The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable
A highly disappointing text from an erudite and capable author. The book is fallacious, misleading and mischievous. The abuse of simple statistical distributions alone warrants not taking it seriously. It is oversold by the blurb and does not do what it says on the cover. Extremely disappointing.

Cop Out, 13 Dec 2007
The book is an assemblage of good answers to some good questions.

So why didn't I enjoy it?

I think because in keeping faith with the contributors of answers, several answers to one question are included and a lot of each answer is the same, though expressed slightly differently.

So it would have been better (to my way of thinking) to include each contributor's answer ONLY as far as it added to a previous answer.

Certainly make for a better read.

No, it's not because they wear a tuxedo, 23 Nov 2007
I wasn't sure about this book, but then I bought DO ANTS HAVE ARSEHOLES? And laughed myself silly. This book is on the same scale.

The book contains questions we've all wondered about, but were afraid to ask. And here they are. With the answers. The great thing about WHY DON'T PENGUINS' FEET FREEZE is that it can be read by adults and children. PG rating. The ideas range from history to physics, to chemistry and strophysics, so you won't be bored, but neither will you be overwhelmed. For other great books, I'd reommend DON'T STOP ME NOW and the book DRESS YOUR FAMILY IN CORDUORY by David Sedaris.

Good compilation of facts, 12 Oct 2007
This book is a collection of questions asked, and answered, by readers of 'New Scientist' magazine. If you've never read the magazine, the questions are fairly light-hearted and vary a lot in content. Paraphrasing, examples are 'Why are windows in ships round?', 'What is the diameter of a lightning bolt?', 'Do the living outnumber the dead?' and 'Would polar bears and penguins survived if they swapped poles?'.

The answers are often quite detailed in their replies, or require some level of scientific knowledge, but can be quite entertaining. I've got a reasonable scientific background and got the idea most of the time, but I certainly didn't understand everything as some of the answers contain a lot of jargon and specialised knowledge can help. Obviously the editor has picked some good examples, so the quality of the book is generally pretty good. My only real complaint has been raised by other reviewers - some of the replies aren't really answers, they're more like educated guesses, and sometimes they contradict one another. In a way that adds to the charm as the book doesn't take itself too seriously.

A good book if you want to learn something but don't want to think to hard while you're doing it.

Quite dissapointing, 19 Sep 2007
I've been a big fan of New Scientist for a number of years, and was so excited to see this book, and "Does anything eat wasps?". I decided to buy this one over the first one, for a reason unbeknown to me, and I was quite dissapointed with the content and replies to the questions.

I was expecting set-in-stone scientific reasons for each question, and much of the time it is simply a persons opinion, and there may even be 3 or 4 answers to the same question each saying something different, which then makes me beg the question..What's the point? I'm still non the wiser!

I thought this book would appeal to me much more than it actually does, it seemed like a book full of answers to questions I reguarly annoy friends and family with, but many of the questions seem like they were asked for the sake of asking, and that New Scientist were clutching at straws to get enough content to fill the book.

There are some interesting facts which can be taken, but nothing which can't be found on the internet.

BORED, 29 Jun 2007
Sorry , maybe its because i read a great book before this one (PAUL McGRATH BACK FROM THE BRINK), but this did very little for me.A few interesting details , but not great, sorry not for me

it got me interested in magic squares , 17 Nov 2008
this book admittedly is not laid out in an obviously systematic way but i m not sure that matters. it got me interested in some things that i thought were rather boring, and on the whole though i haven t read it all through yet it does seem to the makings of a very good read, though inevitably some of the puzzles will be very familiar.

the version that i have has an incorrect printing of the 3x3 "nearly magic" square on p66, the first of the two examples. the fix is fairly easy though and provides a nice additional problem for anyone interested!



Falls between two stools, 28 Oct 2008
For me this book is neither a "mathematical puzzle book" or an easy to read account of mathematical curiosities. It seems to be a haphazard melange of both and subsequently, due to their being no real effort to put individual puzzles/essays into easy categories, quite frankly a bit of a mess. Much of the stuff here has been done to death (the 4 colour map problem anyone?) but there is some new stuff here as well as some interesting and fun problems which justifies a 3 star review.

