Slashdot Mirror
Entertainment Weekly Bemoans Lack of Great Science Books
Bryan writes "A recent headline at Entertainment Weekly suggests that the '100 Best Reads' of the last 25 years do not include a single science book (not even a popular science book). In response, cosmologist Sean Carroll at Cosmic Variance has given an interesting analysis of EW's disappointing list, and Soul Physics is calling for suggestions on the Greatest Physics Books of the Last 25 Years. For all the great literature that science has produced in the last 25 years, EW's list seems to represent a major shortcoming in the field: it still isn't diffusing into popular culture." I'm not sure what Entertainment Weekly's standing to complain would come from. That aside, have science books ever in modern times been a driving force greater than ones intended as (mere) entertainment, religious instruction, etc? I'd put anything by Richard Feynman on this list, though.
In related news, Cosmo whines about the lack of great intellectual thinkers.
My blog
What many people don't know is that in addition to being a great bongo player, Richard Feynman was also quite an accomplished physicist.
It's true!
Right... we just have to wait until all the current Americans are dead, and hopefully the new generation will have the capacity for forethought.
*crosses his fingers*
I like to place meaningful quotes in my sig, so people will know that I know what meaningful quotes are.
Agreed. Watching his specials and NOVA were a large part of what inspired me to become a scientist. I predict that the current generation is going to grow up watching things like Mythbusters and Brainiac and lead to an massive increase in the number of people entering fields science that involve "blowing shit up".
Who needs books? Most scientists read wikipedia.
REAL scientists know wikipedia is unreliable. That's why they use the Uncyclopedia.
Another place scientists go is Bob the Angry Flower. Here's another. And another. Oh look, here's one for you!mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
Science Weekly's list of "The 100 Best Reads" includes not one single piece of popular culture fluff. Nor does it only go back 25 years, which is about how long people with no other useful purpose have been making money by turning information about entertainment (as opposed to entertainment itself) into a money making venture.
When EW's history goes back far enough and has enough quality material listed that they can claim to have their equivalent to Principia Mathematia, then they'll have something significant to say about their own field. And they will probably still have no background from which to judge science literature.
I read an entertaining and educational science book once a week whether I need to or not. Anyone wanting some suggestions along these lines, go read Alan Boyle's "Cosmic Log" on MSNBC and look up the archives of his Used Book Of The Month Club. Those who already read such things should keep an eye out for his next request for suggestions, and submit one. If it gets used, you get a prize -- usually another good science book he'd recently reviewed or otherwise acquired.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
Nothing for 6-digit uids?
Whats BET?
Tough read past that point but you can make it if you mind your P's and Q's.
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
How could they leave this off the list of most entertaining books of the last 25 years. Not only does it teach a lot about gravity but you can use it experimentally as a central mass.
Squirrel!