digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

See the original image at readwriteweb.com —

5 Great Science Books to Expand Your Mind

readwriteweb.com — One of the great discoveries of modern science was the realization of how interconnected the world is. The deterministic, Newtonian view of a clockwork Universe was replaced by the much more dynamic, uncertain and entangled world of Quantum Mechanics.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • zephc, on 10/02/2008, -0/+48Dugg for GEB
    • MacBookForMe, on 10/02/2008, -0/+10Brave choice! (maybe, they could add one 'Hawking's legend' for a good measure:)
    • MuskokasFinest, on 10/02/2008, -0/+6GEB FTW...the book was so dense and layered i felt like i had read 6 books by the end of it.
      • boneit, on 10/02/2008, -0/+9You're lucky. I felt like I had been beaten up with 6 heavy books.
    • VibhuC812, on 10/02/2008, -0/+5GEB is one of the most complex and interesting books I have ever read. I'm about half-way through it, but I keep starting over to try and get all of the hidden meanings, like the hidden stuff in "Contracrostipunctus" and stuff.

      Incredible book though.
    • acrodev, on 10/02/2008, -0/+1Read it at age 14 and didn't understand very much. Later became a computer engineer and reread it at age 28 and now we make sense.
      • aaabatteries, on 10/02/2008, -0/+4we?
      • fluxion, on 10/02/2008, -0/+4@aaabatteries

        that's what happens when 14 year olds try to read books like GEB
    • skintigh, on 10/02/2008, -0/+1I've started that book 4 times now. Got almost half way through it last time. I learn more every time.

      I just wish they had answers to the riddle and puzzles. WTF? I don't think I solved any of them.
    • zentehflash, on 10/02/2008, -0/+2Me too! GEB ranks as my favourite book of all time. Nothing better IMHO. Hofstadter's follow up to this book (I am a Strange Loop) was not even half the book that this was, unfortunately.
  • RealmDown, on 10/02/2008, -4/+15Godel and Escher were good students in school, especially in design class, but not so Johann. He was so nervous that he could never get it right the first or even the second time. The instructor was always yelling, "Bach, to the drawing board."

    • shutaro, on 10/02/2008, -3/+9The Arnold Schwarzenegger has always been a big fan, as well... He wanted to play him, at one point: "I'll be Bach".
      • RealmDown, on 10/02/2008, -1/+4I heard too they even had a couple penned scripts. They even had a great product placement lined up after Nike bailed on them --- he was going to wear Rebach's
      • AgincourtDB, on 10/02/2008, -1/+4He had a crazy white haired scientist friend who kept trying to send Bach To The Future.
      • specialK16, on 10/02/2008, -0/+3You mean Bach to the Kitchen!

        no wait....
  • southeastbeast, on 10/02/2008, -0/+10Hmmm I should pick one of these up and read them. /headasplode
  • shakabrah, on 10/02/2008, -1/+66. Stephen Wolfram: A New Kind of Science
    • fasda, on 10/02/2008, -0/+17) Organic Chemistry 5th (Paula Yurkanis Bruice

      understand the basics
    • aelias, on 10/02/2008, -0/+4I own the Wolfram tome, and it's good for a doorstop.

      Once you get past the conceptual stage of the book, it's just not interestng to read. I don't need 70 pages of lo-res pictures to get the point.
    • Artegall, on 10/02/2008, -1/+2#8. Matthieu Ricard & Trinh Xuan Thuan: The Quantum and the Lotus

      Two different takes on reality (quantum/string theory and buddhism) that compliment each other. Will change the way you think of the world.
  • Pusod, on 10/02/2008, -0/+9I love reading science books. I makes me feel smarter.
    • mariecordona, on 10/02/2008, -0/+5Yeah and if you do it in public, you look smart too!
    • shutaro, on 10/02/2008, -0/+5Why read when you can just get a pair of glasses? Not only do you feel smarter, but you look smarter!
    • snowblind113, on 10/02/2008, -0/+2it
      • Pusod, on 10/02/2008, -0/+3i through you saw what i did there.
      • ScannerMobs, on 10/02/2008, -1/+0I through too

        maybe stick to reading? ;)
  • mattearle, on 10/02/2008, -3/+25Science is my religion. Dugg!
    • Shiftgood, on 10/02/2008, -0/+6string theory made me a pantheist... and I feel great!
    • wrmjr, on 10/02/2008, -6/+4That's an idea that causes (and will cause) more problems than most people realize...
      • Snipez, on 10/02/2008, -2/+1Dugged for agreedment.
      • mr.gates, on 10/02/2008, -0/+5Your right religion is bad period but its at least better then having a religion as your religion.
    • FordSVT1, on 10/03/2008, -1/+1_Please_ don't give them ammo, science is NOT a religion.

