Top Ten Science Books...

[-Carlos-]

...according to the December 2006 issue of Discover magazine:

1 (2). The Voyage of the Beagle and The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin (tie)
3. Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy by Isaac Newton
4. Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems by Galileo Galilei
5. On the Revolutions of heavenly Spheres by Nicoclaus Copernicus
6. Physics by Aristotle
7. On the Fabric of the Human Body by Andreas Vesalius
8. Relativity: The Special and General Theory by Albert Einstein
9. The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins
10. One Two Three…Infinity by George Gamow

The are other books listed in the magazine so check it out.
What do you think of this list?
Have you read any of the top ten books?

 

[Heteronym]

Not a single one

The Selfish Gene, The Origins of the Species, and One, Two, Three... Infinity, however, are on my non-fiction list.

 

[Peronel]

I haven't read any, but I would love to read Darwin, and the others sound very interesting. I just worry with this type of book that the scientific language will weigh me down. I've read Bill Bryson's A Short History of Nearly Everythingnumerous times and loved it, but that was so easy to read. I may have to build up to these.

 

[Litany]

I found The Selfish Gene to be painfully dull. He just kept saying the same thing over and over again so I gave up. River Out Of Eden is far better written. I think part of the problem was at the time I was being lectured by people who could summarise what Dawkins was trying to say far more eloquently and they took less than an hour to say it.

You need some Steve Jones on your list. He's very entertaining. Y: The Descent of Man is a fun little read about how men are dooooooooomed. In The Blood is the one that his tv series was mostly about I think. He gave at talk at my uni and was a very funny man. He makes evolution very easy to understand for people without a scientific background without getting bogged down in the boring stuff.

Why is Sex Fun by Jared Diamond is good if you want to raise some eyebrows on the train.

The Private Life of the Brain by Susan Greenfield gives you some interesting theories on consciousness and how the mind works.

Tha's all I can think of at the moment. It's been ages since I read any pop science.

 

[Heteronym]

I haven't read any, but I would love to read Darwin, and the others sound very interesting. I just worry with this type of book that the scientific language will weigh me down. I've read Bill Bryson's A Short History of Nearly Everythingnumerous times and loved it, but that was so easy to read. I may have to build up to these.

It's hard reading science books written before the 20th century (it can also be a waste of time, because most are out of date with modern progress, or have been disproven) because the idea of popularising science didn't start until then with people like Bertrand Russell, who believed in the democratization of ideas. So Galilei and Newton weren't writing for laymen, they were writing (in Latin) for their peers.

Most science books today are written for laymen, otherwise they wouldn't sell, and publishers only publish to sell, they're not charity institutions. Real scholarly texts, written by experts for experts, don't enter the publishing circuit.

So I don't think you have to worry too much

 

[Flor]

The Descent of Man is a fun little read about how men are dooooooooomed.

Oh my goodness I just read this and it's the most interesting thought I've seen today. Doomed? I think it's partly about how sexual selection drives the evolution of man. There's no doom there and even leads me to plug The Mating Mind by Geoffrey Miller, a fascinating look at how the higher levels of what we love, music, art, literature, etc. are sexual ornaments that keep the species moving forward.

 

[Heteronym]

Sexual ornaments? Interesting.

I always thought art was Man's way of convincing himself of his importance. "Well, we committed the Holocaust, but we've written Don Quixote too, so it evens out," kind of mentality

 

[Flor]

Heteronym,

Definitely ornaments in the sense of fitness indicators. I'm fascinated as well by your idea that man initiated art as recompense for violence. Don't think so. Not to belabor the point or appear flippant, but it's all about survival and sex. Since survival depends upon obtaining resources, the appearance of higher level thinking might seem to be an extravagance, as it's not entirely necessary (at the moment) to be a high level thinker in order to survive. What Miller explains so wonderfully is how that higher level thinking has always been the plumage, so to speak, of our species and that those who display those ornaments are better able to find a mating partner. And, here's the important part I think Miller might suggest, that higher level thinkers continue to drive evolution forward.

Curious as well about your comment that true scholarly texts don't enter the publishing circuit. Yikes, what causes you to think that?

 

[Heteronym]

I see I should read The Mating Mind.

For our conversation, I would define higher level thinking as any type of thinking that non-human species can't process. So even a rather dumb person has higher level thinking abilities. This level of thinking, unique in the animal kingdom, surely has always been essential to Man's survival, even now. It's also the faculty that allows one human being to be funny and charming, to read body language and interpret someone else's words, useful abilities in the game of seduction, but essential for many more things. So even though I agree with Mr. Miller, I'd say this faculty is far more than the equivalent to the peacock's tail

I also fail to see how higher level thinkers drive evolution forward. I'm not sure, but I don't think organisms being part of the evolutionary process really have much to say on their own evolution, which I understand as the environment operating change on a species. Geniuses certainly drive our culture forward, culture being something that happens thanks to fully-formed organisms, but geniuses being scarce, and heredity not being a sure thing, 'geniusness' couldn't really move from one generation to another in such a scale as to influence the entire species. I think so, anyway.

Moving on, I think a true scholarly text would be full of technical jargon that would be incomprehensible to the majority of the readers. The books Carl Sagan wrote for the masses are surely nothing like the scientific reports he wrote for NASA, full of complicated equations that use more letters than numbers. I just can't imagine these people appreciating jokes about 'Calvin & Hobbes' too. Or maybe they do

 

[Flor]

So even though I agree with Mr. Miller, I'd say this faculty is far more than the equivalent to the peacock's tail

Should have been more specific about what I meant by higher level thinking. Miller especially refers to art, music, literature, as the human equivalent to the peacock's tail. Not all humans have those fitness indicators, sadly. The ones, especially males, who display these qualities will be more acceptable to the female.

I also fail to see how higher level thinkers drive evolution forward.

Well, Miller's expansion on Darwin takes the mention of sexual selection from The Descent of Manand runs with it. Miller would suggest that the female chooses attributes of fitness that, over thousands of generations, become integral to our species. What is acceptably fit, new and creative (in a male) for one female, gradually becomes deeply patterned and no longer requires choice in her thousands of generations down the line descendant. The descendant would just expect such fitness indicators from males and eliminate the ones who don't display. Miller posits that males also choose that which is survivally advantageous for them as well, thus women's shapes, etc evolved to better please the male. It's an interesting, well written book but it's been 2 years since I read it. Good science, though. And readable, unlike those NASA papers.