Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Richard Dawkins On Science Writing

Posted by simoniker on from the make-it-so dept.

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."

2 of 50 comments (clear)

  1. 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.
  2. 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.