Slashdot Mirror


Richard Dawkins On Science Writing

otee writes "Richard Dawkins asks the question: Why hasn't a Nobel Prize been awarded to a scientist for literary work? He suspects that it simply hasn't occurred to the judges. Read the well written article at The Edge Website for information about good (science) writing."

7 of 50 comments (clear)

  1. Churchill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    No scientist has won the Nobel Prize for Literature. Why not? I suspect that it simply hasn't occurred to the judges. "Literature" automatically conjures "novelist", or "poet".

    On the other hand: Winston Churchill got the Nobel prize for literature for his memoires, not really proze or poetry.

  2. Re:Are scientific articles really literature? by meringuoid · · Score: 2, Informative

    This isn't about scientific publications of the kind you'd find on arxiv.org; it's about scientific publications of the kind people buy to look impressive on their coffee-table. Popularisations.

    --
    Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
  3. Re:Are scientific articles really literature? by neglige · · Score: 3, Informative

    Ok, so Hawkins "A Brief History of Time" would qualify as a popular scientific publications, as it's simplyfied in a way, yet not too much. The target audience is the average reader without a PhD.

    Still, I wouldn't rate it as literature, since Hawkins intended to inform the reader, and not necessarily to "emotionalize" (the latter - in my opinion - being the prime motive for literature).

    IMHO it really boils down to the emotions (other than the occasional joke) conveyed in a text. This aspects sets scientific and literature texts apart. And this aspect is (again, IMHO) what makes a text worthy to receive a nobel prize.

    --
    My cats ate my karma. They also wrote this comment.
  4. Russel got one by chippo · · Score: 4, Informative

    IIRC,

    Bertrand Russel got the Nobel prize for literature. But I guess he counts as a mathematician.

    1. Re:Russel got one by omega_cubed · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, he was awarded the nobel prize for literature for "his varied and significant writings in which he champions humanitarian ideals and freedom of thought"

      So no, I don't think he really counts as a mathematician as far as Nobel committee is concerned; I think the prize was more for his political activism and his writings relating to that (for example: The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism or The Freedom and Organisation 1814-1914) rather than his Principles of Mathematics or Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy

      --
      Engineers also speak PDE, only in a different dialect.
  5. Re:Wow! by Finuvir · · Score: 2, Informative

    Dawkins has gone for whole books without mentioning "godbotherers". It really is a rather small aspect of his writing and one which he seems to have left alone for the moment.

    --
    Why is anything anything?
  6. Re:Are scientific articles really literature? by HaveNoMouth · · Score: 2, Informative
    Ok, so Hawkins "A Brief History of Time" would qualify as a popular scientific publications ...

    Stephen Hawking wrote "A Brief History of Time". Richard Dawkins, the subject of this article, wrote "The Blind Watchmaker" and lots of other books on evolutionary biology. Two different authors.