      And if it WAS a religion, it wouldn't be science any more. Religion is to inflexible, and people do stupid things when they are absolutely certain about everything.
  • BXRWXR, on 10/02/2008, -0/+2Complex adaptive systems are the way the world works.
    • KaseyCarbone, on 10/02/2008, -0/+2Lately it seems maladaptive systems have become dominant.
      • BXRWXR, on 10/02/2008, -0/+1True, but that's not the way it's supposed to work.
    • desertDenizen, on 10/03/2008, -0/+1aka the Tao
  • Bakdan87, on 10/02/2008, -0/+14Godel, Escher, Bach is a freaking masterpiece. I highly recommend it.
  • mikbunn, on 10/02/2008, -0/+20For the layperson, I'd recommend Death by Black Hole by Neil Tyson and A Short History of Nearly Everything by Bill Bryson. Both are extremely well-written and accessible, with humorous analogies and incredible scope. I've got them both in front of my toilet.

    The Varieties of Scientific Experience by Carl Sagan is also fantastic. It's a collection of essays that lean to the spiritual side, but scientific and wonderful nonetheless.
    • stealingfrom, on 10/02/2008, -0/+5Bryson, definitely. I came here to suggest that.
    • xL0Sx, on 10/02/2008, -0/+2+1 for "A Short History of Nearly Everything." I listened to the audiobook and found alot of things make slightly more sense now.

      I'll have to look into the other.
    • mikbunn, on 10/02/2008, -0/+6Tyson is the ***** man. He's a regular guest on the Daily Show and his exchanges with Stewart are priceless- hilarious and enlightening. He hosts NOVA scienceNOW and his enthusiasm is just infectious.
    • Napiertt, on 10/02/2008, -3/+1TMI about that toilet thing :-)
  • Scottievm, on 10/02/2008, -2/+23"The Elegant Universe" by Brian Greene is another one worth picking up. Very accessible, very interesting.
  • connieLingus, on 10/02/2008, -0/+6don't forget...

    Chaos - Making a New Science by James Gleick

    amazing read.
    • zacumen, on 10/02/2008, -0/+2Love James Gleick. Couldn't put that one down...
  • KaseyCarbone, on 10/02/2008, -10/+4I thought they proved science was wrong.
  • kenrayd, on 10/02/2008, -20/+6To be the most up-to-date list, they should have had this one:
    http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/
    • jezsik, on 10/02/2008, -1/+16Riiiiight. Then we'd also need The Necronicom, The Protocols of Zion, and Watson's "Giant Rat of Sumatra"
    • zacumen, on 10/02/2008, -1/+14I hope you're joking. You ARE joking... right?!
    • KenOh, on 10/02/2008, -1/+14"kenrayd
      Favorites
      Polonium Halos:Unrefuted Evidence - Earth's Instant Creation
      Lee Strobel - Case for the Christ Documentary
      The Darwinian foundation of communism"

      Something tells he ain't joking.
    • ApokalypseNow, on 10/02/2008, -1/+14Why would they include a book of creative fictions in a list of books of science?
      As I have explained to you before, science starts by looking at the evidence and THEN drawing conclusions, not picking up the conclusion they know they already want from a book of bronze-age mythology and then cherry-picking evidence to fit it.
    • kenrayd, on 10/03/2008, -13/+1Existence is impossible without the Creator and I’ll explain why that doesn't require science to make that a logical conclusion.

      In fact I guarantee that science which presumes creation did not have a Creator is science fiction lunacy (howling at the moon).

      The logic for a Creator goes beyond merely the irreducible complexity or intelligent design arguments.

      Theories that remove God are inexcusable because everywhere, natural inanimate and living forms are not only in designs, but their designs are virtually always portrayed with artistic expression. If that were not true then humans would not have for ages been going around trying to reproduce nature with their own artistic REcreations. In order for humans to admire nature such as to have the urge to produce “second-hand” artistic expressions, then there necessarily is required that there is a primary Artist.