I just wish it had been better organised

fascinating, 22 Oct 2008
a well written and witty look at hundreds of mathematical puzzles, stories and jokes. I am a maths teacher and there is so much material here, it's amazing. I have already used a few of these with my classes and the puzzles have really caught their imagination. Highly recommended

although the solution to the problem on page 143 is wrong

Turns life inside out, 28 Oct 2008
The author writes about living things as if the gene is the animal and the animal is simply a seed for the gene. He basically turns life inside out. It's a powerful mind tool to get a different perspective on life but don't get too carried away with the idea. The whole theory of evolution is valuable in understanding the world but like a lot of science it starts to become too difficult to use. So in conclusion I don't believe that the author has discovered the secret of life, he just has another way of looking at things that you may find useful. It should be one of the books you have read.

jean genie, 05 Oct 2008
Dawkins is excellent while he sticks to biology
however he may have lost the plot in the last chapter
as he has in thinking promoting science involves attacking
religion
If an evangalist is someone who does not leave people to work
it out for themselves but pushes his point of view Dawkins is one
Nutty Baptists and Dawkins looked similar on channel 4 for example
ie they both spin world events too far to promote a point of view

Imaginative guessing, 13 Sep 2008
I have attempted to read Dawkins's books on a few occasions but seldom get beyond the first 100 pages. I simply find his style of writing boring and his theories pure imaginative guesswork; I cannot take this author's ideas onboard yet biology fascinates me and especially that of epigenetics which seems to disprove all that this author advocates. I suspect that there is a snobbery value to those who support him. Irrespective of his academic standing I cannot avoid regarding the author as an imposter as I constantly want to wage war with his views. Admittedly, he comes across publicly as a very plausible academic but, that does not sway me.

Blind theorizing, 27 Jun 2008
Dawkins writes that "the argument of this book is that we, and all other animals, are machines created by our genes" (p.xxi) and that "We are survival machines - robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes" (p.xxi). Yet, according to him, this book "is not science fiction; it is science" (p.xxi)!

Dawkins contrives to overlook the twin discoveries that:
1. the observable traits of organisms are mostly conditioned by the interactions of many genes;
2. most genes have multiple effects on many of these traits.

Dawkins transfers characteristics with which he is familiar from human behaviour on the macro-level to the inanimate components, "genes", of which we are physically constructed. He then proceeds to argue that these impersonal entities, which he imagines to possess characteristically human traits, infallibly generate the same unpleasant traits in human behaviour on the macro-level. So he writes: "The gene is the basic unit of selfishness" (p.36).

The absurdity is evident in that genes or other nonconscious entities cannot be either selfish or unselfish. They cannot "compete" against anything or "choose" anything.

If Dawkins were right, what would be the point of declaring, as he does: "Let us try to *teach* generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish" (p.3)? For if we really were machines, as he believes, even these very concepts would be meaningless to us. And certainly his oratory could have no effect whatever on our actual behaviour.

In fact genes do not force us to behave in any particular way. Neither can they possess the ability to direct or to comprehend all that is required to adopt a course of either heartless selfishness or heartfelt, sacrificial compassion.

The arguments in this review have been challenged by the claim that Dawkins himself answers these charges. His claim is, in effect, that that "the evolution of behavioural reactions or patterns via natural selection" and "control by nonconscious mechanisms" are two vastly different ideas. Also it is said that Dawkins does not deny a freedom of choice as the very last lines in this book itself "celebrate the human ability to make choices that transcend genetic control and instinctive reactions." So it is said that Dawkins "repeatedly draws clear distinctions" to prevent his readers from jumping to the conclusions expressed above.

However, there is a vast difference between asserting that such distinctions exist and actually laying a solid theoretical foundation for such distinctions. To lay the kinds of foundations which Dawkins does and then to go on to insist that these foundations do not lead to their logical conclusion is nothing less than an act of faith on Dawkins' part. It certainly does not bestow any validity upon Dawkins alleged distinctions. The bottom line is that Dawkins' presuppositions simply do not lead logically to the sort of distinction which he asserts.

