/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.8676690]

What does /lit/ think about this list /sci/ came up with?

[Anonymous No.8676710]

>>8676690
I think that there is a 99% probability of this being fake

[Anonymous No.8676716]

>>8676690
/sci/ approved the man who mistook his wife for a hat? I think it was brilliant, but I'm surprised they didn't fag out over the unscientific-ness of Sacks' conjecture.

[Anonymous No.8676724]

>>8676690
Very nice and patrician tier recs

[Anonymous No.8676732]

>>8676716

That surprises me too. I get Bostrom and Tegmark though.

[Anonymous No.8677293]

This is my approved reading list for /sci/

[Anonymous No.8677304]

This one is missing.
Also Dawkins and Harris but not Dennet and Pinker added?

[Anonymous No.8677315]

Bostrom is pretty good actually, I'll probably go back to Superintelligence and reread it one of these days.

[Anonymous No.8677317]

>>8676690
was this made by the /sci/ equivalent of quentin?

[Anonymous No.8677457]

>>8676690
Should we come up with a /lit/ approved list of sciences?

[Anonymous No.8677469]

>>8676716
I find it all very hard to believe now being a part time /fit/izen and reading his beyond bullshit doctor squats story.

The stories are interesting but take them with a large grain of salt I think.

>>8676690
Michio Kaku and even Stephen Hawking are suspicious. As is Diamond or anything even vaguely like it.

[Anonymous No.8677515]

Add this bad boy

[Anonymous No.8677566]

>>8677304

>singularity

[Anonymous No.8677582]

>>8677457
pls no
pls
no
I don't like to be reminded of how scientifically illiterate my /lit/ fellows all are

[Anonymous No.8679084]

Not too bad, though I think some fiction should have been included. Possibly some good hard-scifi like hitchhikers guide or tau zero

[Anonymous No.8679153]

>>8676690
They're memeing

You all know that right?
I can't speak to tegmark and bostrom, but

jared diamond? That should have given it away instantly. Sagan was neat and all, but the book listed is fedora. Same with Harris. Kaku should have been a quick giveaway as well.

A brief history of time is neat, but is too-oft cited by dude weed lmao-tier pseuds who haven't taken high school physics.

Sacks is also cool, but as the other poster said not very scientific, and /sci/ isn't really into practicing medicine.

Dawkins should have been a giveaway to /lit/ of all places. You all know that his works on religion are not bad, but very entry-level, and that in conjunction with his fanbase should make the meme qualities of this list evident.

Dawkins is a very legit scientist though, he made some big strides in his field. I do recommend the selfish gene.

[Anonymous No.8679155]

>>8679153

Man I should have read all the replies before posting in a bait thread. I really hope this doesn't become more common.

[Anonymous No.8679172]

It's a good list. All very rigorous and essential to expanding one's mind in benefit to mankind.

[Anonymous No.8679191]

>>8676690
whether the fucknuts on here or on /sci/ like it or not, selfish gene is one of the most influential science books of the 20th century

[Anonymous No.8679231]

>>8676690
Semi related, but can Scientists please stop trying to write philosophy and calling it indisputable scientific fact?

[Anonymous No.8679257]

>>8679231
>indisputable scientific fact?

in science nothing is indisputable
go ahead, dispute away
better have some good evidence to back up your disputes tho

[Anonymous No.8679292]

>>8679231

Philosophy simply describes science. Philosophy which does not is not, indeed, philosophy.

[Anonymous No.8679295]

>>8679191
Gene centric thinking is considered p shit in biology now bro.

[Anonymous No.8679301]

>>8676690
>Harris
I don't know whether it's a meme or a sad reality.

[Anonymous No.8679318]

>>8679295
stephen jay gould you're supposed to be dead

[Anonymous No.8679321]

>>8676690
As someone who spends too much time lurking on /sci/, I can confidently say the majority of /sci/ hate those books with a passion. They have a very strong disdain for pop-science (ie. watered-down science for the uneducated masses).

[Anonymous No.8679326]

>>8679321

What did you vote for then?

[Anonymous No.8679339]

>>8679321
the majority of /sci/, like the majority of /lit/, are shrieking ignorant simpletons who'll be first against the wall when the revolution comes

[Anonymous No.8679387]

Hasn't Diamond been pretty thoroughly discredited at this point?

[Anonymous No.8679389]

>>8679326
I don't even recall there being a vote, though it may have happened while I was at uni. Actual recommended reading on /sci/ consists almost entirely of textbooks.

[Anonymous No.8679392]

>>8679339
>the revolution won't be controlled opposition that gets us where we're already going, but faster.

[Anonymous No.8679411]

>>8676690

>non-fiction only
>no actual art that involves human emotions

so basically /sci/ is exactly like /lit/

[Anonymous No.8680941]

[Anonymous No.8680948]

>>8676710
>guns, germs, and steel.

[Anonymous No.8680995]

>>8676690
Just remember that /sci/ isn't /lit/. Their reading lists have a different objective than ours would.

If this is what they came up with as a collective than who are we to say it's bad?

[Anonymous No.8680999]

>>8676690
>guns, germs and steel
bait/10

[Anonymous No.8681006]

>>8679191
Agreed it is. But the idea of selfish genes is wrong. Genes do not work in isolation. There's numerous critique of it in evolutionary biology. Also see Yaneer Bar Yam.
>I do recommend the selfish gene.
I do not.

[Anonymous No.8681014]

>>8680948
what's the problem with this book?

Seriously asking, not trying to defend it or anything.

