A Short History of Nearly Everything

[andyandy]

As the title suggests, “A Short History of Nearly Everything” is an ambitious project. Bryson starts with the Big Bang and ends with modern era extinction - and in the intermediate 30 chapters takes in the chemistry, astronomy, physics, geology, biology, archaeology and anthropology needed to connect the two. The science itself is interwoven with the lives and personalities of the scientists behind the discoveries - providing a historical measure of the evolution of thought within the given fields and of the social and scientific hurdles that these new ideas often faced.

We learn of country doctor and amateur palaeontologist Gideon Mantell, the rightful first discoverer of dinosaurs, of his betrayal by the man credited with their discovery, and of the catastrophic personal consequence of his scientific obsession - which led to spiralling debts, the loss of his fossil collection, his wife, his medical practise, and ultimately his life.

Of Henry Cavendish , one of the greatest English scientist of his age. who in 1797 after many months of exacting measurements successfully calculated the weight of the Earth from his own living room using nothing more than some suspended lead spheres and a telescope. And we learn of his shyness “bordering on the disease” - which necessitated that his housekeeper communicated with him by letter, and meant that people were instructed to on no account look at or speak directly to the man.

Of Isaac Newton’s genius encapsulated in the Principia and also of his insatiable curiosity - that he once inserted a long needle into his eye socket and rubbed it around “betwixt my eye and the bone” just to see what would happen, whilst another time staring at the Sun for as long as he could bear, to measure the effect on his sight.

Whilst the personal anecdotes really bring the science alive, there is also plenty of contemporary scientific discussion contained within the pages , made truly accessible by Bryson’s fluid writing style. A section on atoms is introduced;

“above all atoms are tiny - very tiny indeed. Start with a millimetre, which is a line this long: -. Now imagine that line is divided into a thousand equal widths. Each of those widths is a micron. This is the scale of micro-organisms. A typical paramecium, for instance - a tiny, single celled, freshwater creature - is about 2 microns wide, 0.002 millimetres, which is really very small. If you wanted to see with your naked eye a paramecium swimming in a drop of water, you would have to enlarge the drop until it was some 12 metres across. However, if you wanted to see the atoms in the same drop, you would have to make the drop 24 kilometres across.”

It’s hard to imagine a more enjoyable or better written overview of contemporary science and its history. It’s the kind of book that will inspire you to read a dozen more - and for a science book I don’t think there’s any greater accolade than that.

<iframe src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=thejamesrandi-20&o=1&p=8&l=as1&asins=0767923227&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&lc1=9B020A&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr&nou=1" style="width:120px;height:240px;" scrolling="no" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" frameborder="0"></iframe>

[Darat]

A very ambitious book but he pulls it off.

[HarryKeogh]

After reading "In a Sunburned Country" (a book detailing his travels in, and the history of, Australia) I searched out for more of his books and was very excited to find he was about to publish a book on science, its history and scientists themselves.

He's a wonderful writer and you can really get a sense of the enthusiasm he has for his subject matter. Aside from being informative (though he does perpetuate the liquid glass myth) it is exciting, witty and thoroughly enjoyable. The material isn't presented in any great depth (I had to go to the JREF science sub-forum to find out more about hyper-expansion of the early universe, for example) but it isn't intended as a definitive reference work. It is the account of a bright man who wanted to find out more about the workings of the world around him and he eagerly goes about this task by visiting unique places and talking to highly respected and interesting people along the way.

Keep in mind that they also publish an illustrated version of the same book which adds some wonderful photos and diagrams throughout the text.

[Mince]

Having not read the book, I still find it pretty arrogant and presumptuous that the author seemingly contends he has the knowledge and authority to write about "nearly everything". Maybe there's one or two things in history in which he did not take part, was not a witness to or had knowledge of. What a freakin' pedant.

IMHO

[Mince]

Having not read the book, I find it rather arrogant and presumptuous to claim one has authority and knowledge to write about "nearly everything". Maybe there are one or two events in history to which the author was not a part, not a witness or had knowledge of.

Two thumbs down on this one Roger. IMHO (Of course, I am judging a book by its cover, or, more specifically, its title).

[andyandy]

Two thumbs down on this one Roger. IMHO (Of course, I am judging a book by its cover, or, more specifically, its title).

Quite - and that's a pretty silly thing to do.

