Science by the book

Posted: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 7:13 PM by Alan Boyle

Featurepics.com

Books on scientific subjects offer the world ... and other planets as well.

Science books used to show dinosaurs exclusively in shades of scaly green and brown. Books about the solar system used to list just nine planets, and books about the subatomic world didn't go much farther than protons, neutrons and electrons.

As times have changed, so has the science - and so should science books. Just in time for holiday giving, here's a selection of books for kids (and grownups) that incorporate recent developments on the scientific frontiers.

Dinosaurs:
University of Maryland paleontologist Thomas Holtz's 432-page "Dinosaurs: The Most Complete, Up-to-Date Encyclopedia for Dinosaur Lovers of All Ages" was written two years ago, but it still stands up to the test of time. The encyclopedia touches on hundreds of species of dinosaurs (including the feathered kinds) and describes their world in detail. Holtz has even created a Web page to update the text and provide links to other online resources.

Holtz passed along other recommendations in an e-mail: "I would put Scott Sampson's 'Dinosaur Odyssey: Fossil Threads in the Web of Life' as the top recent adult book, and Darren Naish's 'The Great Dinosaur Discoveries' as the best new coffee-table book. For kids, after my own (of course) the new DK Publishing 'Prehistoric Life' is really comprehensive in all types of fossil organisms (and good for adults as well). I've heard good things about National Geographic's 'The Dinosaur Museum,' too. For a short book, Bakker & Rey's 'Dinosaurs!' is very nice and modern."

Astronomy:
The solar system is usually a crowd-pleaser among the kids, and our perspective on our own cosmic neighborhood has changed quite a bit in the past few years. "The New Solar System" by Patricia Daniels, which came out in August, reflects all those changes - including the shifting views on what it means to be a planet. That shift is also reflected in two children's books that take a wide stance on the planethood question: "11 Planets" by David Aguilar and "Ten Worlds" by Ken Croswell. What's a parent to do? I address that in my own newly published book about the solar system shift, "The Case for Pluto."

For readers ages 9 and up, one of the best places to go for books about Earth science and planetary science is the Sally Ride Science Store.

Looking beyond the planets, DK's "Universe," edited by British astronomer royal Martin Rees, takes you all the way to the edges of the cosmos. If your child is looking for something more Harry Potteresque, take a look at "George's Cosmic Treasure Hunt," the latest tale from famed physicist Stephen Hawking and his daughter Lucy. And for wee ones who wonder about black holes, Brian Greene's "Icarus at the Edge of Time" might be just the thing. (I chatted with Greene about the book last year.)

One of the latest coffee-table books with an astronomical theme is "Far Out: A Space-Time Chronicle" by Michael Benson - and the reviews glow as brightly as the galaxy on the book's cover: "breathtaking" ... "mind-blowing" ..." spectacular."

There's a wide selection of sky guides suitable for the stargazer on your gift list. "Stars and Planets," "The Rough Guide to the Universe" and "The Backyard Astronomer's Guide" were all updated just last year. True space geeks might also appreciate an oldie but goodie: "The Compact NASA Atlas of the Solar System," which co-author Ronald Greeley says is still the best true interplanetary atlas in print, eight years after it was published. (What else would you expect him to say?)

Space history:
CollectSpace's Robert Pearlman passes along these recommendations for up-to-date children's books having to do with the history of spaceflight: "Look to the Stars" by Apollo 11 moonwalker Buzz Aldrin and Wendell Minor, and "Mission Control, This Is Apollo" by Apollo 12 moonwalker Alan Bean and Andrew Chaikin. These and many more books were published this year to mark the 40th anniversary of the first Apollo moon landing. I listed more than a dozen of them to celebrate the occasion.

For still more selections, click on over to Out of the Cradle and check out Ken Murphy's book reviews as well as the Lunar Library.

Nanotechnology:
One of the problems with nanotechnology is that it's sometimes hard to describe exactly what it is, particularly for the kid crowd. Believe it or not, there's a book for that: Marlene Bourne's "MEMS and Nanotechnology for Kids," a 32-page picture book designed for students aged 11 and up.

For the older set, there's "No Small Matter: Science on the Nanoscale" by Felice C. Frankel and George M. Whitesides, a coffee-table book that cleverly wedges in-depth descriptions of the nanoworld in between bunches of beautiful pictures. If you're a fan of photomicrographs like the Olympus BioScapes pictures we published last week, you'll like this book - as well as Seymour Simon's "Out of Sight: Pictures of Hidden Worlds."