[Anonymous No.8681023]

>>8679387
yes.

[Anonymous No.8681026]

>>8681014
It presupposes that there are no biological differences between groups of people isolated in varying geographic regions for tens of thousands of years. It essentially ignores any part that race had to play with how civilisations developed and instead assumes outright that it must be purely environmental differences that account for it, rather than weighing up all the evidence together and then making a judgement.

Also, it contains many inaccuracies. I enjoyed reading it because I enjoy reading 'primer' style books, but it is ultimately overreaching and poorly executed.

[Anonymous No.8681029]

>>8681014
It is popular and has inaccuracies. That makes it a popular trigger amongst historians and the like.
Think of it as the Ayn Rand of history.
Diamond went too far, the idea that the environment determines stuff isn't wrong.

[Anonymous No.8681107]

>>8676690

I know it's not really serious but I'll play along anyway. Definitely a lowest-common-denominator list. If it's actually a result of a vote on /sci/, they have large numbers of voters with not much depth. It's sort of okay as a Starter Kit list, but even there it's a mixed bag

>Sagan - The Demon-Haunted World
Sagan really should be read, and this is a good title
>Kaku - Physics of the Future
This one is an embarrassment. Kaku in general is more a brand than anything, like Neal DeGrasse Tyson. The long-range speculation in that title in particular is mostly worthless. At least it's not Physics of the Impossible
>Dawkins - The Selfish Gene
A significant title and writer, like Sagan
>Tegmark - Our Mathematical Universe
No idea; it's an important topic, though. At least it's not Mario Livio
>Bostrom - Super Intelligence
Don't know; my initial response is Meh
>Hawking - A Brief History of Time
another important Starter Kit-tier title
>Sacks - The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat
ditto
>Diamond - Guns, Germs, and Steel
this again
>Harris - Free Will
him again

my changes:
Definitely lose Kaku, and I say replace with The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene
If Tegmark doesn't belong, I'd be inclined to replace with James Gleick, either Chaos: Making a New Science or The Information: A History, a Theory, a Flood. The quintessential /lit/ suggest here would be Everything and More: A Compact History of ∞ by Wallace (although [a] next tobody on /lit/ or /sci/ has read it and [b] Wallace messes up in places)
Bostrom? People need to at least interact with Feynman; I'd put him here
Maybe Diamond belongs simply because he's so ubiquitous that you're left out otherwise. One alternate might be The World Without Us by Alan Weisman
One title that's bafflingly missing is
Gödel, Escher, Bach by Hoffstadter; I would include it in place of Harris

[Anonymous No.8681111]

>>8681107

I think in actuality /sci/ hate pop-science books and to learn science we should all read textbooks and do all the exercises instead.

[Anonymous No.8681115]

>>8681111
In general I think yes.
That and reading scientific papers.

Also nice.

[Anonymous No.8681133]

>>8681026
>by which time sub-Saharan Africa and America lagged far behind Europe and China in terms of technology and higher cultural attainment
>The Inca created a complex civilization

Which one is it

[Anonymous No.8681164]

>>8681111

I will agree in general with all of that. One thing I will say for pop-science books is that they do better than a textbook at getting the general public engaged about why various scientific concepts are so significant, exciting, and so on

[Anonymous No.8681169]

>>8676690
>third time I've seen "Guns, Germs, and Steel" in a week

Guess it's an omen to make that my next non-fiction read.

[Anonymous No.8681191]

>>8681133
complex civilisation doesn't mean that they weren't behind in terms of technological and cultural development

[Anonymous No.8681201]

>>8681191
You can't blame them since there was no cultural and technological exchange as there was in the Old World.
But I feel, prove me wrong, that you are not willing to change your view so replying to you is fruitless.

[Anonymous No.8681210]

>>8681191
How exactly can you measure a civilization's cultural development? That seems pretty subjective.
To say Europe was more culturally advanced just sounds ignorant and Eurocentric

[Anonymous No.8681466]

>>8681210
Are you seriously saying that Rome of Tang dynasty China aren't more advanced in terms of civilization than peoples who never had a written language or lived in cities whose tallest building was a 20 foot tall building made of sticks and hay?

[Anonymous No.8681488]

>>8681014
Inb4 reddit. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/wd6jt/what_do_you_think_of_guns_germs_and_steel/

He is universally hated among historians for this book.

[Jonny Brevo !X6oKRnfsOU No.8681515]

>>8681488
>posting a reddit link on 4chan
Go back. We don't like your kind 'round here, boy.

[Anonymous No.8681529]

Kurzweil may be worth reading, not the for 'science' but for the nightmarish hell he has subjected himself to.

Taking dozens (Hundreds at one point) pills and undergoing increasinly bizarre medical procedures to extend your lifespan, because you were born twenty years too early for what is essentially the Rapture

[Anonymous No.8681533]

>>8681488
>He is universally hated among historians for this book.
Yep because he simplifies things and some of his stuff is just wrong. That wouldn't be such an issue if he wasn't so popular. Now this book is responsible for a lot of misconceptions.

I can see how frustrating that is. I know a one or two about psychology and I get a similar reaction when I see the Myers-Briggs stuff. Something which is still very popular, especially in the bussiness world, but just isn't science.

But really, the same is true for the Selfish Gene. It is also responsible for misconceptions about evolutionary theory, and once you read more into the field of evolutionary biology, you'll come across this often.

I guess that's why /sci/ has such a distaste for popular science, because it can so easily simplify things and spread misconceptions.