Essentially this debate is an argument not about data, but about underlying assumptions. Here is a example of what I mean:

ASSUMPTION: 1. "evolution is true";
DATUM: 2. "human beings have consciousness";
ASSUMPTION: 3. "therefore evolution is capable of generating consciousness".

Once again, it is a case of "garbage in, garbage out" (as Dawkins himself would say).



Scientifically sound but philosophically flawed, 29 May 2008
Darwin's theory of evolution is no doubt a successful scientific hypothesis, and Prof. Dawkins brings across this very clearly. However, I do have some doubts regarding his philosophical assertions.

Essentially Prof. Dawkins believes that:

1) Selfishness and competition is at the root of all biological phenomena - nature as "red in tooth and claw"
2) There is no basic "dis-continuity" between humanity and other animals - humans are not qualitatively different from other animals
3) There is however no ethical dilemma between this basic fact and the human desire for goodness - since descriptive and normative realities are intrinsically separate (what is and what should be are independent of each other)

Yet the basis for point 3) - the inherent seperation of "what is" and "what ought to be" is just a philosophical assertion. Prof. Dawkins is very correct in stating that the belief in God and all other religious assertions should be treated and critically analysed as scientific hypotheses. However, strictly speaking this should go beyond the subject of religion to include every other field of human intellectual activity, including of course philosophy itself. If we treat the assertion "'what is' is fundamentally separate from 'what ought to be'" as a strict scientific hypothesis in the same sense that "God exists" is treated as such a hypothesis, then it has to be said that it is no more than just a blank assertion without any kind of empirical justification.

In other words, Prof. Dawkins is mistaken in assuming that his particular view of evolution and Darwinism does not leave us with an ethical dilemma, because it evidently does. The only argument Prof. Dawkins has offered against this is the mere assertion that "what ought to be" must be seperate from "what is", yet this assertion, just like religious assertions regarding God, cannot be scientifically or empirically proven.

something every bookshelf should have, 02 Apr 2008
This is of corse the basis for modern evolutionary works ,that being so it's not quite acurate to todays knowlege so this book is more of a historical book.This particular book is of good quality and structure with detailed image of the different species used as examples.

A FANTASTIC CLASSIC, 05 Jan 2008
Yes, it's dense but a must for evolution buffs. A vastly more entertaining read: NATURAL SELECTION by Dave Freedman, all about the evolution of a new species of flying predator! What makes it fantastic is that while a work of fiction it's brilliantly researched, actually teaches you what evolution really is. It gets into the evolution of the brain, the lung, flight - really cool stuff - but unlike dry textbooks, does it at warp speed. I literally could not put this book down, read it cover to cover in 2 days. A tremendous "fictional complement" to Darwin's master work.

Great Scientist, 29 Dec 2005
Many people assume that Darwin's initial account of natural selection is so out of date that it is to be avoided in favour of more recent text books of evolutionary theory. While it is true that huge gains have been made in the one and a half centuries since the first publication of "The Origin", there is nothing in this work which is wrong. Darwin was too good a scientist and too cautious.

Some claim that Darwin admitted of the possibility of Lamarkian mechanisms. They have not read the original. Darwin knew nothing of the molecular basis of genetics, but knew that natural selection did not need a Lamarkian mechanism. He simply did not rule it out, although he found it improbable. Everything that is stated in this great classic is as true today as it was at the time of first publication.

It is also said that Charles Darwin was a lesser intellectual when compared to most other great names of science; that he was a plodder, a naturalist, a sort of gentleman stamp collector who pressed flowers into his books and barely a scientist in the contemporary sense. This is nonsense. Darwin was one of the giants of rigorous systematic thinking; the kind of rigorous thinking and critical attitude that asks the right questions and provides the capacity to answer them. Let me buttress this claim with one example.