      I enjoy science; but I also recognize that it is, after-all, only another second-hand expression of humans to grapple with nature. But it is impossible that science could ever deny God in the minds of humans who have met God through prayer and Scripture such as myself nor farmer Ray nor secretary, Linda who can only pity the society of scientists who have no peace because of their God-rejecting guilty consciences.

      In reply to Apok, Christians enjoy science, but they don’t need it and honest science never has and never will prove a contradiction between nature and the Bible because at the point where the supernatural meets natural is the artwork. Humans cannot observe this happening but we have been observing the results.
      • Mnementh2230, on 10/03/2008, -0/+12First, learn to use the reply buttons. Second, science does not presume anything - anything that is brought up in science requires evidence, of which there exists nothing for any "creators". It is not that science presumes the non-existence of a creator or creators so much as there exists no evidence for them.
        Your whole schpiel about "art" is a bunch of ***** and you know it - or at least you should, having spent enough time talking with Apok. Every life form in existence fulfills an ecological niche, has a place in the ecosystem. That you find such things aesthetically appealing has no value, and is entirely subjective - this is not evidence for a creator, artist, or other unevidenced entity's involvement. Subjective, too, are your supposed supernatural experiences.
        As an aside, do you find things like flesh-eating bacteria and guinea worms "artistic"?

        So, christians don't need science eh? Then go back to living in a cave you ignorant troglodyte - if you don't need it then you should abandon all the advances it has provided for you.
      • Mnementh2230, on 10/04/2008, -0/+11Further...
        "supernatural meets natural"
        We've no evidence of your so called "supernatural" even existing. If we've been observing the results, where are they? What are they? Objective, emperical evidence?

        "God-rejecting guilty consciences"
        I take offense to this. I reject all gods, and yet I don't have a guilty concience. As a matter of fact, my concience is pretty damn clear - because I'm a good person, and choose to be so without threat of some supposed eternal damnation.
      • eir574, on 10/04/2008, -0/+12"In reply to Apok, Christians enjoy science, but they don’t need it "

        They may not absolutely need science, but I bet most of them appreciate science when a simple infection that could have proven fatal not all that long ago can be cured using antibiotics, when they give birth to children with heart defects that can now be corrected through surgery, and even when poor vision is corrected far beyond what once could be achieved through the use of simple magnifying lenses.
      • kenrayd, on 10/06/2008, -7/+1Guess what, my choice of reply button was for a new comment; I only had one paragraph for Apok.

        The next responses were completely impotent because they provided no specific explanation for the obvious logical connection of nature and artwork which everybody else knows about and they also know that this connection does not apply to sin corrupted nature such as flesh eating bacteria nor flesh eating hyenas nor rotten bananas.

        Oh come on, your science is based on piling a bunch of "interpreted" data on top of previous assumptions on top of previous assumptions all the way back to a former ministerial student names Darwin who became disgruntled with God and who is now widely discredited because of preponderance of evidence against his doctrines. Evolution science having to do with "origin of species" has actually gone downhill after Darwin, not uphill. That's the way "continental drift" is defended which many scientists agree is "up the creek" in favor of hydroplating. Radiometric dating is also quickly becoming unraveled from many sources. The continents have some semblance of fitting but very distorted such as would be more likely from catastrophic erosion rather than gentle gradual drifting.

        http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/Continenta ...
      • ApokalypseNow, on 10/06/2008, -0/+7"...obvious logical connection of nature and artwork..."
        This claim lacks any substance. It is nothing more than a subjective assertion. All you're doing is anthropomorphizing nature, just as with your assertions of design.

        "...sin corrupted nature..."
        Necrotizing fasciitis has nothing to do with your culturally subjective "sin" and everything to do with bacterial infection.
        A hyena's predator/prey relationships has nothing to do with your culturally subjective "sin" and everything to do with the hyena's need to eat.
        The natural decay process in a banana has nothing to do with your culturally subjective "sin" and everything to do with the natural breakdown of certain materials within the banana.

        "...'interpreted' data..."
        All observation requires interpretation. Even something as seemingly simple as seeing an object in front of you requires a great deal of interpretation to determine what it is, what properties it exhibits, how far away it is, and so forth. To dismiss absolutely everything we know because it is interpretation would be ludicrous.

        "...on top of previous assumptions on top of previous assumptions..."
        Name these assumptions.

