Advanced search

Answers


What science book(s) would you recommend?

Is this kind of "general chat" question allowed? If it is then I'll start the ball rolling. I'm thinking of books of the Popular Science genre that seems to have sprung up in the last 20-plus years, rather than specialist or text-book type publications.

I recommend About Time by Paul Davies. An absolutely fascinating read and one of those rare books on the subject of time, relativity, physics and space that will hold your attention from cover to cover even if you're not a physicist or mathematician.

sssss
 (no votes)

submit an answer
  • Member status
  • none

Categories: Technology.

Tags: reading, books, popularscience.

 

Report abuse


7 answer(s)


Reply

Jon-Richfield says:

There are many available nowadays, on all sorts of subjects.

Absolutely anything by Peter Medawar, possibly the finest popular science writer of any time. Not a bad scientist either if his Nobel Prize is anything to go by)

Incidentally, I just a day or so ago recommended "Why the sky is blue" byG.Hoeppe. (It goes beyond the blue!)

Anything by Richard Dawkins, but especially the 2nd or 3rd ed of "The Selfish Gene" (don't judge it by the title!!!) "River Out of Eden", "Climbing Mount Improbable".

J.E.Gordon "Structures, Or why things don't fall down"

"Our Wandering Continents" Alex du Toit

"Cats' paws and Catapults"  Steven Vogel

"The Invisible Gorilla " C.Chabris & D Simons

"Soap Bubbles" C.V. Boys (recently appeared on Gutenberg too!)

"Science for the Citizen" Lancelot Hogben

I.M.Copi & C.Cohen "Introduction to Logic"

"Fragments of Science" J.Tyndall (also on Guteberg)

Peter S. Stevens "Patterns in Nature"

Anything by E.R. Tufte, eg "Envisioning Information" & "The Visual Display of Quantitative Information"

Anything by John Maynard Smith, including "Did Darwin Get it Right?" and "The Origin of Life"

Anything by E. O. Wilson, even if you read some items with reservations. Ditto Martin Gardner.

David Kahn, "The Code Breakers"

Harold Gatty "Nature is Your Guide"

David Attenborough's books, though they may look a bit coffee-tabley, are really very good material and very entertaining.

Steven Pinker's books have come in for a lot of flak, but I read as many of them as I can. They always have a lot of solid stuff to assimilate, and until the critics can do better, I reckon that he is the best writer among the experimental psychologists.

Some controversial old favourites are by Konrad Lorenz: "King Solomon's Ring", "Man Meets Dog" and "On Aggression".

Absolutely anything by R.V. Jones, such as "Reflections on Intelligence" and "Most Secret War".

"Metamagical Themas" and "Goedel, Escher, Bach" by Douglas Hofstadter and with Daniel Dennett: "The Mind's I" (A reall mind and eye stretcher that one!)

Dennett also wrote "Darwin's Dangerous Idea", possibly the best introduction to evolution by a non-biologist.

Oliver Sacks produced a mixed bag, but I have not yet read any of his works that I did not profit by. Try "Seeing Voices", "Musicophilia" and "The Island of the Colour Blind"

Roger Penrose wrote some fine books. "The Road to Reality" is not so much to be read as to be worked through, but it is very rewarding.

On a similar scale, Donald Knuth wrote some terrific material on maths and programming.

Anything by Daniel J. Boorstin! ("The Discoverers", "The Creators", Lots more!")

Etc... This was a glance round my bookshelves, and omitted a lot of good stuff that I missed or that didn't seem to fit in.

And oh yes, what about Faraday?    

sssss
 (no votes)

Tags: reading, books, popularscience.

top

posted on 2010-08-13 14:50:12 | Report abuse


Reply

petethebloke says:

Thanks Jon. That's a good list to be going on with.

I'll second the nomination of Richard Dawkins - I think I've read most of his books but The Ancestor's Tale sticks in my mind. His God-bashing stuff irritates me a bit even if I agree with his atheism. Like you, I enjoy David Attenborough - underestimate him at your peril.

Just to keep the thread ticking along: The Origin of Humankind by Richard Leakey.

And one that my son (15 years old) just enjoyed: A Short History of Nearly Everything by Bill Bryson - probably falls slightly outside the genre in strict terms, but you can't fail to love Bryson's enthusiasm!

 

sssss
 (no votes)

Tags: reading, books, popularscience.

top

posted on 2010-08-13 16:17:29 | Report abuse

Reply

Jon-Richfield says:

If he's 15 and keen, then he should read some of Asimov's works, and also Arthur C. Clarke's. He could read some of their SF, but especially their straight science.  The sheer range of their topics is a very good bit of preparation for unconventional ideas, even if some of the material isn't completely sound in the light of advances since they wrote the essays.

