Larry Moran has been highlighting the work of some great science writers — you really should start off your day with selections from two of my favorites, Richard Lewontin and Niles Eldredge. It's almost as good as coffee for perking up your brain.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Triggered by noticing who was very obviously missing from the most recent Dawkins' book that collects the best essays in modern science writing, Larry has been writing recently about other people who are excellent science writers. I have been a fan, for a long time, of the writings by Richard…
Wow - this one is old: December 29, 2004. It is in a need of serious updating, not to mention providing amazon links so I can earn pennies if you click and buy. But, it is still a good list nontheless:
I have picked my top ten books on politics and have posted a long list of books before, and now…
After all the chatter that's been going on throughout ScienceBlogs about Matt Nisbet and Chris Mooney's editorial, Framing Science, published in Science on Friday, I almost thought that there was nothing really left for me to say. Of course, regular readers of this blog know that there's rarely an…
As usual, I'm late to this particular party. Over at BayBlab, a blogger calling himself “Anonymous Coward” offers up some choice words for the all-powerful, all-consuming, resistance-is-futile ScienceBlogs combine:
If you examine the elephant in the room, ScienceBlogs, the trend is maintained:…
Well, I start my day reading New Scientist, & drinking a mug of coffee. I dread to think what the old brain would be like without that routine.
Lewontin is yet to live down his "Not in our Genes" era for me. He's not innocent of ideologically-driven science.
I used to assign parts of Biology as Ideology in my intro class. It worked really well for the frosh when we were going over intro-phil-sci stuff.
I would like to echo comment #2 in stronger terms. Lewontin's depiction of E.O. Wilson, sociobiology and evolutionary psychology is a caricature driven by his political commitments. The text cited by Professor Moran basically boils down to this: "Hey, remember, Gould and I both warned ya about spandrels!" That piece is deservedly amongst the most cited in the literature of evolutionary theory, but as far as I can see it is in itself not a refutation of adaptationist reasoning, merely a cautionary tale about speculation uncoupled from experimental test.
My vote for best science writer of the decade is for Carl Zimmer. I find his writing clearer and more memorable than Niles Eldredge's. It's a pleasure to be educated by Carl. Such smoothness and clarity is the result of painstaking work on the logic and readability of an entire work and every chapter, paragraph, sentence, and word. By comparison, most writers simply get something down on paper and poke at it a bit to make sure it's coherent. The very fact that the best writing is so easy to understand generally ensures that it's underrated.
I also enjoy Carl Zimmer's work. Andy Revkin's work is always excellent too - thoughtful and well-balanced (in the non-Fox News sense). Would that I could write as well as them.
Fixed that for ya.