<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Science Books For SciFi Fans</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.popehat.com/2008/05/01/science-books-for-scifi-fans/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.popehat.com/2008/05/01/science-books-for-scifi-fans/</link>
	<description>A Group Complaint about Law, Liberty, and Leisure</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 22:39:39 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andrew</title>
		<link>http://www.popehat.com/2008/05/01/science-books-for-scifi-fans/comment-page-1/#comment-3112</link>
		<dc:creator>Andrew</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 May 2008 15:19:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.popehat.com/?p=870#comment-3112</guid>
		<description>I highly recommend Annals of the Former World by John McPhee, which is, in my very limited experience, absolutely the best book on geology for non-geologists.  My best friend is a geologist, and reading the book helped me understand why.

And if you&#039;re picking up Feynman, be sure to grab &quot;Surely You&#039;re Joking, Mr. Feynman!&quot; and &quot;What Do You Care What Other People Think?&quot;  They may not be as hard-science as the other books on this list, but they do a great job of capturing the sense of wonder and curiosity that the best scientists possess.  Also, they&#039;re hilarious.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I highly recommend Annals of the Former World by John McPhee, which is, in my very limited experience, absolutely the best book on geology for non-geologists.  My best friend is a geologist, and reading the book helped me understand why.</p>
<p>And if you're picking up Feynman, be sure to grab "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!" and "What Do You Care What Other People Think?"  They may not be as hard-science as the other books on this list, but they do a great job of capturing the sense of wonder and curiosity that the best scientists possess.  Also, they're hilarious.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: N</title>
		<link>http://www.popehat.com/2008/05/01/science-books-for-scifi-fans/comment-page-1/#comment-3108</link>
		<dc:creator>N</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 May 2008 13:45:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.popehat.com/?p=870#comment-3108</guid>
		<description>Feynman is truly not to be missed.  Cosmos is the best Sagan book for those looking to read &lt;b&gt;a&lt;/b&gt; Sagan book, but I put him on the must-read author list, if only because how he translates his enthusiasm, via printed word, into the reader.

Cosmology seems destined to be a moving target for the rest of our lifetimes.  Reading a cosmology book written in 1990 would seem to only serve those interested in the history of the science.  I&#039;m loathe to suggest books on this topic as they&#039;re likely superceded by something more recent.  As far as recent authors go, I&#039;d put Martin Rees (heh, I see his most recent forays into this realm was in 2000 and 2001) and Timothy Ferris (who is Sagan-esque in his writing) high on the list.

But don&#039;t skimp on the Feynman.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Feynman is truly not to be missed.  Cosmos is the best Sagan book for those looking to read <b>a</b> Sagan book, but I put him on the must-read author list, if only because how he translates his enthusiasm, via printed word, into the reader.</p>
<p>Cosmology seems destined to be a moving target for the rest of our lifetimes.  Reading a cosmology book written in 1990 would seem to only serve those interested in the history of the science.  I'm loathe to suggest books on this topic as they're likely superceded by something more recent.  As far as recent authors go, I'd put Martin Rees (heh, I see his most recent forays into this realm was in 2000 and 2001) and Timothy Ferris (who is Sagan-esque in his writing) high on the list.</p>
<p>But don't skimp on the Feynman.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Patrick</title>
		<link>http://www.popehat.com/2008/05/01/science-books-for-scifi-fans/comment-page-1/#comment-3107</link>
		<dc:creator>Patrick</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 May 2008 13:22:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.popehat.com/?p=870#comment-3107</guid>
		<description>I take issue with a couple on the list.  Simon Singh&#039;s work on cryptography is clearly surpassed by David Kahn&#039;s The Codebreakers, which is elegant, readable, comprehensive, and includes just enough math and computer science to inform the liberal arts major without frightening.  It&#039;s the book to read for someone who wants to understand where the science came from an where it&#039;s going.

Brian Greene&#039;s The Elegant Universe, like the theory which it explains, is a house of cards built on the back of a moving tortoise.  It&#039;s already outdated.  Greene, despite weasel words, presents string theory as fact though to date no observable data has confirmed a single prediction of string theory.  In fact, when the LHC comes online later this year string theory and m-theory may collapse entirely.  Or it may not.  Anyway, I wouldn&#039;t move Greene to the top of my reading list.

Dawkins&#039;s book has many of the same problems that plague Dawkins as an anti-theologist and social scientist.  He takes an interesting metaphor and tries to force-fit everything into it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I take issue with a couple on the list.  Simon Singh's work on cryptography is clearly surpassed by David Kahn's The Codebreakers, which is elegant, readable, comprehensive, and includes just enough math and computer science to inform the liberal arts major without frightening.  It's the book to read for someone who wants to understand where the science came from an where it's going.</p>
<p>Brian Greene's The Elegant Universe, like the theory which it explains, is a house of cards built on the back of a moving tortoise.  It's already outdated.  Greene, despite weasel words, presents string theory as fact though to date no observable data has confirmed a single prediction of string theory.  In fact, when the LHC comes online later this year string theory and m-theory may collapse entirely.  Or it may not.  Anyway, I wouldn't move Greene to the top of my reading list.</p>
<p>Dawkins's book has many of the same problems that plague Dawkins as an anti-theologist and social scientist.  He takes an interesting metaphor and tries to force-fit everything into it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Minified using disk: basic
Page Caching using disk: enhanced
Database Caching using disk: basic
Object Caching 318/319 objects using disk: basic

Served from: www.popehat.com @ 2012-02-12 15:06:16 -->
