/lit/ - Literature

Asimov's series.

The Selfish Gene
The Emperor's New Mind

Steven Pinker is a lot of fun.

>>1527614
Thanks! I have read The Selfish Gene :)

>>1527615
I've read a little Asimov, which series are you referencing?

>>1527618
Great! I'm looking into him now, thanks!

>>1527643
http://www.amazon.com/gp/search/ref=a9_sc_1?rh=i:stripbooks,k:isaac+asimov+nonfiction&keywor
ds=isaac+asimov+nonfiction&ie=UTF8&qid=1297021913

>>1527643
Asimov wrote a shitload of popular science (and other fields) books - only about a quarter of his 500+ books were fiction iirc - which are fairly well thought of as basic introductions I think, but are probably a bit old now. He died in the mid 80s.

Feynman and Sagan are good for giving you the scientific attitude (and telling funny stories.) Dawkins' books are all good (except God Delusion). Richard Fortey's books are good too.

>>1527665
Thankyou very much.

Godel Escher Bach

Science textbooks, unless you just want to pretend you know jack shit about science. In that case, stay the course OP.

Popular science books are basically bullshit. Not all of them are, but for the most part they don't tell the whole truth. No popular science book is going to tell you that the Higgs Boson is just a name for a piece of math from the Standard Model of Physics (which is arguably very flawed), and so on. Carl Sagan, Michio Kaku and Brian Greene will all give you fanciful and mostly futurist views of science which are much more grounded in science fiction wet dream speculation than the reality of physics. Feynman lectures supplemented with a good textbook is probably the best way to go.

Bill Bryson - A Short History of Nearly Everything

also, if you really want to go for it, get real science textbooks

>>1527698

you're elitist scum

way too discourage someone from enjoying science

>>1527799
I've begun reading this, I am a Bryson fan since reading The Mother Tongue :)

>>1527781
Thankyou for the tip!

I'm aware I can't learn a great deal from these books but it's the best way I can think of for gearing my mind towards scientific thinking.

>>1527811
Really, though. Science textbooks are how serious scientists did it. Don't listen to elitist fags though. Carl Sagan is great.

>>1527850

Mother Tongue has loads of made up shit, it's easily the worst researched of all of his books. Short History is solid all around though.

Unweaving the Rainbow by Dawkins is a good start to gear your brain towards science. The Disappearing Spoon is a fun read as well.

>>1527781
Yeah in general I say avoid topics like cosmology and fundamental particles and shit like that in popular science books, people like those because its so crazy, but its also poorly understood and will give the false impression that things are known when they're at best hypothesized.

ITT: Feynman, Dawkins, and outdated scientists named by e/lit/ists who think they know anything and an OP who though /lit/ would provide a better response than /sci/.

>>1527986
popular science books are elitist now?

>>1527986
I guess I was wrong, I'd have felt far too much of an ignoramus posting in /sci/ though.

>>1528003
Outdated pop-science books are.

I'd have felt far too much of an ignoramus posting in /sci/ though, and I prefer to ask the literary-minded people here.

>>1528003
Outdated pop-science books are.

>>1528017
That doesn't really make sense