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.
Isn't this subjective with the term "best read". I can tell you right now that I'm not even moderatly interested in the majority of those books. I could name a few fantasy books I'd say would say most certainly beats many of those on that list but because of my own tastes.
A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking I actually found to be a great read if they need suggestions on science literature. Again, who considers science a "good read"? Not most people I would say.
"EW's list seems to represent a major shortcoming in the field: it still isn't diffusing into popular culture."
A professor once gave me a book called The Existential Pleasures of Engineering (http://www.amazon.com/Existential-Pleasures-Engineering-Thomas-Dunne/dp/0312141041/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1214425954&sr=8-1), which began with a discussion of engineers as romantic, heroic figures to the people of the late 19th century. This is still true to some extent in some places like France. Right now in the US we're in an anti-intellectual upswing, but that doesn't mean we won't have another golden age of cultural interest in science.
"I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
Dawkins only started getting militant in recent years, after years and years of attacks on evolutionary theory by people who didn't know what the fsck they were talking about.
It may be a largely xtain nation, but it isn't as xtian as the fundamentalists want you to believe. Dawkins has ended up on the NY Times best sellers list a couple of times exactly because of his attacks on fundamentalist xtianity, the exact brand of xtianity that is threatening the US because of the seditious nature of its teachings, and the indoctrination of its followers to blind acceptance. these are people who support Israel's existance so that it can be nuked off the face of the planet! These people are insanely dangerous.
More and more people are accepting that religion should not be taken literally, and while many are still afraid to accept an atheist worldview, the number of atheists is growing.
Salut,
Jacques
Just possibly, making the argument to most of the population that their beliefs are nothing but twaddle probably doesn't do wonders for book sales.
I dunno, The God Delusion by Dawkins make precisely that argument and it was in NYT bestsellers for 51 weeks, reaching #4, as well as #2 on Amazon. There are more atheists out there than you think, especially among the more educated and intelligent, and therefore among those who tend to read more.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
Excuse me? Penrose's "The emperor's new mind" was published in 1989 and is one wonderful book on AI - so great that I've read it a few times (I was 14-15 the first time I read it, it took pretty long to come to my country). Maybe EW should concentrate on the mindless entertainment?
And what about good old Stevie H.? Brief History of time anyone? Great book, widely read... and a damn good read at that...
The God Particle by Leon Ledderman is one of my favourite Physics books. It offers an incredibly accessible introduction to particle physics for the non science oriented while at the same time provides a fascinating look (for the science oriented) into the history of particle physics by someone involved in several of the key discoveries of the last 50 years.
The Cuckoo's Egg by Clifford Stoll, The Soul of a New Machine by Tracy Kidder, and Basin and Range by John McPhee. All three were popular enough to make it onto the NYT best seller lists and were widely discussed as pop lit.
My four year old is bored silly by most of the stuff on The Science Channel. But he loves Mythbusters and Master Blasters, as do I. I had Mr. Wizard growing up, he has Mythbusters, and anyone who thinks that Mr. Wizard's audience was just kids needs to check themselves.
There is a time for everything under the sun, and sometimes you want to watch someone explain the mysteries of the billy-uns and billy-uns of stars out there, and sometimes you want to see someone blow s*** up (for a purpose).
As for books, Jerry Pournelle's "A Step Farther Out" left a profound impression on me when I was but a lad, and continues to do so to this. Enough of this gloom and doom s***: It's raining soup out there, let's grab some buckets and go get it!
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
I run a section at a large-ish bookshop, my bit is the physical sciences. And astrology when my colleagues get confused ;)
;)
Feynman is, pound for pound ($for$) the biggest seller in the whole section. That includes urban studies. And, to be serious, Fossey, Hawking, Lovelock and Sagan. My bit doesn't include the popular science stuff (the line we draw is equations - more than two and it's my section, less and it's the equally popular Popular Science section)
The public will be drawn in by popular science books, hell, I love reading them myself, and there will always (I hope and ironically pray) be guys at the top of the field who can write non-popular but entertaining books for those who either have a bit of background in "science" in general, or want a bit more depth to their pop-sci introduction. Science writing is alive and well. It's never going to compete with "everything else", the fiction section at work takes up a third of the shop, and rightly so. We're talking a niche product, but as a niche the quality and passion behind it is very very high. And I'm referring to both the writers and the customers.
