100 Or so Books that shaped a Century of Science (1999)(web.mnstate.edu)
web.mnstate.edu
100 Or so Books that shaped a Century of Science (1999)
https://web.mnstate.edu/schwartz/centurylist2.html
37 comments
The inclusion of Vonnegut's _Cat's Cradle_ is bizarre --- it posits an impossible substance, with bizarre properties, and examines society in a way I have trouble relating to, and its commentary on science such as it is, is if anything, discouraging.
_Dune_ for its role in inspiring the study of ecology would seem more fitting.
It's unfortunate that a didactic text such as H. Beam Piper's novella "Omnilingual" couldn't be considered instead.
_Dune_ for its role in inspiring the study of ecology would seem more fitting.
It's unfortunate that a didactic text such as H. Beam Piper's novella "Omnilingual" couldn't be considered instead.
Prions behave a bit like a biological version of ice-nine. It's a novel shape of protein that "teaches" other protein to be shaped like it. Obviously its scope is far more limited than all the world's water, but it's still sobering to think that this risk even exists.
While I agree that the book presents a fairly negative view of science and scientists (it reminds me strongly of Margaret Atwood's more recent Oryx and Crake), the idea of a substance with the properties of ice-9 isn't that ridiculous -- it was actually suggested by Irving Langmuir (Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1932) to H.G. Wells as an idea (although Wells never ended up using it)
I see nothing wrong with calling out the dangers of science in the service of the military. I wouldn't assume the list should include only science cheerleading books.
(And probably the Pynchon inclusion in the list dovetails with Kurt Vonnegut's.)
(And probably the Pynchon inclusion in the list dovetails with Kurt Vonnegut's.)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S24685...
Deracemization in near equilibrium crystallization system Materials of single chirality can also be achieved by deracemization of a racemic mixture to pure enantiomers in a near-equilibrium system. Deracemization processes aim to transform the undesired enantiomer into the desired enantiomer with a high yield of 100%
Deracemization in near equilibrium crystallization system Materials of single chirality can also be achieved by deracemization of a racemic mixture to pure enantiomers in a near-equilibrium system. Deracemization processes aim to transform the undesired enantiomer into the desired enantiomer with a high yield of 100%
In Cat's Cradle, "Ice 9" is an idea that sweeps across the world destroying it. It's an allegory.
Bad title for the list. The books by Feynman, Weinberg, Sagan, Steinbeck, McPhee, and Levi didn't shape science. At best they are good descriptions of what happened in the century.
Which books did Feynman write?
Lot's of people have written books and said they're "stories told by Feynman" but that's not really the same thing as "Feynman dictated this story and reviewed it with the editors..."
Lot's of people have written books and said they're "stories told by Feynman" but that's not really the same thing as "Feynman dictated this story and reviewed it with the editors..."
I was under the impression that he didn't write any books. The books attributed to him are transcribed by and edited by other people, with the source of the information being attributed to him (recorded conversations and lectures).
Right -- for example, the "Joking" and other stories are written by Ralph Leighton[1].
Interestingly, Ralph is son of Robert Leighton[2], the caltech physicist who was a contemporary (and peer) of Feynman's and part of the team that transcribed and edited "the Feynman Lectures".
So that's 2 (or 3) of the big books that feynman's said to have written that he was only partially involved with.
And lastly, if my dad were a physicist and I went out of my way to write a book about another physicist, and I went out of my way to describe that other physicist as the best and most coolist physicist ever, there's probably an interesting backstory that's not in the book.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Leighton
[2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_B._Leighton
Interestingly, Ralph is son of Robert Leighton[2], the caltech physicist who was a contemporary (and peer) of Feynman's and part of the team that transcribed and edited "the Feynman Lectures".
So that's 2 (or 3) of the big books that feynman's said to have written that he was only partially involved with.
And lastly, if my dad were a physicist and I went out of my way to write a book about another physicist, and I went out of my way to describe that other physicist as the best and most coolist physicist ever, there's probably an interesting backstory that's not in the book.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Leighton
[2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_B._Leighton
It looks like an excellent resource. Unfortunately, at present, all the links are broken within the document.
Expected for a 25 y.o. Web document.
