Difference between revisions of "The Origin of (Almost) Everything"

From TheAlmightyGuru
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 13: Line 13:
 
===Bad===
 
===Bad===
 
* Some of the origins don't go into nearly enough depth. For example, in the chapter on the origin of the universe, the author explains that [[quantum mechanics]] teaches us that the universe has a net value of zero, and that "nothing" is unstable, and always breaks into something. This is presented without any evidence or data to back it up.
 
* Some of the origins don't go into nearly enough depth. For example, in the chapter on the origin of the universe, the author explains that [[quantum mechanics]] teaches us that the universe has a net value of zero, and that "nothing" is unstable, and always breaks into something. This is presented without any evidence or data to back it up.
 +
* There are occasional claims that sound very suspect. For example, in the section on possessions, the author claims that animals don't keep possessions, not because they're not intelligent enough to do so, but because they don't have language. No evidence given for why a highly intelligent animal without language couldn't keep possessions, or why all animals with language must keep possessions.
  
 
===Ugly===
 
===Ugly===
*  
+
* Nothing.
  
 
==Media==
 
==Media==

Revision as of 14:18, 13 October 2020

The Origin of (almost) Everything is a popular science book by Graham Lawton which covers the origin of over 50 different things from the universe and atoms to dogs and penicillin.

Personal

Always eager to learn more about science, I started listening to this book.

Status

I don't own this book, but am currently listening to the audio book.

Review

Good

  • As the title suggests, the author described the origin of a myriad of things.

Bad

  • Some of the origins don't go into nearly enough depth. For example, in the chapter on the origin of the universe, the author explains that quantum mechanics teaches us that the universe has a net value of zero, and that "nothing" is unstable, and always breaks into something. This is presented without any evidence or data to back it up.
  • There are occasional claims that sound very suspect. For example, in the section on possessions, the author claims that animals don't keep possessions, not because they're not intelligent enough to do so, but because they don't have language. No evidence given for why a highly intelligent animal without language couldn't keep possessions, or why all animals with language must keep possessions.

Ugly

  • Nothing.

Media

Links

Link-GoodReads.png  link={{{2}}}