Does knowing how rainbows are formed make them any less awesome? · 10:42pm Jan 19th, 2014
In his book Unweaving the Rainbow, Richard Dawkins challenges the idea that a scientific understanding of natural phenomena somehow lessens their beauty and the sense of awe that they inspire, and instead argues that the exact opposite is true. The title is from a quotation by Keats, who said, maybe in jest, that Newton had destroyed the poetry of the rainbow by 'reducing it to the prismatic colours'. (Incidentally Unweaving the Rainboom was my working title for Rainbooms and Rationality, but I changed it as I felt the reference was a bit obscure).
I agree with Dawkins (on this point), but of course I do - I'm a rainbow junkie, and a big fan of science, as well as poetry. To me, looking at a rainbow, with the knowledge of how it is created through the reflection and refraction of sunshine, only makes it more awesome. And there's no reason why you can't enjoy this, and also enjoy all the rainbow themed folklore from Ireland to Australia, or indeed silly stories about flying ponies. Hence I wrote The Art of Rainbow Engineering.
But that's me. And I totally accept that not everyone shares my fascination with geometric optics. I do have some sympathy with the Keats School, as this position reminds me of my school day experiences in English class. Despite being a big fan of reading good books, I found studying any text in the way and the level of detail expected by English teachers, was a sure-fire way to kill off any enjoyment I might get out of it. Hence I went on to study science instead.
But a lot of people love studying literature this way. I have encountered quite a few students who after reading The Lord of the Rings, have come up with comments like: 'do you think Frodo was gay?' I have always felt that they have somehow missed the point of the story, and their literary-analysis minds can't fully appreciate epic story telling. But who am I to judge? Presumably they like speculating about Frodo's sexuality, just I like to speculate theories of a sonic rainboom; and it enhances their enjoyment of the book, just as my knowledge of optics enhances my appreciation of a rainbow. Maybe. Or perhaps they were just sexuality obsessed teenagers.
Depends on the person. Some people like to think farther, others feel that it ruins it.
Ivegot photos of prismatic, mother of pearl clouds, where teh angle of the cloud was just right with teh change in angle of tthe suns rays to extend the spread of colours. Ive got a sun dragon that took a 4 photo panaorama to cover.
Im sure, somewhere, Ive got a photo of a rainbow that was vertically above, and pointing Away from the sun. If so, it was the strangest arangement of clouds, haze and sundog Ive Everseen.
Oh, and Ive seen a rainbow tunnel, twice, the same day on consecutive weeks, from the same place in town.
The weather is really weird in The Valley
I've always though that knowing makes it more interesting than ignorance.
I would argue that knowing how makes it even better.
Before, it was just a pretty thing that happened. After, it's a pretty thing that happens because you are literally messing with stuff that you can't technically see or touch to produce such a mundane pretty thing.
I suppose "Gravity's Rainboom" would've been even more obscure...
But yes, knowing how the magic works shouldn't disenchant you. That every beam of light contains a rainbow waiting to happen is, in my opinion, even more amazing. You're learning the rules behind existence. You're peeking behind God's DM screen and reading the splatbooks of reality. (After all, not only does God play dice with the universe, not all of those dice are cubes.)
It's sort of like TVtropes in a way. I love the way how, as it gives terms and definitions to the various tropes, it gives me a new perspective on works. It does not ruin them, despite what the site claims, and I enjoy the perspective.
1736973
Gods dice are 8 dimentional, and so most of the time dont even roll round a knowable axis.