At the end of chapter six Darwin noted that the theory of natural selection could not account for structures or behaviors found in one species that exist solely for the benefit of another unrelated species. In setting out the theoretical terms for the refutation of the theory in this way, he anticipated Karl Popper, that analytical non-nonsense philosopher of science, by more than a century.

I recommend you read this book with an attentive curious analytical mind. You will find yourself walking in the footsteps of an intellectual giant.

Can't tell a book by its cover, 18 Jun 2004
This is a review of ISBN: 0517123207, with a cover that was defiantly made to be provocative. It depicts an (ape) allying view of going from all fours to upright. If this is what you are looking for then you need to read " 2001 : A Space Odyssey" by Arthur Charles Clarke.
This is a quick review of the book not a dissertation on Darwin or any other subject loosely related. At first I did not know what to expect. I already read " The Voyage of the Beagle : Charles Darwin's Journal of Researches" ISBN: 014043268X (see my review May 24, 2000). I figured the book would be similar. However I found "Origin" to be more complex and detailed.
Taking in account that recent pieces of knowledge were not available to Charles Darwin this book could have been written last week. Having to look from the outside without the knowledge of DNA or Plate Tectonics, he pretty much nailed how the environment and crossbreeding would have an effect on natural selection. Speaking of natural selection, I thought his was going to be some great insight to a new concept. All it means is that species are not being mucked around by man (artificial selection).
If you picked up Time magazine today you would find all the things that Charles said would be near impossible to find or do. Yet he predicted that it is doable in theory. With an imperfect geological record many things he was not able to find at the writing of this book have been found (according to the possibilities described in the book.)
The only draw back to the book was his constant apologizing. If he had more time and space he could prove this and that. Or it looks like this but who can say at this time. Or the same evidence can be interpreted 180 degrees different.
In the end it is worth reading and you will never look at life the same way again.

Buy this book and decide for your self!!, 18 Mar 2003
The Origin of Species is a great read and of interest to anyone who would like to make there own mind up about Darwinism rather than take for granted some ones else's opinion. Darwin makes this book very readable to the masses I my self am not I Biology student but managed to understand the book with relative ease and Darwin helps this along by using everyday language. This book is also of particular interest to any one who is interested in ideas and philosophies of the period since Darwin frequently referees to the ideas of his peers and fellow "naturalists".

I would also like to say that maybe this book might not have all the up-to-date scientific information in it (after all it was published in the 1850's) and yes it is true we know allot more about evolution than Darwin did but for the average person like my self who has little education the Biology field I can say I learnt allot about evolution, ideas of the time and of Darwin himself.

I urge everyone to read this book whether Atheist, Christian, Buddhist or anything else because this book is not the devilish attack on religion it has been distorted to be over the years but simply an ordinary guy who liked to watch his pigeons and flowers grow and change between generations. He then came up with the idea that creatures and plants evolved between generations to suit there environment and were not all created by god in there current forms. I also believe Darwin to be a very tasteful writer who took care to upset as few people as possible and wrote in a very humble way in fact he dedicates a whole chapter to the problems of his theory.

A great read what ever you believe buy this book and make your own mind up about evolution!!

An Excellent Collection, 04 Oct 2008
This book contains a superb collection of excerpts from books and essays of some of the world's greatest scientists. The amount of ideas discussed is truly mind-expanding. A must have for anyone interested in where the great search for knowledge called science is taking us.

Pelucid writings from brilliant minds, 01 Jul 2008
As one who is convinced that Spinoza's monism provides the philosophical basis for all the sciences, reading The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing and seeing Spinoza's view (that God and Nature are one and the same thing, under the dual aspects of thought and matter) confirmed over and over again was enthralling.

While reading it I repeatedly inserted markers into articles that I wished to re-read. In fact, I shall probably read the whole book again and refer to it repeatedly. What particularly fascinated me was the revelation that a quantum of energy appears to us under two aspects: as a wave or as a particle, but never both at the same time. This discovery accords perfectly with Spinoza's dual aspect theory.