An interesting item is the facsimile edition of the first edition of Encyclopaedia Britannica. It is not to be read as a unit, but should be skimmed. "Cat", "Dog", "Horse", "Medicine" etc. are revelations of how much more they knew in those days than you would have guessed, how much less, and more important than either, how much they were wrong about. It also is a good source of primary historical material. The article on medicine is enough to make your hair go grey without having to wait for old age. Conversely, why did it take so long for the West to lick scurvy? They had most of the material already worked out! However, the books also had useful material. One of my sons taught himself the old-fashioned form of shorthand, which though less powerful than Pitman's, was easier to learn. He used it partly for a private code, and partly for taking notes in his classes.

Just goes to show, doesn't it?

sssss
 (no votes)

Tags: reading, books, popularscience.

top

posted on 2010-08-13 20:01:56 | Report abuse


Reply

Jon-Richfield says:

So far I have been disappointed by the lack of response, so I published another "question" to draw attention to this one. 

Let's hope someone nibbles!

Meanwhile, some textbooks really are worth a read. In fact, a surprising number of them are both readable and usable nowadays. Copi & Cohen's book on Logic, that I mentioned before, is one example. I read it on the train when I used to commute.

Two that I found surprisingly interesting books on what I had assumed to be dull subjects were:

"The Fifth Kingdom"  by Bryce Kendrick

and

"Virology" by Heinz Fraenkel-Conrat, Paul C. Kimball, and Jay A. Levy

Looking that one up, I found a newer book that also looks very good, but I cannot afford it at the moment and have not read more than a few sample pages:

" Virology: Principles and Applications" John Carter & Venetia Saunders

Another book that could happily be read for pure interest, no matter how dull the title (don't ask me what title would have kicked it onto the best-seller list; I'm no book salesman!) is:

Anatomy and Physiology by Rod Seeley, Trent Stephens, and Philip Tate

My choice of textbooks might strike you as eclectic, not to say eccentric, but if you would not be seen dead with any of my examples, try browsing the remaindered and second-hand shelves of university bookshops. You never know what you might find.

A trick that just might be worth trying, is when you find a particularly rewarding book in a library, to put in a card as a bookmark, saying what you liked about it and including your email address in case some congenial person contacts you.

Back to non-textbooks, how about:

Richard Rhodes "The Making of the Atom Bomb"?

sssss
 (no votes)

Tags: reading, books, popularscience.

top

posted on 2010-08-16 12:33:11 | Report abuse


Reply

none says:

q

sssss
 (no votes)

Tags: q.

top

posted on 2010-08-18 22:04:21 | Report abuse


Reply

petethebloke says:

Jon, I am not surprised that you love books, but the depth of your erudition is matched only by the breadth. I feel quite humbled here.

>>The Man Who Mistook His Wife For A Hat: Oliver Sacks<< My daughter has just finished this and left it on my bedside table for me. It was part of the reading list for the university course she starts next month.

sssss
 (no votes)

Tags: reading, books, popularscience.

top

posted on 2010-08-19 09:11:48 | Report abuse

Reply

Jon-Richfield says:

Good grief Pete!!! You make me in turn feel like a pseud! All I did was to read more non-fiction than novels! (It takes a damned good novel to rival even a so-so non-fiction, say I.) And that is without touching professional literature.

Insofar as you read even fiction, if it is to be worth the reading, it should tie things together, make links between facts. SF is good that way, particularly ancient hard SF. It is not to be confused with science, but it can make you think about ideas, not only facts.

There also is a lot of marvellous browsing material on the Web. Think eg of http://plato.stanford.edu/contents.html or Wikipedia or Quackwatch.org . Browsing is invaluable and enjoyable for an active, vacant mind. (The others go off and play golf or chess. Somewhere I read (perhaps in "The Making of the Atom Bomb") about a major scientist who refused the gift of a book: "I never read; it interferes so with thinking!" I do not recommend his point of view, but it expresses some of my attitudes towards the likes of chess and go, at which I am mercifully so beyond-bad that it is curious even to me!

Oh, and don't forget journals. Nature and Science are good if you have access to them, and there is a rag called NS... I have read a LOT from that one! And another thing is talking to people and listening to those with backgrounds different from one's own. You don't have to believe them, just hear and try to  understand.

Of course, browsing books also has its place!

sssss
 (no votes)

Tags: reading, books, popularscience.

top

posted on 2010-08-19 13:45:46 | Report abuse


The last word is ...

the place where you ask questions about everyday science

Answer questions, vote for best answers, send your videos and audio questions, save favourite questions and answers, share with friends...

register now


ADVERTISMENT