        All your prattling on about Darwin is completely without merit or evidence, and you are ignoring the fact that science is a self-correcting process. We've had 150 years since his time to refine the field, find more evidence, discover more about the mechanisms involved, etc.

        "Evolution science having to do with "origin of species" has actually gone downhill after Darwin, not uphill."
        Care to back that assertion up? As usual, you present no evidence for your case.

        "That's the way 'continental drift' is defended..."
        There are many non-fossil evidences for plate tectonics. For example:
        Plate motions are measured directly (Davidson et al. 1997).
        The eastern edge of the continental shelves of North and South America fit closely (within 50 km) with the western continental shelves of Africa and Europe (Bishop 1981). The Mid-Atlantic Ridge has the same shape.
        When new rocks are formed, they record the earth's current magnetic field, which reverses occasionally. The magnetic field pattern recorded in the sea floor rocks shows bands mirrored across a spreading center (Bishop 1981; Davidson et al. 1997).
        Paleomagnetic studies show different polar wandering on different continents, indicating that the continents moved relative to one another (Bishop 1981; Davidson et al. 1997).
        Oceanic sediments are young and thin, indicating that sea basins are relatively young (Graham 1981).
        Maps of earthquake locations show plate boundaries and the paths of subducting plates (Davidson et al. 1997; Graham 1981).
        Hot spots leave trails such as volcanic island chains as the plates move over them (Davidson et al. 1997).
        References:
        Bishop, A. C., 1981. The development of the concept of continental drift. In The Evolving Earth, ed. L. R. M. *****, London: British Museum, 155-164.
        Davidson, Jon P., Walter E. Reed, and Paul M. Davis, 1997. Exploring Earth: An Introduction to Physical Geology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
        Graham, A. L., 1981. Plate tectonics. In The Evolving Earth, ed. L. R. M. *****, London: British Museum, 165-178.

        "...in favor of hydroplating."
        We've already been over and destroyed that hydroplate *****, as well as the idea of a global flood.

        "Radiometric dating is also quickly becoming unraveled from many sources."
        Name these sources.

        "The continents have some semblance of fitting but very distorted such as would be more likely from catastrophic erosion rather than gentle gradual drifting"
        Evidence for this assertion? Besides, you're forgetting standard erosion, subduction, glaciation, and many other factors here.
      • kenrayd, on 10/07/2008, -5/+1Actually you have no substance of what reality is since you're in denial of artwork in raw nature. Must have grown up in a Darwin black box.

        You've never seen a Colorado sunset, Indonesian bird of paradise, Tiger tail butterfly, an arboretum, ad finitum. There's no logic to natural artwork except beauty for the beholder. If you say there's no substance in that, you're telling everyone that you live in delusion.

        The holds true for violence and decay in nature. That in itself refutes long ages evolution because life forms today which have managed to survive so many millions of years should have much longer life-spans. Many insects have no more than a couple of years, animals other than man seldom live longer than 25 years. Humans although living 3 times longer should not have survived at all since they have minimal sense of sight, hearing, and smelling. How should native Americans living off the land have been surviving until Europeans discovered them when these senses were no better than the Europeans? The lesser mammals have much keener abilities with these senses. How have humans used their greater intelligence to survive better when science has brought us to the brink of self-extermination?

        The only logical answer is given in the Bible. The Creator created and man sinned and from that time, the earth has become increasingly less able to support survivability of life.

        "Evolution science having to do with "origin of species" has actually gone downhill after Darwin, not uphill." I just demonstrated it above.

        Again, you're just comparing today's processes assuming no catastrophic events have occurred in the past which gave the starting point for processes today.

        Most scientists agree that global catastrophe occurred from meteoric impacts which would have altered typical major earth measurements today and these impacts are inseparably linked to the global flood. But you mention nothing to take these impacts into account for citing of current data.

        But the main point is that the universe speaks artwork throughout it's realm proving the supernatural to anyone who has any true honesty about reality and you had no viable answer to this logical connection because your atheism would have to be given up.
      • ApokalypseNow, on 10/07/2008, -0/+5You can make as many appeals to your personal aesthetics as you want - they are still merely subjective claims, and your interpretations of them are simply anthropomorphizing nature.

        "...life forms today which have managed to survive so many millions of years should have much longer life-spans."
        Why should they?