Physics and more:
The restart of the world's biggest particle smasher, the Large Hadron Collider, should spark interest in recently published books that delve into the big picture surrounding subatomic physics, such as "Why Does E=mc²?" by Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw, "Collider" by Paul Halpern and "The Quantum Frontier" by Don Lincoln. (I talked with Lincoln about his book earlier this year.) If you're up for delving into the nature of ultimate reality, you can explore "The Lightness of Being" by Frank Wilczek. (Here's a Q&A with the author.) And if you want a good subatomic scare, check out these totally fictional doomsdays.

I wish the LHC pop-up book, "Voyage to the Heart of Matter," were more easily available - as it is, you'll have to order it from the publisher in Britain (and wait for the pre-orders to be filled). Pop-up fans can content themselves with "The Story of Everything" by Neal Layton, which addresses subjects ranging from the big bang to human evolution.

Speaking of everything, I have a feeling nearly every science-minded young reader will get a kick out of "A Really Short History of Nearly Everything" by Bill Bryson. This newly published book is a kid-friendly adaptation of Bryson's classic work, "A Short History of Nearly Everything," which was a selection for the Cosmic Log Used Book Club five years ago. David M. Schwartz's alphabet books about science and math - "Q Is for Quark" and "G Is for Googol," respectively - are also easy on the eyes and the brain.

More about books:

Feel free to add your own recommended reading as a comment below. Join the Cosmic Log team by signing up as my Facebook friend or following b0yle on Twitter. And pick up a copy of my new book, "The Case for Pluto." If you're partial to the planetary underdogs, you'll be pleased to know that I've set up a Facebook fan page for "The Case for Pluto."

EMAIL THIS

Comments

Science books have come a long way! There is probably a style for anyone. Your list is very good but suspiciously absent are books on biology, nature and neuroscience. Wonder if your youngster would love biology? Try "Dark Banquet: The Curious Lives of Blood Feeding Creatures". That'll intrigue or gross out any adventurous child! Interested in the senses? How about "What the Nose Knows: The science of scent in everyday life"? Think you would like something that reads more like sweeping historical fiction? I recommend "The Age of Wonder: How the Romantic Generation Discovered the Beauty and Terror of Science"(my teen daughter loved it more than the Twilight series!). For crazy science, don't forget the amazingly fun and dangerous book "Mad Science" or a beautiful book by the same author about chemistry called "The Elements". Enjoy!

Joanne Manaster (Sent Tuesday, November 24, 2009 9:35 PM)

"Physicist Brian Greene usually writes about string theory and other stuff most adults can't understand,"

Well, calling string theory "stuff" is very polite. The "stuff" is untestable pseudoscience that has done nothing for science in its 40 years of existence but lead countless credulous grad students and science writers into a wasteland. The pied pipers of this phantasy physics will have some major explaining to do once their Glass Bead Game is recognized for what it really is.

Robert L. Oldershaw
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

Robert L. Oldershaw, Amherst, Mass. (Sent Tuesday, November 24, 2009 10:55 PM)

Speaking of pseudo or not, as always I recommend Collins & Pinch's "The Golem" to anyone with an interest in how science is done and how scientists do it. In an obituary a colleague if James McConnell (originator of The Worm Runner's Digest) mentioned what a shame it was he had wasted so much time and energy on the subject of chemical transfer of learning. Collins & Pinch show that not only was McConnell's work replicated, it was replicated thousand of times with am 80% success rate, perfectly acceptable within the range of results including false negatives and positives. Still, a colleague (and most others) called it "failed" contrary to a huge body of evidence. On the opposite end of the spectrum, we have Eddington's second expedition(s) returning to England with a few photographic plates showing stars during an eclipse. He claimed his measurements supported Einstein's relativity, and the Royal Academy, National Academy, Einstein and everybody else who could make themselves heard agreed. Yet it was shown, and fully described and documented by Collins and Pinch, that there were too few measurements with too great an error to justify the statistical support for the claim. Yet, as Einstein himself had said prior to Eddington's forays, [what happens to the theory if the data are found not to support it] "then Heaven help the data; they theory is correct." It was another 50 years before an experiment provided incontestable support for relativity's predictions. How is it that these situations can occur in a field dedicated to objectivity, primacy of data, replicability and logic? With these and many other instances Collins and Pinch show that the "problem" is inescapable: it is because the people who do science are as human as any one else and conduct their business in a human manner. What gets termed pseudo- or proven not to be thus depends on far more than the essentials of science itself. The stories used as examples are wonderfully written in a clear, conversational style, and all relevant data and details are referenced. I used the book as a text in a "history and systems" neuroscience methodology class. I read it again yearly to remind myself that my profession is prone to all the same failings as any other human endeavor, as well as to temper my judgement and reactions towards sweeping claims pro or con regarding any other field. Who knows what the future will hold with respect to string theory and dark matter. Almost certainly they will have dedicated followers and detractors with adamant claims coming from their considerable understanding, but which contradict each other with data and (ahem) words.