In the introduction,

"This is a book about how it happened - in particular, how we went from there being nothing at all to there being something, and then how a little of something turned into us, and also some of what happened in between and since. That's rather lot to cover, of course, which is why this book is called "A Short History of Nearly Everything even though it really isn't. It couldn't be. But with luck by the time we finish it may feel as if it were."

nb. could Darat or a suitably endowed mod sprinkle some pixie dust on the OP and change the first line to read "As the title suggests "A short history..." rather than "A brief history"? I was obviously channeling Hawking....:)

[jimbob]

The book also shows how a non-scientist can write accurately and clearly about science.

He asked the expert, wrote what he thought they said, got it checked by the same expert, and so on.

A fine book, with some interesting stories about the people behind various discoveries. The section on tetra-ethyl lead was especially good for that. A score of engineers go mad overnight from lead posisoning, and the company blithly claims it was "pressure of work" (which is obviously allright)...

[Kilgore Trout]

I read this book some time ago and found it to be an excellent read. Very well written and researched. Can't say that I remember many details, but I do remember breezing through it because it was very entertaining.

(I'd give a numbered 'member review' but it's been too long since I've read it for that to be fair..)

[canadarocks]

I also read this book a while ago, but I found it to explain scientific concepts very well to the non-scientist. It was clear, understandable, and succinctly. It is one of the books that I often recommend to non-scientists to read to understand about a broad spectrum of science.

[Cuddles]

As a physicist I tried reading this book a while ago, but I just couldn't finish. Yes, it is well written and accessible to the layperson, but it contains far too many inaccuracies and half-truths (as Terry Prattchet says, "lies to children") to really be worth reading. That said, the historical accounts are generally interesting. I think this book should be read like any other Bryson book, plenty of amusing anecdotes, but don't imagine you will really learn anything from it.

For people who really want to learn more about science I would stick to books actually written by scientists. Feynman, Asimov, Ian Stewart, Jack Cohen, Dawkins, Hawking and plenty of others. They may seem more sciency and less readable, but that's just the way science is.

[andyandy]

As a physicist I tried reading this book a while ago, but I just couldn't finish. Yes, it is well written and accessible to the layperson, but it contains far too many inaccuracies and half-truths (as Terry Prattchet says, "lies to children") to really be worth reading. That said, the historical accounts are generally interesting. I think this book should be read like any other Bryson book, plenty of amusing anecdotes, but don't imagine you will really learn anything from it.

For people who really want to learn more about science I would stick to books actually written by scientists. Feynman, Asimov, Ian Stewart, Jack Cohen, Dawkins, Hawking and plenty of others. They may seem more sciency and less readable, but that's just the way science is.

I think this really does miss the point of a popular science book which aims to give an overview of all aspects of science and history - with just a few pages to discuss say the Big Bang or plate techtonics you're hardly going to achieve a graduate/post-graduate understanding of cosmology or geology. If that is your aim, then this book is not for you. There are plenty of specialized science books which do seek to address topics in greater detail, but this is a book to start one's interest - not to finish it. And it is bizarre to suggest that you will not learn anything from this book - for you certainly will. Simplifications are required at all levels of scientific learning - one learns at school of electrons on shells, neatly arranged in pairs with no mention of electron clouds, QM or probability densities. Does this mean that one has not learnt any chemistry? No, one learns simplifications as a precursor to further study.
The approach of the sort "keep science to the scientists" is also somewhat counterproductive - I read Hawking as a 14 year old, and I think that book more than any other was responsible for putting me off physics until many years later. When I read genuinely engaging books such as this it makes me regret such early exposure to books of absolute rigor rather than readability. There is certainly a place for rigorous and detailed accounts within specific scientific fields such as the suggested authors provide, but there is also certainly a place for an accessible introduction to science in general such as this book provides.

[jaydeehess]

I read this book last summer and found it very easy to read and although the author sometimes simplifies things such that those with a science background may find it grating, it was not written to be a textbook for science class. this book explains the historical happenstances that got our technology and understanding of the universe to where it is today and did so in a way that does not require that the reader have a degree in anything, just a desire to know a little more.

I loved it. It may not have the scientific accuracy of an Asimov book on science but it does make the reader welcome in the world of science somewhat in the way of Sagan or Bova.