My selection of five-star articles is as follows: 'Life Itself', by Francis Crick;`One Self: a Meditation on the Unity of Consciousness' by Nicholas Humphrey; `The Language Instinct', by Steven Pinker; `Avoid Boring People' by James Watson; `Consciousness Explained' by Daniel Dennett; `The Fantastic Combinations of John Conway's new solitaire game "Life"' by Martin Gardner; `Computing Machinery and Intelligence' by Alan Turing; `The Goldilocks Enigma' by Paul Davies; `The Elegant Universe' by Bryan Green, and `Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid' by Douglas Hofstadter.

Having been brought up in an evangelical environment, and having had a taste of Roman Catholicism as well, I can only say that there is no contest between the brilliance, lucidity, humility and open-mindedness of the scientists quoted in this anthology and the tendentious, hubristic, convoluted, ill-founded speculations of theologians - few of whom will have the courage to read this book.

The introductions by Richard Dawkins are excellent. I can't recommend this book highly enough.

Perfect bedside reading, 27 Jun 2008
This mighty tome makes excellent bedside reading. You are unlikely to have the musclepower to take this commuting or to the beach (need to wait for the paperback edition for that) but propped up in bed with a cup of cocoa/glass of whisky (delete as appropriate) by your side, this is an excellent book for dipping into and as a previous reviewer says, will encourage you to seek out the books the excerpts come from. In this regard may I be so bold as to recommend any of the books by Richard Feynman. Dawkins himself supplies witty and erudite introductions to each essay so all in all there is absolutely nothing to criticise in this book - unless you hate science that is and even then this book might convince you otherwise.

A marvellous anthology of modern science writing., 07 Jun 2008
Richard Dawkins has compiled a fascinating and intellectually stimulating anthology of excellent writing from professional scientists over the past century. There are 79 scientists included(Dawkins modestly excludes himself) with concise but illuminating introductory comments from Dawkins for each of the 83 extracts or short pieces which cover a wide range of topics from genetics and the mind to evolution and quantum physics.
The various selections are grouped into four themes: 'What Scientists Study', Who Scientists Are', 'What Scientists Think' & What Scientists Delight In'.
Anyone who reads this marvellous anthology should gain an insight into how the scientific method can help us understand and explain 'life the universe and everything'.

Why so few women?, 16 Apr 2008
This accessible and informative anthology provides a selection of popular science writings, predominantly from the second half of the 20th century. It is a joy to read. The book provides an insight in modern scientific thinking and methodology and shows some of the astonishing ways in which science strives to dispell ignorance. However, as an anthology, it is also remarkably skewed. Firstly, it is astonishing how few female authors are included; unfortunately, the book fails to explain why. Second, "science" is used with a restrictive interpretation, since the book focuses strongly on the natural sciences, some mathematics, the cognitive sciences and some reflections on science in general. Other fields, especially most of the social sciences and humanities, are absent.

Partial plagiarism of his central thesis?, 02 Nov 2008
Reading these reviews leads me immediately to the realisation that this work may possibly be little better than plagiarism. Siméon-Denis Poisson first examined the statistical modelling of low-probability events in 1838, within a much wider corpus of scientific research in pure and applied natural and social sciences. One immediate conclusion is that the probability of low-odds events occurring (where there is no impedement to frequent possible events) is much higher than normal binomial probability suggests. As this is the heart of Taleb's thesis, he's at best reinvented the wheel.
On the basis of his introduction, examining the work of Umberto Eco, I suspect he falls into a trap of his own pretentiousness, insofar as Professor Eco sometimes espouses hermetic doctrines in his fictional works established long before our days by the Vatican and other similar bodies. His is not the work of a freelance research student, but of an acolyte, affirmed by his other publications of a non-fictional character, displaying the formation of his mentation. It is not therefore appropriate to suggest that there is much of a serendipitous nature about his well-researched, yet doctrinally conformist, theses, and that disables Taleb's first shuffle.
I therefore conclude that as both foundations to his thesis, namely his starting point and the incremental progression thenceforward, appear to be weak, this may not arrive at any logically coherent conclusions at all. Those of a religious disposition might choose to develop that objection further, insofar as the inexplicable Poisson anomaly has sometimes been argued as a scientifically-rigourous case for a non-bounded ontological eidos (or in plain language, "there are more things in heaven and earth, Nicholas, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."), but each to his own: at the very least, he is not doing fresh research by a very long way, as this was very old hat in our market modelling in the 1980s.