        "Humans although living 3 times longer should not have survived at all since they have minimal sense of sight, hearing, and smelling."
        Intelligence is an adaptation too, one that allows tool use to overcome many obstacles that the organism alone could not handle.

        "How should native Americans living off the land have been surviving until Europeans discovered them when these senses were no better than the Europeans?"
        Why shouldn't they? Their populations were at the top of their food chain, and they could eat everything beneath them thanks to their omnivorous diet. They had agriculture. They had tools sufficient to meet the needs imposed by their environment.

        "How have humans used their greater intelligence to survive better when science has brought us to the brink of self-extermination?"
        In light of the many comforts that you enjoy as a result of science, from the medicine that keeps you well, to the agriculture that allows you to be picky about what you eat, to the computer you sit at, this is a nonsensical question. That you can even ask this question instead of being constantly busy looking for food and shelter to survive another day is a result of science.
        There are more humans alive now than ever before - I'd hardly think this is "the brink of self-extermination".

        "The only logical answer is given in the Bible..."
        For values of "logical" that = "not logical", maybe. Or, you could actually look for answers from sources of information instead of sources for fantasy stories.

        "I just demonstrated it above."
        I just showed that you did no such thing.

        "Again, you're just comparing today's processes assuming no catastrophic events have occurred in the past which gave the starting point for processes today."
        Again, you're ignoring both the preponderance of evidence for the long-term running of those processes and the resounding LACK of evidence for anything you propose.

        "Most scientists agree that global catastrophe occurred from meteoric impacts..."
        Yes, the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event from a meteor impact at the Chicxulub Crater in the Yucatán Peninsula in Mexico. This impact caused global quartz-shocking in the K-T boundary, followed by a layer of soot and a large surplus of iridium from the meteorite itself, which contained roughly 0.5 parts per million of iridium compared to the mere 0.001 parts per million naturally occurring on earth.

        "...these impacts are inseparably linked to the global flood."
        Um, no. Again, there is no evidence for a global flood - you still have yet to provide a single piece of evidence for your case.

        "But you mention nothing to take these impacts into account for citing of current data."
        Beyond the fact that the K-T extinction event happened 65 million years ago (well outside your 6000 year time-frame), any impact event that could have imparted the kind of heat we see in the mantle and core of the earth today would have destroyed a large part of the planet from the impact. I can show you the math if you like - all we need do is determine the average thermal diffusivity of the mantle and core and the temperature at the core proper to determine what sort of energy we would need from a surface source to cause it. Then we convert that energy to megatonnes for convenience (though it would still be easier to show that measure in powers of 10) and look up how many megatonnes would be required to crack the planet and compare.

        Face it, you're just looking for excuse after excuse because you can't make a case on the evidence alone.

        "But the main point is..."
        Again, you're just making subjective aesthetic claims and anthropomorphizing nature and the phenomena found in it. There's no connection, logical or otherwise, to be found here.
  • KaseyCarbone, on 10/02/2008, -0/+15Let's hear it for the pop science book/series that started it all: Cosmos.
    • FordSVT1, on 10/03/2008, -0/+2Cosmos was brilliant, but it's rather dated as a science education tool. Still worth a read though, anything that man touched was inspired. Probably did more for science in the public eye than anyone since Einstein.
  • LeviTheSmith, on 10/02/2008, -0/+3I like reading
  • wrmjr, on 10/02/2008, -0/+5Dugg for introducing me to 4 titles I wasn't aware of.
  • eyepennies, on 10/02/2008, -0/+22I would add:

    Cosmos - Carl Sagan
    A Short History of Nearly Everything - Bill Bryson
    The Discoverers - Daniel Boorstin

    I just started Reinventing the Sacred, Kaufman's new book on Emergence. Great stuff!
    • lornefs, on 10/02/2008, -0/+7Anything by Carl Sagan is a must for anyone who want to learn about science but is afraid they won't understand.
      He was a master at communication and making science accessible.