Dennis McClain-Furmanski PhD, Marion VA (Sent Wednesday, November 25, 2009 5:38 AM)

I'm only 24 years old and just looking back to the books I had makes me smile. Science has come such a long way in just 15 years. The knowledge we know now is just mind boggling compared to what we didn't just 15 years ago! And a quick 15 that was...

Jani G, San Diego, Cali (Sent Wednesday, November 25, 2009 7:05 AM)

Most excellent article Alan! Nice to see a story about good science books, a pity more Americans didn't exercise their brains reading more about real science instead of that creationist garbage. Too bad that Robert Oldershaw didn't spend more time reading science books, maybe he wouldn't sound so ignorant about string theory.

I'm thinking seriously about plunking down some hard earned cash to get Brian Cox's new book "Why does E=mc2". I love Brian's documentary shows on the History and Science channels about physics and the LHC. Plus he's the best dressed physicist I've ever seen always wearing jeans and t-shirts, the dress code of real working men!

Eric, Salinas, CA (Sent Wednesday, November 25, 2009 9:17 AM)

If you want to keep the evolution of scientific knowledge honest and healthy, then Definitive Predictions are a sine qua non [mandatory requirement].

Definitive predictions are:
Made PRIOR to the testing.
Are FEASIBLE.
Are QUANTITATIVE.
Are NON-ADJUSTABLE [no fudge, please].
Are UNIQUE to the theory being tested.

String Theory, the Multiverse of 10^10000 random universes, Boltzmann Brains, Anthropic Reasoning, etc., etc., etc.,..., are not testable in a definitive manner. They are untestable pseudoscience.

Ask the proponents of these theories to specifically identify and defend the Definitive Predictions of their Glass Bead Game theories and watch the squirming start, the beads of sweat forming on the high foreheads.

Time to get back to traditional science: study nature [not get intoxicated with abstract mathematics], identify empirical patterns, derive definitive predictions based on the identified patterns, test the predictions, and accept the results [if you look everywhere in the world for magnetic monopoles and the results are relentlessly negative, then assume they probably do not exist].

Yours in real, testable science [not post-modern pseudoscience],
Robert L. Oldershaw
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

Robert L. Oldershaw (Sent Wednesday, November 25, 2009 11:39 AM)

Borders Books is having a donation program set up to assist very young children with reading. No reason some of them shouldn't learn about the various base sciences. Really good program.

Darrell Messbarger (Sent Wednesday, November 25, 2009 11:57 AM)

Hey Eric, Real sicence is to be open and subjective. Unless you are one of those that think it is only sicence if it agrees with what you think. I have few books, Dinosaurs, By Ken Ham is a good book. The Ultimate Proof of Creation By Dr, Jason Lisle another. Just becuase it does not fit into the "sterotype" of what main stream media says is sience dose not make it valid and a good read.

Hiram Withers, Rosamond CA. (Sent Wednesday, November 25, 2009 1:41 PM)

Hey Eric, just like at the first read blog, you're over here spouting your liberal agenda. This is a science blog, your opinion really isn't necessary. Since you're so smart, tell us how string theory has benefitted science other than being an interesting theory.

[ALAN ADDS: Wow, a political argument over string theory ... Is string theory liberal? I guess that means loop quantum gravity is conservative. ;-) Right now, string theory is just a way of making gravity and quantum theory play nice together. But the theorists are working out some propositions that could be tested at the Large Hadron Collider or in astrophysical observations....]

B, La. (Sent Wednesday, November 25, 2009 2:20 PM)

Hi Alan,

You politely comment: "Right now, string theory is just a way of making gravity and quantum theory play nice together. But the theorists are working out some propositions that could be tested at the Large Hadron Collider or in astrophysical observations....]".

However, this is the same arm-waving story that they have been feeding us for 40 years. String theory has not brought gravity "into the fold" of the standard model, and it does not make definitive predictions. I formally challenge any string theorist to make a definitive prediction about what the LHC will find. They cannot, because string theory is a pseudoscientific game that has consumed countless millions of dollars and warped many scientific careers.