The Wayback version ... unfortunately doesn't seem to fare any better:
<https://web.archive.org/web/20120927083131/http://web.mnstat...>
If the list uses ISBNs or similar identifiers, it should be relatively straightforward to create an updated page with links to a source such as OpenLibrary, Worldcat, or Wikimedia's ISBN template (<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ISBN>).
Though these don't look like ISBNs...
PALS (Library Technology in Minnesota) is now at <https://www.mnpals.org/>, and there might be a URL migration path there.
The Wayback version ... unfortunately doesn't seem to fare any better:
<https://web.archive.org/web/20120927083131/http://web.mnstat...>
If the list uses ISBNs or similar identifiers, it should be relatively straightforward to create an updated page with links to a source such as OpenLibrary, Worldcat, or Wikimedia's ISBN template (<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ISBN>).
Though these don't look like ISBNs...
PALS (Library Technology in Minnesota) is now at <https://www.mnpals.org/>, and there might be a URL migration path there.
Surprised Gödel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid isn't in there somewhere...
For what it's worth, "The Mind's I" is on the list, which was edited by Douglas Hofstadter and Daniel Dennett.
I Am a Strange Loop is also good...
Mind's I is a much better book, GEB is one of those books that everyone has that no one has read. Read the Cliff's Notes for GEB and spend your time on Mind's I.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mind%27s_I
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mind%27s_I
I haven't read The Mind's I, but I rather enjoyed GEB when I read it in college. I didn't realize it was considered a book "no one actually reads." My sense has been quite the opposite!
Back in the day, lots of people did read GEB, although we often missed the point. Apparently (as he wrote in an introduction in a later edition) the point of the book was to encourage people to study AI (at a time when it wasn't popular). While I can see this now, at the time I was more intrigued by his chapter on molecular biology and went into that instead.
The field of science is too broad to capture in just 100 books without feeling like something is missing. E.g, one of the most important scientific achievements in my biased view would relate to computing (/ telecommunications) - but I do not immediately spot books related to this.
Edit: I missed one on technology that is listed. Still feels meager in comparison to others. But again I am biased :)
Edit: I missed one on technology that is listed. Still feels meager in comparison to others. But again I am biased :)
It also lists "The art of computer programming (1968) by Donald Knuth"
Seems very light on math also, with just three texts on it. As much as I respect Bertrand Russell, I'm not sure if _Principia Mathematica_ is the last word on mathematics for the century.
Ironically, Knuth has stated that his idea of _Literate Programming_ is more important than TAoCP.
Ironically, Knuth has stated that his idea of _Literate Programming_ is more important than TAoCP.
> As much as I respect Bertrand Russell, I'm not sure if _Principia Mathematica_ is the last word on mathematics for the century.
I feel like they picked it because not much original mathematics is published in book form. Most of the work that shaped the century in mathematics was published as papers.
They might also have picked it because Russell published books that are readable by laypeople, so in the unlikely event that someone tried to read Principia Mathematica because of this list, they could put it down and pick something else by Russell to read instead.
I feel like they picked it because not much original mathematics is published in book form. Most of the work that shaped the century in mathematics was published as papers.
They might also have picked it because Russell published books that are readable by laypeople, so in the unlikely event that someone tried to read Principia Mathematica because of this list, they could put it down and pick something else by Russell to read instead.
A bit of a strange list. I.e. I'm not sure that "The Hubble atlas of galaxies" by Allan Sandage is that influential really.
Also I went there to check if the Jaynes's Probability Theory book was there or not, but it is not.
This just made me realize that we're 10 years past the 100th anniversary of Einstein publishing about general relativity. Which made me realize that we're a quarter of the way through the 21th century...
Also, I think a list made today would have to include some of the early work on deep learning that happened in the 20th century. Which goes to show that sometimes you don't know what's important until much later on.
Also, I think a list made today would have to include some of the early work on deep learning that happened in the 20th century. Which goes to show that sometimes you don't know what's important until much later on.
In line with some other comments: The list is finite, and curated, so I will add some not included: GEB (As FuriouslyAdrift said), and The Eighth Day of Creation. The latter is a collection of first-hand interviews with the biologists who shaped the rapid expansion of the field in the 20th century.
So few of the greatest books that shaped a Century of Science...
I can point to 15 days that are going to shape a century of anti-science...at least here in the USA.
(1999)
[deleted]
[deleted]
ping
Both personal, and highly detailed, it is an absolute masterpiece and a must read for anyone pursuing a scientific career.