And the booksellers....obviously
Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
QED came out in 1985, making it only 23 years old. It'd definitely go on my favorite science book list. It explained virtual photons and summing of probability amplitudes quite well, I though, without calling in the heavy math.
I'm also a fan of The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene.
--sabre86
My daughter (7 years old) got sucked into Mythbusters last year (picking up basic scientific method). Recently (last 2 months), she's started watching other shows on Discovery channel. She even woke me up early because she found one called Universe. Was really excited, seeing how Earth could have formed. So yeah, blowing shit up is very cool, she is picking up some ideas on critical thinking and also getting interested in mechanical engineering. Poor thing, tried to make a robot out of card board and tape. Got upset when it kept falling apart. Looks like a Mechano set is on the list for birthday.
I drank what? -- Socrates
Chaos: Making a new science, by James Gleick is an excellent book. It covers the history of fractals/chaos and reads a bit like a novel. The mini biographies of many cutting edge scientists that are discussed along the way are very interesting too. I highly recommend it. http://www.amazon.com/Chaos-Making-Science-James-Gleick/dp/0140092501
I think you need both. Science needs to be entertaining to keep people's interest. What I can't stand is when the science is sacrificed FOR the sake of entertainment.
For example look at how unscientifically the Myth Buster's do their experiments. Their show would be a brilliant platform to drum in what the scientific method means and how to go about actually disproving or verifying a hypothesis. Instead they just blow shit up, and generally piss on the scientific method then come up with a conclusion that isn't supported by what they just did. In fact usually you could drive a truck through the holes in their experimental method. However instead of seeing this, people wonder why I'm so down on them and even here on slashdot I'm modded down if I bring this up. I'm not talking about wanting them to run boring studies either. They could do exactly what they do now but think of better ways of testing and come up with an estimate of how well they've proven or disproven what they set out to prove instead of just coming up with conclusions like the myth is busted based on a flawed experiment. The best they do is come up with "plausible" if they're not sure...
Then you have people like Sir David Attenborough. His documentaries and work are first rate. Unlike certain animal behaviour celebrities he actually studies and documents what the animals do and goes to some trouble to ensure that the filming process doesn't disturb them instead of walking up to them and handling them roughly then screaming "wwwoooooooo". However his presentation is let down by a voice that is a cure for insomnia, and a lot of pregnant pauses in the discussion while we just watch the animal. In other words he's not entertaining enough. He's boring, and as a result he's not as popular as the animal molesting morons that most kids think of when they think of animal docos.
You've got to have the right balance and almost no one does. It has to be exciting and entertaining and scientifically sound. I can count the number of shows that I'd personally call all 3 on one hand, and even then they're not interesting enough that my wife or extended will want to watch them.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
James Burke - Connections, The Day the Universe Changed, etc. Simon Singh - The Code Book Schneier - Beyond Fear
As long as you're recommending Sagan material, you shouldn't forget "The Varieties of Scientific Experience", a set of his lectures published posthumously, assembled by Ann Druyan (his wife, if anyone was wondering).
"To hope's end I rode and to heart's breaking: Now for wrath, now for ruin and a red nightfall!"
Gravity, George Gamow
Thirty Years That Shook Physics: The Story of Quantum Theory, George Gamow
Birth of a New Physics, I Bernard Cohen
The nice thing about these is that they don't pander or sensationalize the way much of what passes for current science writing does.
As far as more recent work goes, I found "Subtle is the Lord", an Einstein biography by Abraham Pais to be quite good.
The two Richard Rhodes bomb books are genius.
The first one tells the story of 20th century physics and the rise of the Nazis. The second one ends with the Cuban Missle Crisis. Both are white knuckle history with the physics moving from ceiling wax to Mike.
Physics is like sex: sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it.
Selfish Gene doesn't qualify (more than 25 years old), and God Delusion isn't a science book.