Science

[HBinjection]

I studied literature and composition in college and so feel a sharp lack of scientific knowledge, especially since most of my friends are scientists. I now read a lot of science books that are more or less written for the lay person. A few of my favorites are:

Concilience -E.O. Wilson

The Moral Animal -Wright

That's a good start for now. I just noticed that most of the science books I've read deal with biology, specifically evolutionary biology.

Has anyone else read these books or does anyone else enjoy this subject?

 

[daveb75]

Haven't read the two you mention, but I do read a fair number of science books. Steven Jay Gould is always good value, as is Richard Dawkins (despite their mutual antagonism!). A different branch of science, but Carl Sagan's books I find fascinating, and "The Demon-Haunted World" is extremely readable - it's a great shame he died so young.

Cheers,
David.

 

[Marie]

I have the same profile than HBinjection. The only books from scientists I have read are "The Demon Haunted-World" by Sagan and David Flikin's "Stephen Hawking's universe" (I couldn't get into Hawking's "A brief history of time"). My husband recommended me Simon Singh, who wrote "The code book" (about encryption methods) and "The Fermat's enigma" (a history of mathematics), both readable for the lay person, but since I'm generally more drawn to fiction I have only read parts of "The Code Book" so far...

 

[Prolixic]

I agree, Marie, A Brief History of Time gave me a headache too and it wasn't because of his one formula he decided to put in there. I have read a few Astronomy books, but without a calculator handy they were hard to get through. Mostly, I have to say, I just read fiction. I'll look something up in a science book or text book occasionally but it's a rare day that I sit and read one cover to cover because its fun.

 

[HBinjection]

Sounds like I should check out "Demon Haunted-World." I've been thinking about reading some of his stuff for some time. It sounds like it's about the origin of religion? I've just finished a so-so book on the topic called "Religion Explained." I would avoid it and read instead 'The Moral Animal: Why We Are the Way We Are.' For non-fans of science books, this might suit you. It's fairly soft science, which make for a lot of fun. Lots of conjecture on the evolution of our mind.


Did Dawkins write 'The Selfish Gene?' That was a very good book. I've read some Gould as well. It's been some time since
I've read those, but I seem to remember not being crazy about Gould. Maybe something with his politics.

Back to Dawkins. He coined the term 'mime' didn't he? That's an idea that fascinates me. Idea as virus.
Burroughs wrote a short essay on this that I read in college, but can't find anywhere. It's called 'The Electronic Revolution' Awesome stuff.

I've read 'Brief History' and another Hawking's book of lectures. He's an engaging writer, but physics doesn't cast the spell on me that biology does. I'd like to buy his newest book, the one with all the pictures. Everytime I go the the bookstore I take a peek at it.

 

[Marie]

Well, Sagan consider religion as one of the "demons", cults as well as old and established religions. Sagan was an atheist and believed that science should replace all other spiritual beliefs. He had rather extremist views. He deals with many issues in the book, he debunks pseudo-science (UFOs sightings, psychics, etc.) and also attacks religions and religious beliefs that holds humanity backward. So people with strong religious beliefs might want to avoid it... And Sagan's books are definitely for the lay people. "Contact", his only (science-fiction) novel is very good too...

 

[daveb75]

I don't think Sagan's views are extremist exactly, merely that he was rather forceful in expressing them. I declare an interest here in that I share his religious beliefs (if you see what I mean ), but that's rather beside the point. That book's flaws (which do, yes, include a slight strain of intolerance) are, I think, greatly outweighed by the excellent way in which he destroys so much pseudoscientific argument. I'd have bought it for the "Baloney Detection Kit" alone.

Cheers,
David.

 

[HBinjection]

In 'Religion Explained' religion was explained away by claiming that mental systems 'designed' for identifying 'agents' (things that conciously do things like predators, prey, other people) sometimes apply themselves to artifacts or other non-agents including situations. The author provides the analogy of seeing figures in the clouds.

Some of his science left me wanting, that's why I previously did not recommend this book. However, that seems to be the way with everything I have read concerning evolutionary psychology. The science is still in its infancy and borrows heavily from soft sciences. [E.O. Wilson has the answer to this!]

Perhaps since I am a Christian I was overly sensitive to his unapologetic presentation of soft science. Or else it is a sensitive topic for him and he let his politics and emotions get in the way. We're both human. Forgive us.


I am quite aware of the shaky logic my religion stands on. It's difficult for me to grasp the hocus-pocus aspects of Christianity. However, I find it equally unappealing to subscribe to the moral teachings of a religion without enjoying any mystical benefits.

For all the atheists and agnostic posters here, have you ever desired a powerful mystical experience? I sure have. I'm still looking. [I suppose the Chemists might have something to offer here ].

Religious folk of all backrounds are of course welcome to reply as well.