[Charlie Monoxide]

I've read (or listened to book on CD) all of Bryson's books. He is very entertaining and I enjoy his somewhat sarcastic view of life. "A Short History" was a big undertaking, but Bryson makes it work.

I also highly recommend "Thunderbolt Kid". It's Bryson's autobiography of him growing up in Iowa. Very entertaining and funny ....

Charlie (Bill Bryson Booster) Monoxide

[Cuddles]

The approach of the sort "keep science to the scientists" is also somewhat counterproductive - I read Hawking as a 14 year old, and I think that book more than any other was responsible for putting me off physics until many years later. When I read genuinely engaging books such as this it makes me regret such early exposure to books of absolute rigor rather than readability. There is certainly a place for rigorous and detailed accounts within specific scientific fields such as the suggested authors provide, but there is also certainly a place for an accessible introduction to science in general such as this book provides.

But this is my problem, he doesn't just simplifying things, he gets them wrong. There are plenty of popular science books out there that explain things without getting too technical but without making mistakes. For example, the Science of Discworld books are generally very good (although they also contain "lies to children", they usually tell you where they are). Even if you don't like his attitude to religion, Dawkins' provides a very good and accurate understanding of evolution. John Conway's game of life (http://www.bitstorm.org/gameoflife/) is computer based, but also has a book about it. Russel Stannard's "Uncle Albert" series are just brilliant, even for young children.

The point is, there's no point having an accessible introduction to science if the science it introduces you to is wrong. Bryson is a great writer, but he is not a scientist and it is very obvious that he is writing about things that he has read or heard but does not really understand himself.

A lot of the problem with popular understanding of science is that they are told a lot of things about, for example, quantum physics that simply aren't true, and this opens the door to all kinds of fraudulent claims. This is definately a case where a little bit of misunderstood knowledge is much worse than no knowledge at all. Bryson's book does nothing to help this. Yes, teach people about science, but teach them real science, not some stuff that's made up to make it sound nice.

[andyandy]

But this is my problem, he doesn't just simplifying things, he gets them wrong.

snip

teach people about science, but teach them real science, not some stuff that's made up to make it sound nice.

What examples?

[Darat]

As Admin: Folks some feedback please - should the comments section be used for discussions or just for comments about the book or review? I'm wondering if it derails from the book review having extended discussions in the actual review itself, we could for instance just say make your comment and include a link to a thread for a follow up discussion.

[Dunstan]

As Admin: Folks some feedback please - should the comments section be used for discussions or just for comments about the book or review? I'm wondering if it derails from the book review having extended discussions in the actual review itself, we could for instance just say make your comment and include a link to a thread for a follow up discussion.

I'm not sure what distinction you're drawing between discussions and comments. My take is that posts should stay in the review thread if they're still directly tied to the book and/or the review.

For example, posts to the effect that "Bryson got X wrong" should stay in this thread. If posters embark on an extended discussion of whether X is, in fact, wrong, then that should be handled by a simple "I disagree; I think what Bryson wrote is a good approximation of the truth, here [link to new topic in Science forum] is why."

[dakotajudo]

For example, posts to the effect that "Bryson got X wrong" should stay in this thread."

OK.

I'd read (somewhere else, I think) the comments that Bryson got some of the science wrong, but didn't think much beyond that - I'd read the book, but couldn't remember anything specific; but then, I can't say I was paying that close attention when I read it.

So I clicked on this thread, to see if there were any comments on errors.

Instead, I read this, from above, quoting from Bryson:
A typical paramecium, for instance - a tiny, single celled, freshwater creature - is about 2 microns wide, 0.002 millimetres, which is really very small. If you wanted to see with your naked eye a paramecium swimming in a drop of water, you would have to enlarge the drop until it was some 12 metres across.

Years ago I was a graduate student (at the same institution Bryson had attended, though not at the same time; just some gratuitous syncronicity). Taught biology labs then, and I seem to remember a class with paramecium; I remember those being just visible to the naked eye.

So, I looked it up - according to wikipedia, Paramecia range from 50-350 microns in length.

I'm not so sure about the 12 m across part. Even if you allow for a micro-organism at 2 microns (wide, not long), 100X should be visible to the naked eye, I think. Allow for a 5mm drop, that's 500mm, or half a meter.

Maybe I missed a few errors when I read it the first time. Eh, it was bedtime reading.