      • eyepennies, on 10/02/2008, -0/+5Agreed. I just finished The Demon-Haunted World. Just thinking of that beautiful human being brings tears to my eyes.
      • MacBookForMe, on 10/02/2008, -0/+2They could still watch Carl Sagan on DVD...truly epic!
    • Setari, on 10/02/2008, -0/+1Bryson's "History" was one of the most interesting presentations of science I've ever read, especially the astronomy part.
      • Versh, on 10/02/2008, -0/+1I totally agree. Bryson made Oceanography intriguing... he even made the evolution of amino-acid chain molecules a page turner... A Short History of Nearly Everything cannot be recommended enough. It makes every field of science accessible. Bill Bryson should be writing the textbooks.
  • Buddhaismybuddy, on 10/02/2008, -1/+3The Vasitha's Yoga -
    "beyond the ultimately pointless scholarly details, one need only dive in and start reading on almost any page to get a sufficiently potent blast of nondual truth to utterly dissolve the illusion of there being any separate solid self or distinct, solid objects. All that's left is Consciousness"
    - Timothy Conway, Ph.D.

    Originally written in Sanskrit, The Vasistha's Yoga is one of the oldest and longest texts ever written.

    Also see anything by Dr. Ernest Holmes, creator of "The Science of Mind"
    • hiPpymIck, on 10/02/2008, -0/+1Siddartha by Herman Hesse
      is an easy short - and yet deep - read

      IMHO
  • jehan60188, on 10/02/2008, -13/+2ugh, these books are for idiots that want to seem smart
    if you want to expand your mind, pick up a textbook on graph theory, not any of this pseudo-biography crap.
    • MudMan69, on 10/02/2008, -1/+8My, aren't you a supercilious douche...
    • eyepennies, on 10/02/2008, -0/+5If your goal was to enhance curiosity and wonder in the sciences and our world, you fail. If your goal was to be a complete prick, you succeed!
    • Asheis, on 10/02/2008, -0/+2Heh. Well, mathematics aren't everything my friend. While they may underlie everything, you've got to step back and understand the larger picture before you dismiss it entirely.
  • HarryRag, on 10/02/2008, -0/+6Science or not, books that challenge the way you think are awesome.
  • PabloIV, on 10/02/2008, -1/+10I know selling Richard Dawkins here is kinda praising to the choir but, The Blind Watchmaker
    • tattertech, on 10/02/2008, -0/+10The Selfish Gene I think is more important.
  • lukeduke589, on 10/02/2008, -1/+6A Short History of Nearly Everything by Bill Bryson should be up there too, one of the best science books i've ever read.
  • DICKBISCUITS, on 10/02/2008, -8/+1These books are blasphemy and should be burned!
  • shutaro, on 10/02/2008, -0/+4I just want to know where I can find a good quantum mechanic... I've been ripped off one too many times.
  • mysn239, on 10/02/2008, -0/+1Where's Charles Darwin books!
    • jster89, on 10/03/2008, -0/+1Probably with your missing question mark.
  • finalcloud33, on 10/02/2008, -0/+13These are great reads...

    Elegant Universe - Brian Greene
    The Fabric of the Cosmos - Brian Greene
    Death by Black Hole - Neil Degrasse Tyson
    Parallel Worlds - Michio Kaku
    Warped Passages - Lisa Randall
    Universe in a Nutshell - Steven Hawking
    Brieife History of Time - Steven Hawking
  • jull1234, on 10/02/2008, -5/+2I'd add "Making LSD for Dummies"
  • Napiertt, on 10/02/2008, -0/+7Two of my faves are: Demon-Haunted World by Sagan, and The Selfish Gene.
  • Nightenglow, on 10/02/2008, -2/+2The Urantia Book www.truthbook.org
    • TheMoniker, on 10/03/2008, -0/+2Oh, please. That sort of third-rate pseudo-theosophy cult nonsense is hardly worth using as toilet paper. It was clearly written between the 30s and the 50s, with a healthy dose of plagiarism. It references scientific hypotheses that were popular from the 1930s to the 1950s (and just prior to) that have since been abandoned by the scientific community.
      It's about as plausible as the Book of Mormon or any of J.Z. Knight's Ramtha cult ramblings.
      • Nightenglow, on 10/03/2008, -1/+1Oh, please before you ramble on take a look and decide for your self
      • Nightenglow, on 10/03/2008, -1/+1It's also plausible that its the real deal
  • whoaohh, on 10/02/2008, -0/+4Pale Blue Dot is another great Carl Sagan book.