Same as it ever was,
RLO
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

Robert L. Oldershaw (Sent Wednesday, November 25, 2009 7:07 PM)

For what it's worth, some folks have said that the LHC could turn up evidence of Kaluza-Klein particles, which would back up the model that string theorist Lisa Randall has been talking about (that is, extra dimensions):

http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2008/11/
looking-at-the-universe-one-particle-at-a-time/

Alan Boyle (Sent Wednesday, November 25, 2009 7:31 PM)

And also for what it's worth, have "some folks" specified the physical properties of these hypothetical "K-K particles" quantitatively? Have they quantitatively predicted their size, mass, charge, spin, and abundance.

No they have not. Rather they suggest extremely broad ranges for where the putative particles might show up, or not. There are no definitive predictions, to my knowledge. No up/down, right/wrong tests. Only vague pseudo-predictions like: 'something unusual might show up and we then maybe we could call it a K-K particle, or a Higgs particle, and pat ourselves on the back.

This is not the way science is done. This is pseudoscience. Why do we sycophantically let them get away with this farce?

No definitive predictions - no science.

RLO
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

Robert L. Oldershaw (Sent Wednesday, November 25, 2009 10:32 PM)

I highly recommend the book "Biocentrism" by Robert Lanza. He posits that we are not the lucky outcome of a bazillion lucky breaks in the fromation of the universe, but that the universe exists because we do. Our consciousness creates what we know as the universe. He virepoint resonates with me, much as my first chaos book did.

John Mack, Fairway, KS (Sent Thursday, November 26, 2009 2:49 AM)

Hi -

Wow, I guess the battlefield is still in books. The commentary also shows that 'what is science' is in the mind of the beholder, much like art.

Good luck with that, guys and girls - as 'nature' has this terrible way of throwing out 'stuff' that constantly dashes our most closely held theories and beliefs.

Be that as it may - a couple of these books will be making their way onto my reading desk soon. Thanks very much, Alan.

Jon Baker, Sarasota, FL (Sent Friday, November 27, 2009 8:29 AM)

Conversations with GOD, a series of 3 books, by Neale Donald Walsh, has amazing answers to all such life's BIG questions....

Ronnie M., Dubai, UAE (Sent Friday, November 27, 2009 10:23 AM)

Eric, Salinas, CA

Perhaps you can help me out. I seem to suffer from the same deficient understanding as Robert Oldershaw. He made some points regarding string theory that you saw fit to lambaste him for.

Untestable: perhaps you know something I don’t. In what way(s) is string theory testable and has it ever been tested? Being testable would give it science status as opposed to pseudoscience. Maybe bad science, but science.

Done nothing: perhaps you know something I don’t. What has string theory done for science. Has it advanced anything except for string theory? Or cosmologies that are only valid if string theory is valid?

So far it’s shaping up to be a great analogy, a way to explain physics. Something like explaining magma as boiling mud so hot it glows like an ember. It conveys an idea that is easily (?) understood but isn’t really what’s going on.

The pied piper remark may have been out of line. We have to allow for scientists to be wrong when they go out on a limb, or else they may stop going. But that didn’t demonstrate any ignorance of string theory. In fact, as near as I can discern, he’s quite knowledgeable about string/plane/m “theory” and calls it as he sees it while others call it as they hope it will turn out to be. Someday. In the far off future.

I will agree that somebody here sounds ignorant about string theory. Perhaps some are bedazzled by the glitz and glamour of great presentation. The package is shiny, it must be great. It got us Obama.

In short, if you can’t answer the above questions you have no basis for your derision. So back up your trash talk or just shut up.

(To be fair to our President: He walked into the muck and mire that was built up by his predecessors as far back as I can remember. His presidency sucks. If he’s done everything right, which I doubt, his presidency sucks. It is the nature of his inheritance. My commentary during the campaign was that if God himself were elected to this presidency, it would suck. So far Obama hasn’t done anything to prove me wrong. So my comment above is that the glitz and glamour and shiny package got us Obama instead of someone else who would have sucked. I only put the comment here because it’s to Eric. Left. Liberal. Democrat. Obamamaniac.)

Tim Rommes, Washington, UT (Sent Friday, November 27, 2009 4:33 PM)

Science and politics mix rather poorly.

The same is true of science and traditional religion.

Let's not conflate science with non-science.

Just say no to pseudoscience,
RLO
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

Robert L. Oldershaw (Sent Saturday, November 28, 2009 11:52 AM)

SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.):

Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private) Remember me?

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=2136335

More Cosmic Log

Recent Posts:

Archives:

Categories:

Latest Tech & Science News

Syndicate This Site

Add Cosmic Log to your news reader:

ABOUT COSMIC LOG