Now on ScienceBlogs: Get Thee Over By Me, Satan

Enter to Win

Laelaps

The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it. - Terry Pratchett

Profile

melittle.jpg Laelaps is the blog of Brian Switek, a freelance science writer based in New Jersey. This blog frequently features his musings on paleontology, evolution, and the history of science. Switek also blogs for Smithsonian magazine's Dinosaur Tracking.

Switek's first book, Written in Stone, will be published on November 1, 2010 by Bellevue Literary Press.

Facebook
Twitter

Search

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Archives

Blogroll

Paleo

Zoology

Ecology

History of Science

Geology

Miscellany

Fellow Sciblings

« Squid... in... SPACE! | Main | Yet another lie, courtesy of Rutgers »

Popular Science Fail

Category: Books
Posted on: August 27, 2008 8:12 AM, by Brian Switek

The last time the 100 book meme came around I decided to step out of the vein and create a list of 100 books that I liked or have had a significant influence on me. Most of the them were non-fiction books about science, and I was glad to see the Jennifer has created a list of 75 popular science books to share.

As with the last survey, though, I've read almost nothing on this new list. I've read On the Origin of Species, The Demon-Haunted World, and Wonderful Life, but that's it.

As with the last meme, I'm considering going through my library and making a list of my favorite 75 popular science books. I know that I've read more than that, but there are quite a few that I didn't particularly care for, so I might have to shorten the list a bit.

[Hat-tip to John Lynch]

Share this: Stumbleupon Reddit Email + More

TrackBacks

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/79779

Comments

1

I've read a few more than that, but — sssh! — not many. And some of the best books on my personal list I wouldn't count as "popularizations", The Feynman Lectures on Physics for example.

I know that I've read more than that, but there are quite a few that I didn't particularly care for, so I might have to shorten the list a bit.

Listing the worst is always more fun, too.

Posted by: Blake Stacey | August 27, 2008 8:48 AM

2

By my count I've read 13 out of the 75. I also fail, apparently.

Posted by: Justin Wagner | August 27, 2008 10:48 AM

3

I wonder: are people who have been formally trained in some scientific field more likely to "fail" this kind of thing? There exist only so many hours in the day, and if we have to spend them reading textbooks and journal articles, well. . . .

Posted by: Blake Stacey | August 27, 2008 11:09 AM

4

Blake; I think you might be on to something. I would definitely read more popular science books outside the realm of my immediate area of interest if I had more time. Between work, class, and working on the book, though, I just don't have the time.

In general I imagine that we science folk are more likely to stick to a particular area than to read all the good pop science books that are put out. Jennifer is probably more widely read than most, and I know if I do my own list it's going to be much more narrow in focus.

As for the worst pop-science books, I made such a list in December of last year. Maybe it's time to make a new one...

Posted by: Laelaps | August 27, 2008 12:04 PM

5

Tom Swanson makes a similar point: it's not just the time we have to spend, but the activities we feel to be relevant ways to spend it.

I don't read tremendous amount of pop-sci, and not much in physics since A Brief History of Time, as I've gone to grad school since then and really don't need much prose on how weird quantum mechanics and relativity are. (I had to put my foot down on getting pop-sci books as gifts after getting a pop-up book of cosmology; I felt a bit like John Cleese in a Monty Python sketch.)

Do you like your rattle? Do you like your rattle?
Ah, yes, the rattle.
Ooh, he's talkin' already
Of course I can talk, I'm the Minister for Overseas Development.

It's probably something which we should keep in mind — a book which a professional X-ologist might find an interesting and invigorating complement to the standard presentation of X might not be a good introduction to X for an untrained reader (or a specialist in field Y).

Posted by: Blake Stacey | August 28, 2008 1:25 PM

Post a Comment

(Email is required for authentication purposes only. On some blogs, comments are moderated for spam, so your comment may not appear immediately.)





ScienceBlogs

Search ScienceBlogs:

Go to:

Advertisement
Collective Imagination
Enter to win the daily giveaway
Advertisement
Collective Imagination

© 2006-2009 ScienceBlogs LLC. ScienceBlogs is a registered trademark of ScienceBlogs LLC. All rights reserved.