/sci/ - Science & Math

>reading
I seriously hope you guys don't do this

its certainly a start to a fine collection, and cover a wide range of topics, somone who has read and understood all of these texts would probably appear intelligent.

>>3291046

shut the fuck up you uneducated cunt

Looks good, except for the fact that they were selected in fucking 1900.

hey there guys

That's cool.
Downloaded the full pack for my Kindle.

>reading books makes you intelligent
I seriously hope you guys don't think this. Well read =/= smart.

What makes you smart then, idiot?

Isn't the very definition of intelligence controversial?

>>3291206
>Thinks he knows what he's talking about

So would you recommend these books or not /sci/?

>>3291224

Same question.

>The guy claims that's all the books you really need to read to be intelligent
No one made that claim.

> they think /sci/ reads non-technical books
Looks like a god tier list but a bit america-centrist, also the guy seemed to be a religiousfag so it's probably going to be in that way a little. Anyway it's always worth reading if you've the time, but go /lit/.

It completely disregards any solid scientific work, but the list is excellent for the other stuff, i.e. language, religion, history, politics, economics, and philosophy.

I'd say it's about half complete. Then I'd go as far as to suggest that /sci/ compile a list of essential scientific literature.

>>Then I'd go as far as to suggest that /sci/ compile a list of essential scientific literature.

This idea has all my useless support.

bump in this bitch

>>3291300

I'll start with:

"The Meaning of Relativity" by Albert Einstein

'Gray's Anatomy' definitely should be on there

OP here, I'm going to buy and read these Harvard classics asap. I'll just skip through the very few religious bullshit.

>>Then I'd go as far as to suggest that /sci/ compile a list of essential scientific literature.

Holy shit, greatest idea ever. But that would require a badass 'Categories' filtering as there's so many different fields that would be on it.

>Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica not being the first on the list

I seriously hope you don't do this.

I've read... none of these. I haven't read a book not required for school in fucking years.

I used to love reading, too...

elements - euclid

i used to get free newspapers cuz i read so much.. now they are my blankets

>Then I'd go as far as to suggest that /sci/ compile a list of essential scientific literature.

I like this idea too.
Would it be essential scientific literature for the already-scientist? Or would it be literature for aspiring-scientist?

Or how about literature for the average-idiot? How do you take the average-person and turn them into someone "intelligent" ?

"The Selfish Gene" Richard Dawkins

>inb4 massive butthurt

It's one man's list. Obviously he couldn't possibly have read every book ever written. So he is forced to select from the list of books he has read, which is naturally going to be limited to what one man could read in a lifetime. Additionally it will be biased toward whatever interests him. Why take it seriously?

Also
>no 20th century fiction

brief history of time is an obvious addition

So far we have, in chronological order:

Elements - Euclid
Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica - Isaac Newton
Gray's Anatomy - Henry Gray
The Meaning of Relativity - Albert Einstein
The Selfish Gene - Richard Dawkins
Brief History of Time - Steven Hawking

anything else?

>>3291433

Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid

Scratch Brief History of Time, add Feynman Lectures on Physics.

>>3291469

or have both...

The Sceptical Chymist - Robert Boyle

TiHKAL and PiHKAL both by Alex Shulgin

My Inventions: The Autobiography of Nikola Tesla

"An Elementary Treatise on Electricity"
"A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism"

James Clerk Maxwell

TAOCP

>no human action

I am dissapoint.

I do not understand why sci is selecting books written by our ancestors rather than books that are entirely current and up to date.

>>3291562
They are up to date. Some of them will always be/

Engaging with Harry Potter or other light fiction for an hour before bed is more valuable than forcing yourself to read classics for fifteen minutes. Come at me, bros.

>>3291579

Your statement has nothing to do with the content and everything to do with the circumstances.

Your argument is invalid.

>>3291582

From the perspective of making people more intelligent, starting with garbage is a better idea. If one would seriously consider reading Eliot's suggestions cover to cover, you're already there.

That said, the entire premise of this thread is dildoes because Eliot wasn't attempting to blindly apply his taste to everyone.

I just realized it's probably best we make a new thread about this...

>>3291433
Either Aristotle's Organon or Historia Animalium. One is a monument to logic, one to biology.

>>3291562

I don't get that either. Especially in regards to science where most of the antique work is wrong in some way or another. Modern interpretations of math, and science are correct and more concise than reading a the original proof.

>>3291605
>>3291605
>>3291605
>>3291605
>>3291605
>>3291605
>>3291605
>>3291605
>>3291605
>>3291605
>>3291605

>>3291484
Have you read these? Pretty dull if you're not a chemist, unless, I guess, you skip 2/3 of the book to read the Erowid trip reports version.

>>3291433
Cosmos - Carl Sagan

>>3291653

Discuss this in the new thread
>>3291605

>>3291562
> most of the antique work is wrong in some way or another.
They are still relevant. Classical mechanics isn't correct but is useful and a prerequisite to modern physics. Even TAOCP is up to date, since it is more about algorithms them computer programming.