    It's a little less dated than Cosmos and even though it doesn't cover quite the scope that Cosmos does, it's an inspiring read.
  • jezsik, on 10/02/2008, -0/+1Only five? I'd have to add Bronowski's "The Ascent of Man" and Philip Morrison's "The Ring of Truth" to the list. In addition to being enlightening, they're a pleasure to read.
  • snowblind113, on 10/02/2008, -0/+5The History of Physics by Isaac Asimov is a great introduction to physics and the history surrounding it. It is the book that got me hooked on all things science.
  • kevro, on 10/02/2008, -0/+1links to online sources (e-book) or online bookstore please.
  • NCSD, on 10/02/2008, -3/+1http://digg.com/world_news/US_combat_hospital_savi ...
  • Xet6996roV, on 10/02/2008, -0/+1"The ascent of science" by Brian SILVER makes a good overview of almost all fields.
  • gbv23, on 10/02/2008, -0/+1Norman Friedman: Bridging Science and Spirit

    momentpoint dot com
  • surendrapathak, on 10/02/2008, -2/+3Let Palin be (Vice) President and she would ban all these 'scientific' nonsense.
  • UselessTrivia, on 10/02/2008, -0/+0Sad that there is no "A Brief History of Time" or "Flatland" on that list, but otherwise all good reads.
  • JJman69, on 10/02/2008, -0/+2I was ready to bury for a lack of GEB. Instead I dugg it.
    I have read, re-read, and lent out my copy so many times that chunks of pages are falling out and in order to read it, you have to hold it like the holy book it is.
  • jwucd, on 10/02/2008, -0/+4Also, The Selfish Gene and The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins.

    "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." --Theodosius Dobzhansky
  • oblique63, on 10/02/2008, -0/+1as if i didn't already have too many books on my amazon cart.... oh well
  • lizajane999, on 10/02/2008, -0/+3"Everything and More" by David Foster Wallace is a great read about Georg Cantor and infinity.
  • jbmcb, on 10/02/2008, -0/+5Fermat's Enigma and The Code Book. Simon Singh for the win.

  • DeuceDiggalow, on 10/02/2008, -3/+1all ur bukz r belong 2 us
  • pitdog, on 10/02/2008, -1/+2Read Stephen Hawking's books. They're just great.
  • sho76und3wd, on 10/02/2008, -0/+1I have been looking for some decent reading. Cool article.
  • kurejibitch, on 10/02/2008, -0/+8All Carl Sagan, particularly "The Demon Haunted World" for logical thinking/rationality and "The Varieties Of Scientific Experience" for logical thinking/rationality in agnosticism/atheism.

    All Richard Dawkins, "The Selfish Gene" in particularly for being one of the most important books you will ever read in your entire life. "The Tangled Wing" by Melvin Konner combines hard (aka supported by evidence) intelligent science in human biology to explain everything about the human species, interspersed with beautiful bits of literature and some of the most eloquent chapter endings I have ever read: it is a rather sizable read, but it is so important (I particularly love the end of the Logos/Language, and the sexual inequality chapter/s). "A Primate's Memoir" and "The Trouble With Testosterone" by Robert M Sapolsky (the former being an absolutely heart-breakingly, beautiful, engaging story for primatologists and primate fans alike).

    I'd be lying if I said I read anything but science books these days. Nothing grabs me like the wonder, the beauty, and the complexity of the natural universe. All else pales in comparison to those, "My GOD, and so it IS!" moments: at least for me. (:
  • hudy23, on 10/02/2008, -0/+0im upset this guys book is not on the list, its what Einstein based his ideas on:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Joseph_Boscovic ...

    or for that matter any of tesla's work, granted its not exactly in that style, I recommend man out of time by Margret Cheney

    http://www.amazon.com/Tesla-Man-Time-Margaret-Chen ...
  • D0P3M4N, on 10/02/2008, -0/+2No "Dianetics--the Modern Science of Mental Health"?
    • urbandistrict, on 10/02/2008, -0/+1LOL I had the same initial thought.

      "The Bible" didn't seem to make that list either.
      • BelatedHero, on 10/02/2008, -0/+1We're talking non-fiction here guys.
    • fluxion, on 10/02/2008, -0/+1that one goes unsaid D0P3M4N. required reading for all ages...especially malleable young elementary schoolers...
  • statrick, on 10/02/2008, -1/+3DMT the spirit molecule.

    by Dr rick strassman
    • teethandeyes, on 10/02/2008, -1/+4Any mention of DMT gets an automatic Digg.
      What an amazing and scary chemical.
      I had the most mind-blowing of my far-too-many drug expereiences with 5meO-DMT.
      Incredible Stuff!
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 65 of 65 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.