Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Entertainment Weekly Bemoans Lack of Great Science Books

Posted by timothy on from the that's-entertainment-weekly dept.

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.

10 of 257 comments (clear)

  1. In related news by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 5, Funny

    In related news, Cosmo whines about the lack of great intellectual thinkers.

    --
    My blog
    1. Re:In related news by The+Angry+Mick · · Score: 3, Funny

      TMZ bemoans the loss of basic human decency.

      Paris Hilton sheds tears over a decline in moral values.

      Justice Department employees stage uproar over personal privacy invasions.

      --

      I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.

    2. Re:In related news by gyrogeerloose · · Score: 3, Funny

      Not quite fair to Entertainment Weekly. Despite being a magazine that specializes in pop culture, it's nothing like Cosmo or People. In fact, it's actually quite literate and assumes it's readers actually have a brain.

      --
      This ain't rocket surgery.
  2. Ah, Feynman by Minwee · · Score: 4, Funny

    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!

    1. Re:Ah, Feynman by SputnikPanic · · Score: 4, Funny

      Feynman was a character, wasn't he? "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman" doesn't really fall into the category of a science book per se, but it was a great read. Safecracking at Los Alamos as a practical joke? Priceless.

  3. Re:Science Superheroes by Wandering+Wombat · · Score: 3, Funny

    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.
  4. Re:I don't know about books... by eli+pabst · · Score: 3, Funny

    But Carl Sagan documentaires were *a must* when I was a kid.
    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".
  5. Re:Good books? by sm62704 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Who needs books? Most scientists read wikipedia.

    REAL scientists know wikipedia is unreliable. That's why they use the Uncyclopedia.

    Scientific Way of Doing Things
    Developed at the precise moment everyone thought science was just a passing fad, the Scientific Way of Doing Things formalized the approach scientists would take to remove knowledge from human minds, allowing the field to flourish and fully separate itself from its mystic beginnings. In the words of metascience expert John "Don't quote me on this" Smith, "The Scientific Way of Doing Things is based on the ancient divination ritual of Guess and Check. Thanks to the innovations of the past century, we've been able to remove the 'Check' phase."

    The Scientific Way of Doing Things is strictly adhered to by all respectable scientists and involves 6 steps:

    1. Find a piece of information you dislike. In our example, we will use the statement "1+1=2"
    2. Form a statement which will take its place ("1+1=Dolemite")
    3. Email this statement to everyone you know. Include the subject line "FWD: Something u didn't know!!! I no i didn't!"
    4. Publish an article on your Myspace.
    5. Brush your teeth. A fresh smile adds a layer of believability.
    6. ?????
    7. Profit.
    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
  6. Re:A Brief History of Time? by vrmlguy · · Score: 3, Funny

    How may of your parents or children took A New Kind of Science to the beach this summer? I did. The back door of the beach house won't stay open, and I needed a doorstop.
    --
    Nothing for 6-digit uids?
  7. Re:I don't know about books... by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 5, Funny
    Hofstadter's Goedel, Escher, Bach was a great favorite. Don't know how many people made it past the predicate calculus but though.

    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