The Science of Illusions [Paperback]

Jacques Ninio (Author), Franklin Philip (Translator)

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly

What is illusion? In his thoroughly fun book The Science of Illusions (trans. from the French by Franklin Philip), Jacques Ninio (Molecular Approaches to Evolution), senior research scientist at Paris's Centre National des Recherches Scientifiques, teases his readers with the following possibilities: "The illusion of always being right"; "The sound of the ocean in seashells"; "The brilliant spray of fireworks, after the explosion, goes out in all directions. But all the bursts seem to stream back toward us." This animated work about our fascination with illusions from the age of Euclid to today is filled with witty and accessible explanations accompanied by more than 100 mind-boggling visuals that will keep readers turning the book upside down and sideways again and again.

Copyright 2001 Cahners Business Information, Inc.

Product Details

• Paperback: 211 pages
• Publisher: Cornell University Press (June 2001)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0801437709
• ISBN-13: 978-0801437700
• Product Dimensions: 7.9 x 7.1 x 0.6 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.2 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 4.0 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (7 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,050,451 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

17 of 17 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars Disappointing, August 25, 2001

By A Customer

This review is from: The Science of Illusions (Paperback)

I was excited when I first opened this book! The author had selected illusions from recent work in vision science, and ones that are not generally familar. Of course, the classic illusions were also represented. In fact, I saw several illusions that I was not familiar with, and in my case, this was pretty good. However, there were many categories of illusions that were not discussed or represented at all, i.e, impossible figures, which are very interesting, because of what they reveal to us about how we translate two-dimensional representations into three-dimensional mental percepts. To be sure, this was not a picture book or collection of illusions, but an introduction to the "science of illusions." Unfortunately, when I started reading the text, I was greatly disappointed, because the author appears to have little understanding of why illusions work within the normal constraints of vision. Many of his textual explanations are outright wrong and extremely dated. In fact, I was rather shocked at how ignorant he was of modern research and findings, considering that he reprinted several new illusions. He claims in the inside back cover that he has located many illusions that challange the current theories of visual perception. Unfortunately, without much understanding of current theories, his illusions are not offering much of a challenge. All in all, I would recommend purchasing this book, but like the pictures, don't believe everything you read either.

8 of 8 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars You Can't Believe Your Eyes, October 2, 2001

By 

R. Hardy "Rob Hardy" (Columbus, Mississippi USA) - See all my reviews
(TOP 100 REVIEWER)    (HALL OF FAME REVIEWER)    (REAL NAME)   

This review is from: The Science of Illusions (Paperback)

Optical illusions are profound; they indicate that at the most basic level, seeing can lead to believing in things that are not true. Even more deeply and disturbingly, they show that we don't respond to or make judgements on an objective reality "out there," but only upon how our particular neurons process information. From France, _The Science of Illusions_ (Cornell University Press) by Jacques Ninio (translated by Franklin Philip) collects lots of visual illusions, describes auditory and tactile ones, and attempts to make sense of what it all means. There is not deep science in this book, and that is of necessity. You may remember the optical illusion of two parallel lines that are actually the same length, but because of something added to them, one looks definitely longer and one is definitely shorter. There are different reasons that have been proposed for this illusion, most of them complicated, some of them no longer tenable, several far-fetched but as yet unrefuted. It is probably better for us laymen to wonder at the puzzling pictures and let the neuroscientists sort out all the circuitry, and when they get it all down, they can get back to us.

Ninio has indeed covered many sorts of illusions, including magic, but also such things we now take for granted as movies. It used to be that people shown a movie of a train coming at them would scurry out of its way, but we have seen enough movies by now to know that illusion for what it is. Ninio has concentrated on visual illusions because, of course, they can best be shown in a book. But also, as he points out, visual input is supreme, trusted more than other senses. People shown a film of someone saying "ga-ga" while the soundtrack says "ba-ba" will wind up hearing a hybrid "da-da" with their eyes open and "ba-ba" with their eyes closed. Everyone has had the experience of sitting in the old-style movie theater with one speaker behind the screen, and finding that the sound seemed to come from the location on the screen of whatever person or thing was shown making it. A ventriloquist, of course, easily makes visual cues of origin overcome auditory ones. The optical illusions here represent some of the old classics, as well as new ones, because new ones are being invented all the time. One of them was so strong that I believed there was a misprint when an explanation claimed that two parallelograms were the same size, so that I had to measure them, and even after that, I had to copy the page and cut the parallelograms out and compare them that way; they still do not look nearly equal. Other illusions here present obvious but invisible white shapes, or scintillating black spots that are not there, or even circuits that seem to have matter flowing around and around their printed images. This book is a wonderful funhouse.

