popular science books

[bcbm]

i am looking for some recommendations on popular science books. i have read a bit about quantum stuff and astrophysics via michio kaku's work; about climatology and history through brian fagan and i dunno some other stuff in this vein. but i would like to read more good, pretty easy to understand (doesnt have to be super dumb though) science stuff. especially interested in biology or natural history and environmental stuff but open to suggestions. lay some titles on me with good descriptions please. :cool:

[Polaris]

Well the first thing that came to mind was basically anything by Leonard Susskind, which are mainly attempts to explain theoretical physics with very little math. I would especially recommend The Black Hole War. Brian Greene is also good.

I don't read much science that isn't physics, but I would recommend The World Without Us and Stiff: The Curious Lives of Human Cadavers, the latter being a short, easy read.

I might edit some more in later plus some descriptions, but I'll leave it at this.

[Comrade Dracula]

If you are interested in Chaos theory, there's always Chaos - Making a New Science by James Gleick. An easy, yet fascinating read from what I remember.

[Tim Redd]

i am looking for some recommendations on popular science books. i have read a bit about quantum stuff and astrophysics via michio kaku's work; about climatology and history through brian fagan and i dunno some other stuff in this vein. but i would like to read more good, pretty easy to understand (doesnt have to be super dumb though) science stuff. especially interested in biology or natural history and environmental stuff but open to suggestions. lay some titles on me with good descriptions please. :cool:I recommend works by Stephen Jay Gould and those by Richard Lewontin for progressive views of biology. Lewontin self describes as a Marxist.

[bcbm]

any in particular you liked?

[Sasha]

anything by frans the waal is good..
damn, my dad is a popsciencebook junkie and regularly lends me really good books and for the love of god i cant remember any one at the moment...

[Tim Redd]

any in particular you liked? None in particular. I suggest searching them on Wikipedia and checking out their bibliography from that.

I also recommend Isaac Asimov's Understanding Physics 1 and Understanding Physics 2 (there may be a combined version). They're accessible and progressive covers of the history of modern day physics. He all also has a other history of science and physics books. Not to forget that his sci fi is top notch.

[blake 3:17]

I recommend works by Stephen Jay Gould and those by Richard Lewontin for progressive views of biology. Lewontin self describes as a Marxist.

I'd have recommended Lewontin til not long ago. He's a fraud.


Defenders of the Truth: The Sociobiology Debate by Ullica Segerstrale, a sociologist of science, offers a very empirical and extremely well researched account of E.O. Wilson's Sociobiology and the response led by Gould and Lewontin. I lost all respect for Lewontin and a huge amount for Gould. They punked Wilson. They tried to recruit Chomsky and some a few other decent Left scientists to their Science for the People, and they backed out. They recognized it as bullshit.

Lewontin's a creep. I would recommend many of Gould's popular essays, but given his conduct in regards to Wilson, and lacking scientific expertise, I'd be skeptical about his broader scientific statements.

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/786131.Defenders_of_the_Truth

[Tim Redd]

I'd have recommended Lewontin til not long ago. He's a fraud.


Defenders of the Truth: The Sociobiology Debate by Ullica Segerstrale, a sociologist of science, offers a very empirical and extremely well researched account of E.O. Wilson's Sociobiology and the response led by Gould and Lewontin. I lost all respect for Lewontin and a huge amount for Gould. They punked Wilson. They tried to recruit Chomsky and some a few other decent Left scientists to their Science for the People, and they backed out. They recognized it as bullshit.

Lewontin's a creep. I would recommend many of Gould's popular essays, but given his conduct in regards to Wilson, and lacking scientific expertise, I'd be skeptical about his broader scientific statements.

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/786131.Defenders_of_the_Truth Mind giving us details on why you oppose about Gould and Lewontin. E.g. what was wrong with their critique of Wilson's sociobiology? And concrete details on other issues in which you oppose them. So far your argument against them sounds lake a conservative or right wing one.

[blake 3:17]

First: Could you tell me what Wilson's sociobiology is? What does Wilson say about people?

Second: My beefs with Lewontin and Gould: Where Lewontin and Gould acted most repulsively was that they worked in the same building as Wilson, spoke to him on a daily basis, had read his manuscript, and didn't say shit. One of them had an office next to his, the other was on the floor below.

His Sociobiology has one short chapter on human beings, and he's admitted that he would've been open to change or criticism. They waited til it was published, and then labelled him a racist at a public conference, which he isn't, but on the basis that his theory could be used to justify racist beliefs. Wilson didn't know what hit him. I believe Lewontin had arranged him being hired in the first place, so didn't expect it at all. Co-workers, you think are your friends, and they set you up as a Nazi?



In February 1978 at a symposium held by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, members of InCAR assaulted biologist Edward O. Wilson by rushing the stage chanting, "Racist Wilson you can't hide, we charge you with genocide!"[2] Members then poured a pitcher of ice water over Wilson's head.[2] The symposium's moderator Alexander Alland along with Stephen Jay Gould took the microphone and apologized to Wilson and condemned the attack as an inappropriate way to attack sociobiology. Wilson, still wet, gave his speech and received a prolonged standing ovation, but later recalled that after the attack "No one asked them to leave the premises, no police were called, and no action was taken against them later."[3]

Lewontin wanted to lead Science for the People, which was a dead end organization. All he could do was attack Wilson. They tried to recruit Chomsky and Salvador Luria, and they both refused. They may have had criticisms of Wilson, but not in those dirty ways, and not trying to substitute 'revolutionary science' against 'bourgeois science'. They did their academic work and they did their politics.

Luria was active in anti-nuclear, anti-Vietnam War, trade unions and solidarity with revolutionary movements in Latin America.

Lewontin was involved in making big bucks by attacking a colleague he'd set up, while doing pretty regular research. His 'Marxism' has solely consisted of attacking other academics, denying human nature, and publishing a few articles critical of big business.

I like a lot of Gould's writing. I really like his book on the Burgess Shale and have read most of his short essays over the past 15 odd years. His basic humanism is very endearing.