Difference between revisions of "Science Matters: Achieving Science Literacy"

From TheAlmightyGuru
Jump to: navigation, search
(Bad)
Line 12: Line 12:
 
===Bad===
 
===Bad===
 
* Despite the title and introduction implying the book would argue for why a basic science education is important to everyone, the book is really just a primer on various fields of the hard sciences. It ignores the soft sciences, and doesn't go into much depth on ''what'' science is or ''why'' a good science education is important.
 
* Despite the title and introduction implying the book would argue for why a basic science education is important to everyone, the book is really just a primer on various fields of the hard sciences. It ignores the soft sciences, and doesn't go into much depth on ''what'' science is or ''why'' a good science education is important.
* Early on in the book, the authors suggest that science isn't the only way to understand something and suggest philosophy and religion as alternate means of understanding. While I agree with philosophy (science is just a category of philosophy after all), religion is not a means to understand anything, but rather a stumbling block that prevents understanding.
+
* The writing style is quite dry, and I often found my mind wandering out of bordem.
* The books wants more illustrations. There are a lot of science concepts that are very difficult to picture in your head, and basic illustrations would help a lot toward understanding. Unfortunately, the book only has a handful of primitive illustrations.
+
* The books wants more illustrations. There are a lot of concepts that are very difficult to picture in your head and basic illustrations would make understanding much easier. Unfortunately, the book only has a handful of primitive illustrations.
* The authors suggest that atoms are analogous to tiny solar systems, but this model was well out of date even in 1991, and is especially inaccurate today.
+
* Early on in the book, the authors suggest that science isn't the only way to understand something and suggest [[philosophy]] and [[religion]] as alternate means of understanding. While I agree with philosophy (science is just natural philosophy after all), religion is not a means to understand anything, but rather a stumbling block that prevents understanding.
 +
* The authors suggest that atoms are analogous to tiny solar systems, but this model was well out of date when the book was published in 1991, and is especially inaccurate today.
 
* The authors anthropomorphize too much, suggesting that photons "choose" whether they will reflect, retract, or be absorbed, that "nature created the electron," and so forth.
 
* The authors anthropomorphize too much, suggesting that photons "choose" whether they will reflect, retract, or be absorbed, that "nature created the electron," and so forth.
* The writing style isn't very engaging. Many times while reading the book I found my mind wandering.
+
* Near the end, the authors point out that science cannot have a position on abortion (which is correct), but they say it in a very inaccurate way suggesting that science can't say if life begins at conception. Science clearly can answer this question (the answer is "no, life existed long before conception"), and they could have elaborated on why the question is often phrased improperly and explained how to ask a better question about abortion.
  
 
===Ugly===
 
===Ugly===

Revision as of 14:46, 3 June 2019

US hardcover, 1st edition.

Science Matters: Achieving Science Literacy is a popular science book by Robert Hazen and James Trefil, first published in 1991.

Status

I own a first edition hardcover and am currently reading it.

Review

Good

  • I love the basic overview of every major branch of science.

Bad

  • Despite the title and introduction implying the book would argue for why a basic science education is important to everyone, the book is really just a primer on various fields of the hard sciences. It ignores the soft sciences, and doesn't go into much depth on what science is or why a good science education is important.
  • The writing style is quite dry, and I often found my mind wandering out of bordem.
  • The books wants more illustrations. There are a lot of concepts that are very difficult to picture in your head and basic illustrations would make understanding much easier. Unfortunately, the book only has a handful of primitive illustrations.
  • Early on in the book, the authors suggest that science isn't the only way to understand something and suggest philosophy and religion as alternate means of understanding. While I agree with philosophy (science is just natural philosophy after all), religion is not a means to understand anything, but rather a stumbling block that prevents understanding.
  • The authors suggest that atoms are analogous to tiny solar systems, but this model was well out of date when the book was published in 1991, and is especially inaccurate today.
  • The authors anthropomorphize too much, suggesting that photons "choose" whether they will reflect, retract, or be absorbed, that "nature created the electron," and so forth.
  • Near the end, the authors point out that science cannot have a position on abortion (which is correct), but they say it in a very inaccurate way suggesting that science can't say if life begins at conception. Science clearly can answer this question (the answer is "no, life existed long before conception"), and they could have elaborated on why the question is often phrased improperly and explained how to ask a better question about abortion.

Ugly

  • Nothing.

Links

Link-GoodReads.png