Scintillating , 25 Oct 2008
One of the most intelligent pieces of writing I have come across in my reading career.

It opens up some many new ways of viewing life and its events. Delivered with a delightful touch of arrogance, sudden humour, and iconoclastic precision - the book unearths a paradigm which is so overarchingly pervasive yet consciously ignored by people.

The author's tribute to, and coverage of Benoit Mandelbrot, along with the pooh-poohing of the 'normal' model of reality is a salient highlight, and should not be missed by any serious empiricist.

The book is a black swan.

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition..., 21 Oct 2008
This book is a black swan because against all the odds it got published. It has one idea swollen unappealingly to almost 400 pages. It is full of stereotypes, rich in "imaginative" anecdotes and insufferably pompous. If you want to read about chance and probability then try Ian Stewart; for Chance and Necessity read Jacques Monod (1972).

most insightful book I've read in a long time, 18 Oct 2008
Yes, I understand the criticism that Mr Taleb is full of himself - undoubtedly it shows throughout the book.
However, the amount of insights he provides and the many different angles in which he looks at the problem hammers the point through our hard-wired brains, and in my case, provided a fundamental change to the way I think and approach problems.
Definitely, a must read book.

The Emperor has no clothes, 10 Oct 2008
The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable
A highly disappointing text from an erudite and capable author. The book is fallacious, misleading and mischievous. The abuse of simple statistical distributions alone warrants not taking it seriously. It is oversold by the blurb and does not do what it says on the cover. Extremely disappointing.

Cop Out, 13 Dec 2007
The book is an assemblage of good answers to some good questions.

So why didn't I enjoy it?

I think because in keeping faith with the contributors of answers, several answers to one question are included and a lot of each answer is the same, though expressed slightly differently.

So it would have been better (to my way of thinking) to include each contributor's answer ONLY as far as it added to a previous answer.

Certainly make for a better read.

No, it's not because they wear a tuxedo, 23 Nov 2007
I wasn't sure about this book, but then I bought DO ANTS HAVE ARSEHOLES? And laughed myself silly. This book is on the same scale.

The book contains questions we've all wondered about, but were afraid to ask. And here they are. With the answers. The great thing about WHY DON'T PENGUINS' FEET FREEZE is that it can be read by adults and children. PG rating. The ideas range from history to physics, to chemistry and strophysics, so you won't be bored, but neither will you be overwhelmed. For other great books, I'd reommend DON'T STOP ME NOW and the book DRESS YOUR FAMILY IN CORDUORY by David Sedaris.

Good compilation of facts, 12 Oct 2007
This book is a collection of questions asked, and answered, by readers of 'New Scientist' magazine. If you've never read the magazine, the questions are fairly light-hearted and vary a lot in content. Paraphrasing, examples are 'Why are windows in ships round?', 'What is the diameter of a lightning bolt?', 'Do the living outnumber the dead?' and 'Would polar bears and penguins survived if they swapped poles?'.

The answers are often quite detailed in their replies, or require some level of scientific knowledge, but can be quite entertaining. I've got a reasonable scientific background and got the idea most of the time, but I certainly didn't understand everything as some of the answers contain a lot of jargon and specialised knowledge can help. Obviously the editor has picked some good examples, so the quality of the book is generally pretty good. My only real complaint has been raised by other reviewers - some of the replies aren't really answers, they're more like educated guesses, and sometimes they contradict one another. In a way that adds to the charm as the book doesn't take itself too seriously.

A good book if you want to learn something but don't want to think to hard while you're doing it.

Quite dissapointing, 19 Sep 2007
I've been a big fan of New Scientist for a number of years, and was so excited to see this book, and "Does anything eat wasps?". I decided to buy this one over the first one, for a reason unbeknown to me, and I was quite dissapointed with the content and replies to the questions.