Skip to main content

Funny You Should Ask Again - QI ****

The BBC TV show QI has some very irritating characteristics. First, there's the twee reference to their researchers as 'elves'. Then there's the smugness. No quiz show has ever been so smug in the way it delights in the wrong answers of contestants. And it has featured some scientific bloomers, such as naming Galileo as the inventor of the telescope. But this book is based on the QI researchers (still nauseatingly called elves) appearance on Zoe Ball's breakfast show on BBC Radio 2, answering listeners' questions - making it far less cynical and a compendium of good, fun, surprising facts.

What we get here is a collection of one and two page articles answering questions from how an ant measures distance to why we don't say 'sheeps' (unless we are Jeremy Clarkson). Some of the topics are fairly well-known already - like there not being a licence to kill in MI6, why a computer mouse is called a mouse, or whether or clone would have the same fingerprints (they don't mention that you just need to look at identical twins). Others are obscure, but frankly hard to imagine why anyone would want to know. For example, which of our lips is more important or has there ever been a strike at a bowling alley. But there is a solid base of genuinely interesting and surprising answers, whether it's to why embedded spies are called moles or why unsavoury doesn't mean sweet. It's not a long book - I read it in under two hours - but there's plenty to enjoy and to want to tell whoever is near you.

There were a few small issues. The 'answers' don't always answer the actual question. The very first one in the book is 'Why do ladybirds have spots?' What they answer is 'Why are ladybirds brightly coloured?' - which isn't the same thing at all. Sometimes there are opportunities missed to go a bit further in what can be over-simplistic answers. So, for example, the section on why Christmas puddings are sometimes called plum puddings points out that the pudding is traditionally made on 'Stir-up Sunday', the Sunday before Advent. The implication is that the Sunday is called this because of the pudding. But it's much more interesting if you know that traditional collect (prayer) for that evening begins 'Stir up, O Lord...'

The biggest gaffe is in the section answering 'What's the difference between antlers and horns?' The text points out that unlike bony antlers, horns (found on cattle, sheep etc.) contain a 'little core of bone' with the external part being keratin. And the exception to this is the rhinoceros which 'doesn't have a horn at all' because the apparent horn is all keratin and 'lacks the bony core that normal horns have.' The book is somewhat randomly illustrated. This section is illustrated with a deer and its antlers... and a rhino with its horns have a bony core.

Mostly, though, the content is fine if sometimes the (groan) elves try a bit too hard to be funny. This title is clearly aimed at the gift book market and it would make an excellent present for teenagers and adults alike.

Hardback: 
Bookshop.org

  

Kindle:  
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
Review by Brian Clegg

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

David Spiegelhalter Five Way interview

Professor Sir David Spiegelhalter FRS OBE is Emeritus Professor of Statistics in the Centre for Mathematical Sciences at the University of Cambridge. He was previously Chair of the Winton Centre for Risk and Evidence Communication and has presented the BBC4 documentaries Tails you Win: the Science of Chance, the award-winning Climate Change by Numbers. His bestselling book, The Art of Statistics , was published in March 2019. He was knighted in 2014 for services to medical statistics, was President of the Royal Statistical Society (2017-2018), and became a Non-Executive Director of the UK Statistics Authority in 2020. His latest book is The Art of Uncertainty . Why probability? because I have been fascinated by the idea of probability, and what it might be, for over 50 years. Why is the ‘P’ word missing from the title? That's a good question.  Partly so as not to make it sound like a technical book, but also because I did not want to give the impression that it was yet another book
Post a Comment
Read more

The Genetic Book of the Dead: Richard Dawkins ****

When someone came up with the title for this book they were probably thinking deep cultural echoes - I suspect I'm not the only Robert Rankin fan in whom it raised a smile instead, thinking of The Suburban Book of the Dead . That aside, this is a glossy and engaging book showing how physical makeup (phenotype), behaviour and more tell us about the past, with the messenger being (inevitably, this being Richard Dawkins) the genes. Worthy of comment straight away are the illustrations - this is one of the best illustrated science books I've ever come across. Generally illustrations are either an afterthought, or the book is heavily illustrated and the text is really just an accompaniment to the pictures. Here the full colour images tie in directly to the text. They are not asides, but are 'read' with the text by placing them strategically so the picture is directly with the text that refers to it. Many are photographs, though some are effective paintings by Jana Lenzová. T
Post a Comment
Read more

Everything is Predictable - Tom Chivers *****

There's a stereotype of computer users: Mac users are creative and cool, while PC users are businesslike and unimaginative. Less well-known is that the world of statistics has an equivalent division. Bayesians are the Mac users of the stats world, where frequentists are the PC people. This book sets out to show why Bayesians are not just cool, but also mostly right. Tom Chivers does an excellent job of giving us some historical background, then dives into two key aspects of the use of statistics. These are in science, where the standard approach is frequentist and Bayes only creeps into a few specific applications, such as the accuracy of medical tests, and in decision theory where Bayes is dominant. If this all sounds very dry and unexciting, it's quite the reverse. I admit, I love probability and statistics, and I am something of a closet Bayesian*), but Chivers' light and entertaining style means that what could have been the mathematical equivalent of debating angels on
Post a Comment
Read more