/lit/ - Literature

He's also more ham-handed than an Atlus fan, OP.

>>793930

Not sure what you mean, care to elaborate?

A brief history of time by Steven Hawking and the elegant universe by Brian Greene

your science textbooks

Richard Dawkins is a boring faggot. I say this as an atheist. Well, the type that isn't constantly

>>793954
>>Well, the type that isn't constantly
Explain, if you would.

>>793954
butthurt about people finding solace and meaning to their lives with faith.

>>793941

Any more?

Your inner fish by Neil Shubin
Why evolution is true by Jerry Coyne

Cannot speak as a scientist or an expert, only a complete noob but I really enjoyed this

Actual textbooks are the way to go. Stop reading that pop-science bullshit.

>>793978

HURRR

>implying you didn't read it either only to pass an exam but hated every second of it or didn't read it at all only pretend to

>>793950

What if we're not in school?

>>793926
ｗ w ｗ . a n Ｏ Ｎ ｔ a l ｋ . S ｅ bpbbii l zww mm nibklw ojosmifx lq d db

Fritjof Kapra is better.

When I read The Selfish Gene (5 years ago?), it seemed pretty revolutionary in its claims, and really opened my eyes to a different way of thinking about evolution (and life in general). I know it's "pop science", but were his ideas really unoriginal?

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
The Character of Physical Law
The Feynman Lectures on Physics
A Brief History of Time

>>793982
Projecting much, brah?

>>793978

but text books are boring and dry. is science necessarily that way?

>>793982
Christ i fucking hate people like you.
>>> That book is far too complex for anyone to want to read of their own accord especially since i believe everyone is as stupid as me.

>>794075
>>> I don't like it/can't understand it therefore it's boring.

>>794101

Nah I understood just about everything I read in all of my college textbooks (QM 2 threw me for a few loops) and they're all 100% legit boring.

All you fags that recommend reading them are just gluttons for punishment.

>>793941
Brief history is great.

>Don't turn this into an I hate Richard Dawkins thread/religion thread. He's a good scientist and writer.

Why the fuck not? He really isn't a good writer. His god delusion contains fuckloads of tripe.

>>794143
When he gets out of his area of expertise he gets shrill and tiresome but when he writes about evolutionary biology he is one of the best around.

freakonomics.... it is a good read.
Forgot the authors name.
It has nothing to do with science.

They're right. If you want to know science then your best bet is a textbook. Don't read it as if you're in class. Just read it as if you're reading a novel for pleasure. You won't remember everything, but it will be infinitely more interesting. And, you will pick up a lot more than you think.

Much more than this vulgar bullshit.

>>794143

The god delusion isn't a book on science silly. That's why no one mentioned it.
His books on evolutionary biology show that he knows what he's talking about and his clever analogies make the most difficult subjects easy to understand.
Try reading one of those and you'll know why so many people think he's a great writer.

>>794151

Fair enough I guess. I haven't really read his stuff in that area. I still say recommending anything he writes outside of that bubble is next to worthless.