9 of 10 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars The Illusion of Always Being Right, November 12, 2002

By 

Dorion Sagan (East Coast, USA and Toronto) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: The Science of Illusions (Paperback)

Jacques Ninio, who has written on everything from molecular evolution to the debilitating prejudices of scientific research journals, begins his latest work with the sentence: "The illusion of always being right." Of course his book,; but because to be right, in French-avoir raison-means, idiomatically and literally, "to have reason," something gets lost, right from the start, in the translation. (The Science of Illusions, was translated from the 1998 French edition). What gets lost is the double entendre, in French tangled up, of being right as having reason.
Now this may be a small point, and it is, but it illustrates the enormity of Ninio's task, coming to grips with the endlessly fascinating and ever elusive world of illusions. Vladimir Nabokov in his lectures on literature says that the most intriguing things in art as in life always involve an element of deception. Einstein, in many well-known quotes, emphasizes the call of wonder, of the emotion of surprise as a motor promoting the curiosity necessary for the scientific enterprise. Long interested in geometrical deceptions, Ninio's emphasis is on optical illusions-and explanations of them, sometimes complementary, sometimes contradictory. Why does the moon sometimes look so large near the horizon? Believe it or not, thick academic books have been devoted to probing the mystery of this illusion alone-and here, offering more than one solution, suggests that the normal view in human evolution, horizontally across the horizon, is filled with visual referents for comparison, while the vertical view up into space is not. Seen (as it usually is not) against the little objects of the landscape, the distant moon is put into a foreign frame, and looks huge. Ninio explores similar visual tricks such as why isolated lines joined in crosses look shorter than their unattached cousins, why stairways look steeper from far away, and that 19th century parlor curiosity, why top hats look longer than they are wide?

Ninio's discussion is focused mostly on optical illusions, with brief excursions into the auditory and tactile realms and a brave if short chapter on stage magic in which he shares his experience of catching a magician on television by slowing down a videotape, and thus exposing the loading of a bird done by quickness. But the popular cliché that "the hand is quicker than the eye" is also (professional magicians know) a form of distraction on the plane of explanation: only a very small minority of tricks are accomplished by quickness, the vast majority being the result of the distraction which magicians call "misdirection." And there are other illusion-steeped topics Ninio doesn't discuss: linear time (which Einstein called a persistent illusion), evolutionary epistemology (e.g., might not the truth ultimately be inimical to survival?), death, consciousness, the metaphoricity of "literal" language (e.g., "concrete"), free will (is it real?), and so on. In Hindu mythology the world is a game, lila, veil, or maya, of phenomena.

Ninio's narrowness allows him to go into detail about specific common misperceptions of geometrical figures, natural and urban landscapes and so on. But what might have happened if the narrator was not so trustworthy but unreliable, as in a novel, or if Ninio had attacked as illusions the egos of his readers with the same scientific thoroughness and creativity he musters in his analyses of optical illusions? I confess to being somewhat disappointed that multiple (and not always exquisitely translated) interpretations are given of minor (and sometimes, at least for me, not even visible) optical illusions when other possible illusions, grander and more foundational, such as those explored by neurology, were not even discussed. In an email from Ninio he blames this on trouble that occurred in transferring the artwork during translation. (Robert Frost defined poetry as that which gets lost in translation!)

And yet this elucidates the nature of illusion itself. Perhaps we can get glimpses of the whole but the fact remains that each and all of us-even all of us together as a parallel processing technologically connected scientific society-is only a part of the system we observe. The well-known mysteries of quantum physics hinge in part at least upon the necessity of reintroducing the observer who, for convenience's sake, had long before been removed (at least theoretically) from the system. Newer illusions, such as the mistaken apprehension of purpose, design, or life in thermodynamic systems, can also be understood as the result of the hidden operation of what has been observationally excluded. (So, too, the Monty Hall Paradox, if you know it, can be understood as an illusion of misplaced probabilities due to not accounting for information provided by the moderator assumed to be "outside" the frame of operation.)

"The illusion of always having reason"-Ninio's opening fragment, interpreted literally if not figuratively, intimates our perfectly human inability to keep illusion caged to the stage of entertainment or science. If we do not have reason, we lose the very means to detect sensory illusions. The senses, if they do not always tell the truth, require thought-itself a kind of supersense-to make sense. For it is our reason, our ratiocination or rationality-neurologically identified with the more recently evolved prefrontal cortex-that is responsible for sorting out conflicting perceptual cues. There is one world but many perceptions of it, reflecting the manifold beings which inhabit it. And yet evolutionary expediency allows us, no forces us (unless we are mad or drugged) to conceive of this world as whole despite being formed from data fragments. For example, you only have eyes in front of our head yet your conception of the space around you is not marked by a huge gap corresponding to the back of your head. Incomplete beings, we are "Procrustean" in our perception: we cannot help but fill in the blanks. Such endemic Procrusteanism may be instinctive, as in much perception or, as with Ninio here, consciously scientific in its explication of how perception works.