What do you think?
Rate this book
The aesthetic dimension of science: 1980 Nobel Conference
Book by
145 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1982
3 people want to read
About the author
Deane W. Curtin
7 books2 followersDeane Curtin is professor emeritus of philosophy at Gustavus Adolphus College in Saint Peter, Minnesota.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
October 21, 2025
I've been curious about the importance of beauty in science and mathematics for a while, and I read this book because it was cited in It Must Be Beautiful: The Great Equations of Modern Science and it seemed promising (it was a Nobel Conference). It wasn't convincing at all.
The idea of using beauty as a guide for scientific and mathematical discoveries seemed to be a mistake, since those theories would be founded on something subjective (and something as subjective as beauty, which is famously in the eye of the beholder). But I was curious and I wanted to see if there was something different about mathematical beauty or scientific beauty, as opposed to normal (lesser?) beauty.
While reading this book, I kept looking for definitions or uses of the word "beauty" that were different from how it's used in everyday conversations about sunsets and paintings. But there wasn't anything different at all. In fact, reading this book made me think that mathematical and scientific beauty use the same definition as normal beauty does. One of the Conference's speakers, Freeman Dyson, even went so far as to say that when one great scientist, Ernest Rutherford, wasn't impressed by Einstein or general relativity that it was because "Rutherford did not understand general relativity and was therefore immune to its magic."
This book was worth reading for that one line alone. It reads (to me) as a confirmation that a sense of beauty has to be cultivated and/or taught. That it's not such an objective thing. Instead of calling it beauty and taking the sanctity that goes along with calling something beautiful, mathematical and scientific beauty could almost be called "mathematical coolness" or "scientific awesomeness". Beauty does seem to be in the eye of the beholder (if I understood this book correctly).
The idea of using beauty as a guide for scientific and mathematical discoveries seemed to be a mistake, since those theories would be founded on something subjective (and something as subjective as beauty, which is famously in the eye of the beholder). But I was curious and I wanted to see if there was something different about mathematical beauty or scientific beauty, as opposed to normal (lesser?) beauty.
While reading this book, I kept looking for definitions or uses of the word "beauty" that were different from how it's used in everyday conversations about sunsets and paintings. But there wasn't anything different at all. In fact, reading this book made me think that mathematical and scientific beauty use the same definition as normal beauty does. One of the Conference's speakers, Freeman Dyson, even went so far as to say that when one great scientist, Ernest Rutherford, wasn't impressed by Einstein or general relativity that it was because "Rutherford did not understand general relativity and was therefore immune to its magic."
This book was worth reading for that one line alone. It reads (to me) as a confirmation that a sense of beauty has to be cultivated and/or taught. That it's not such an objective thing. Instead of calling it beauty and taking the sanctity that goes along with calling something beautiful, mathematical and scientific beauty could almost be called "mathematical coolness" or "scientific awesomeness". Beauty does seem to be in the eye of the beholder (if I understood this book correctly).
Displaying 1 of 1 review