Skip to main content

How to Build a Dragon or Die Trying - Paul Knoepfler and Julie Knoepfler ***

Thanks to its subtitle of 'a satirical look at cutting-edge science', I totally misunderstood what this book was about at first glance. The most speculative aspects of science, notably cosmology and astrophysics, are replete with theories unsubstantiated by experiment or observation, highly reminiscent of the concept of 'the invisible dragon in my garage' which is a theory that can't be disproved, but certainly isn't science.

The title, however, is far more literal. This is a book on what would be faced if we were to attempt to construct a dragon given our best current biological science plus a touch of speculation. It's a fun idea, but the book is something of a curate's (or possibly dragon's) egg. 

Some of the chapters are excellent. I particularly enjoyed one on what would be necessary to have a fire-breathing dragon, which ranges from generating and safely storing the flammable substance to managing to ignite it, drawing on a whole range of existing biological capabilities and extending them. Others are less so - for example there's a lengthy chapter on what a dragon's brain would need to be like. While the basic criteria of intelligent enough to learn stuff while not so intelligent it's too independent is reasonable, it was quite dull - and the obvious solution that it would need a dog-style brain, which would cut the whole thing down to a paragraph, is totally ignored.

The worst aspect is the structure of the whole thing. There's a lot of repetition. For example, there's a three-page preface setting out what it's intended to do. Then a first chapter that does exactly the same thing but at greater length. Then more chapters on features of the dragon which repeat yet again what was said in the introductory chapter before getting onto options and solutions. It's supposed to be a light, fun book - and in places it is - but a lot of it doesn't read that way.

Later chapters take on building unicorns and other mythical creatures and the ethics of dragon engineering, which is fine, but overall it feels like a set of separate long articles strung together without a good structural edit. Another aspect that pulls it down for me is that the satirical aspect was supposed to be taking on the way that science press releases, proposals and such over-hype their subject. But this simply doesn't really come through enough. So, yes, the justification for the dragon, a painful part of any research proposal, is mildly amusing, because there really isn't one... but it's not enough to make the book a satirical device.

Paul and Julie Knopfler give us plenty of interesting factoids and little explorations of biological and physiological science, and, as mentioned, parts of the book are really good. But it would really have benefited from a better structure, more detailed content and a heavy edit.

Paperback:   
Kindle:  
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
These articles will always be free - but if you'd like to support my online work, consider buying a virtual coffee:
Review by Brian Clegg - See all Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly email free here
Labels:

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

Quantum Mechanics and Avant-Garde Music - Rakhat-Bi Abdyssagin ****

This is a fascinating and unique book about the parallel development of, and occasional interactions between, modern physics and contemporary classical music. It’s also a far easier and more enjoyable read than its narrowly academic-sounding title might suggest. If it had been called ‘Music and Quantum Physics’ then I suspect far more people would be motivated to check it out – and, for the most part, I think they’d get exactly what they were looking for. I deliberately moved the word ‘music’ to the front of my version of the title, because that’s what the book is primarily about – with physics being a background thread, rather than vice versa. Equally, Rakhat-Bi Abdyssagin is essentially a professional musician with a sideline in the history and philosophy of science – a far less common combination than the other way around. He also seems to have been something of a musical prodigy, mentioning physics-inspired compositions that he wrote as far back as 2013, when he was just 14 years o
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