Scienticity - New pages [en]

Kakalios: The Amazing Story of Quantum Mechanics

BNEditor — Thu, 23 May 2013 23:57:57 GMT

BNEditor: Created page with '{{BNR-table|scienticity=4|readability=5|hermeneutics=4|charisma=5|recommendation=4}} James Kakalios, ''The Amazing Story of Quantum Mechanics : A Math-Free Exploration of the Sci…'

{{BNR-table|scienticity=4|readability=5|hermeneutics=4|charisma=5|recommendation=4}}
James Kakalios, ''The Amazing Story of Quantum Mechanics : A Math-Free Exploration of the Science that Made Our World.'' New York, N.Y. : Gotham Books, 2010. xv + 318 pages, illustrated; includes bibliographic references and index.

Kaklios has written a pretty good book for the non-scientist explaining the basics of quantum mechanics. It is, as promised, math-free, but at times does get a little deeper than one would imagine in such a book.

Especially enjoyable were the different ties to golden-age comics and pulp fiction that he used to both illustrate concepts and show how prescient some of those authors truly were. At times, it seemed that the scientists were trying to keep up with the science fictionists.

The book is definitely too basic for those already with a solid knowledge of the subject, but just the right amount of challenging for those without such knowledge.

{{Notesby|MSJ}}

{{Numbers | loc=QC174.13 .K35 2010 | dew=530.12 | isbn=978-1592404797}}

[[Category: Book Notes]]
[[Category: MSJ]]

Kean: The Violinist's Thumb

BNEditor — Thu, 23 May 2013 23:49:21 GMT

BNEditor: Created page with '{{BNR-table|scienticity=5|readability=5|hermeneutics=5|charisma=5|recommendation=5}} Sam Kean, ''The Violinist's Thumb : And Other Lost Tales of Love, War, and Genius, as Written…'

{{BNR-table|scienticity=5|readability=5|hermeneutics=5|charisma=5|recommendation=5}}
Sam Kean, ''The Violinist's Thumb : And Other Lost Tales of Love, War, and Genius, as Written by Our Genetic Code''. New York : Little, Brown and Co., 2012. 401 pages.

''The Violinist's Thumb'' is another great work by Kean, author of ''The Disappearing Spoon''. This one focuses on DNA and, like ''Spoon'', it is chock full of good science as well as fascinating stories to illustrate such. Highly recommended!

{{Notesby|MSJ}}

{{Numbers | loc=QH431 .K24 2012 | dew=572.8 | isbn=978-0316182317}}

[[Category: Book Notes]][[Category: Top-Rated Books]]
[[Category: MSJ]]

Heisenberg: Physics and Philosophy

BNEditor — Thu, 23 May 2013 23:34:27 GMT

BNEditor:

{{BNR-table|scienticity=5|readability=3|hermeneutics=5|charisma=4|recommendation=5}}
Werner Heisenberg, ''Physics & Philosophy : The Revolution in Modern Science''; introduction by David Lindley. New York : Harper Perennial Modern Classics, 2007 (originally published in German, 1958). xxi + 201 pages; illustrated.

This is a history of physics and the philosophy of natural science, while at the same time being a defense of the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum theory. It is grounded in the argument between classical physics and quantum physics that was then ongoing at the time of publication [in 1958].

Heisenberg gives equal time to the detractors of the Copenhagen Interpretation, even as he refutes each one. It is an interesting read today, as much of the old argument has been proven obsolete. A rather difficult read, it is still very much worth the time to complete.

{{Notesby|MSJ}}

{{Numbers | loc=QC6 .H335 2007 | dew=306.7 | isbn=978-0061209192}}

[[Category: Book Notes]][[Category: Top-Rated Books]]
[[Category: MSJ]]

Ryan: Sex at Dawn

BNEditor — Wed, 08 May 2013 00:43:30 GMT

BNEditor:

{{BNR-table|scienticity=3|readability=4|hermeneutics=4|charisma=4|recommendation=3}}
Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jethá, ''Sex at Dawn : The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality''. New York : Harper, 2010. xiii + 400 pages, with bibliographic references and index.

This is a book that gave me pause when I checked it out at the library. The book pushes two theses, one that I found persuasive, and one that I did not.

The authors are on strong ground where they take on the so-called standard narrative of evolutionary biology: that human males are profligate and human females selective in choosing breeding partners. According to the standard narrative, biological imperatives lead inevitably to concealed ovulation, continuous female receptivity, and ultimately a society based on long-term male-female pairs.

Looking to both other primates and at other human societies, Ryan and Jethá find plenty of evidence for other forms of societal organization that provide the same or better benefits to its members, but are not pair-based. As one example, they cite the Mosou people in China, whose society is matriarchal and matrilineal. Sons and daughters live together in extended families, raising children communally, the women taking temporary (and anonymous) lovers from other houses. Ryan and Jethá also talk about Bonobos a lot. Their purpose in gathering these examples together is to suggest that primitive human society may have been organized more along Bonobo frequent-group-sex lines than into stable pairs. Here they use sexual dimorphism, relative penis sizes, female vocalizations during sex and so on to support their case.

They make a persuasive argument for their first thesis, that anthropologists and sociologists are biased towards the standard narrative because it supports the status quo. It is with their second thesis that they fail to win me over. They argue that traditional marriage is ill-suited to modern society because it is "unnatural." As evidence, they cite the usual societal ills: high divorce rates, single-sex parents, lack of interest in one's long-term partner, and so on. They fail to win me over, and what's worse, the way they push their point of view diminishes their other argument. Are they presenting their evidence selectively? It makes me wonder.

They also pull their punches at the end. They remember the '70's and know that wife-swapping and group marriage were a failure then. So they have an idea (everybody should have multiple sex partners) but no good suggestions on how to implement it.

I wonder if I'm outgrowing pop-science books. A more rigorously-argued book might have been more convincing. But in that, I'm probably in a minority. The copy I read came from the Cambridge [MA] public library. It's only three years old, but it's already worn out and falling apart.

About my ratings choices:

Scienticity: 3. The authors have done extensive research and the book is well-footnoted. But as I said, I think their personal biases color their work.

Readability: 4. Easy to read, lots of interesting anecdotes and asides. For the general reader.

Hermeneutics: 4. Authors understood their subject well and made their arguments in a coherent fashion.

Charisma: 4. It's a book about sex. You have to work to make it uninteresting.

Recommendation: 3. A valuable critique of the "standard narrative" of evolutionary psychology, but colored by the authors' projection of their conclusions onto modern Western society.

{{Notesby|RWB}}

{{Numbers | loc=HQ12 .R93 2010 | dew=306.7 | isbn=978-0061707810}}

[[Category: Book Notes]][[Category: RWB]]