Scan barcode
A review by lgrunwald
Curiosity: How Science Became Interested in Everything by Philip Ball
challenging
informative
reflective
slow-paced
3.0
I'm giving the subject matter of this book a 3/5. However, as for the authors way of explaining everything and the overall contents of the book itself I'd give it a 2/5.
The subject of curiosity in science and how we got there is indeed a fascinating look into not just the world of science over the years but of philosophy, politics of particular places at particular times, religious progression, and how so many famous people of many different decades rubbed shoulders. We have perspectives from the great Leonardo da Vinci who was not only an artist but a person of great academic success to even monks who would experiment and ask bigger questions than the church wanted to. Magicians, nobel men, modern men of science who helped us get to the moon...you name it we have a perspective for it and it's genuinely fascinating.
However, Philip Ball couldn't have made this interesting perspective more dull and dry if he had tried. If I were his editor I could have cut out probably a good 60% of this book and still gotten almost every major point across. His first chapter alone just talked about the mere definition of curiosity and how different people at different times interpreted it and...it was just a lot. Too much in fact. He also repeated subject matters of people over, and over again as if to drill it to my skull as a permanent implant. His way of bringing up subjects was also very scattered and disorganised and hard to keep up with. Like a genius child with a sugar high writing a school report.
He also repeatedly brings up how many scientists of the past wanted to break away from the whole, "knowledge should be kept to ourselves and shared amongst only the smartest of us", and instead share it with the world to better it. However, Philip himself doesn't seem to put this into practice himself. Not only is he making the subject matter entirely overly complicated for no reason to the modern reader he is also incredibly condescending to other academics, whether past or present ones, in his book. Inserting his overly weird morals and definitions of things with no real context as to why he has the opinions he does makes him seem like the ivory tower intellect type.
Needless to say, I probably won't remember a single thing I read about this as it was about as entertaining as watching grass grow. However, it did encourage me as I read it to research a lot of the topics he mentioned for myself and the online sources were much more detailed without all the rough edges and unnecessary filler Philip Ball put in this book. So...silver lining I guess?
The subject of curiosity in science and how we got there is indeed a fascinating look into not just the world of science over the years but of philosophy, politics of particular places at particular times, religious progression, and how so many famous people of many different decades rubbed shoulders. We have perspectives from the great Leonardo da Vinci who was not only an artist but a person of great academic success to even monks who would experiment and ask bigger questions than the church wanted to. Magicians, nobel men, modern men of science who helped us get to the moon...you name it we have a perspective for it and it's genuinely fascinating.
However, Philip Ball couldn't have made this interesting perspective more dull and dry if he had tried. If I were his editor I could have cut out probably a good 60% of this book and still gotten almost every major point across. His first chapter alone just talked about the mere definition of curiosity and how different people at different times interpreted it and...it was just a lot. Too much in fact. He also repeated subject matters of people over, and over again as if to drill it to my skull as a permanent implant. His way of bringing up subjects was also very scattered and disorganised and hard to keep up with. Like a genius child with a sugar high writing a school report.
He also repeatedly brings up how many scientists of the past wanted to break away from the whole, "knowledge should be kept to ourselves and shared amongst only the smartest of us", and instead share it with the world to better it. However, Philip himself doesn't seem to put this into practice himself. Not only is he making the subject matter entirely overly complicated for no reason to the modern reader he is also incredibly condescending to other academics, whether past or present ones, in his book. Inserting his overly weird morals and definitions of things with no real context as to why he has the opinions he does makes him seem like the ivory tower intellect type.
Needless to say, I probably won't remember a single thing I read about this as it was about as entertaining as watching grass grow. However, it did encourage me as I read it to research a lot of the topics he mentioned for myself and the online sources were much more detailed without all the rough edges and unnecessary filler Philip Ball put in this book. So...silver lining I guess?