Skip to main content

Science 1001 – Paul Parsons ***

Paul Parsons is a brilliant science writer – which, frankly, is just as well as he’s taken on a huge challenge here. Doubly so, in fact. The first hurdle is simply writing a book covering all of science in 1001 short articles. As he admits himself, it’s a huge paring down job to fit it all in. The second hurdle is making a book in this format readable. We’ll see how he does.
It’s a handsome, if rather heavy book, somewhere between a typical hardback and a small coffee table book in size (though with floppy covers). Inside, it’s divided into 10 main sections – from the obvious ones like physics and biology, through social science and ‘knowledge, information and computing’, to ‘the future’. Each section is split into topics – so in physics you might get ‘electricity and magnetism’ and within each topic there are around 12 entries.
In a sense, then, this is a mini-encyclopaedia of science, though arranged by subject, rather than alphabetically. But it’s nowhere near as dull as that sounds. Parsons manages to encapsulate many of the (sometimes complex) topics superbly in what is usually just a couple of paragraphs. Not only does he cram a lot in, but the text is always readable with minimal jargon. There have to be some technical terms, though – where possible he uses a kind of hypertext structure, highlighting keywords that have their own topic. Inevitably, good writer though Parsons is, some of these topics are extremely summary. It’s all very well to cover Schrödinger’s Cat in a couple of paragraphs (though I think it’s unfortunate he does – it’s hardly crucial to quantum physics), but less practical to cover, say, the whole of M-theory.
I really enjoyed many of the entries – they are mini-articles in their own right, and often left me wanting more. (In fact each one could do with a ‘if you want to read more, try this book’ line at the end).
Given the breadth of the scope I can’t be sure of the accuracy of all the entries. A handful in topics I know something about did raise an eyebrow. Right at the beginning we are told acceleration is the rate at which speed, rather than velocity, is changing. This isn’t just a case of the terminology – it does refer to the scalar speed rather than the vector velocity, and that is just wrong. Not wrong, but slightly confusing is the use of the term ‘equivalence principle’ in the Galilean sense of objects of different mass falling at the same speed in any particular gravitational field. It is more commonly used in the Einsteinean sense of the equivalence of gravity and acceleration, so could confuse people. Another entry that was very misleading was that on escape velocity. This explicitly states that a rocket has to travel at escape velocity to escape from Earth’s gravitational field. That is very wrong. A projectile, like a bullet, needs to travel at escape velocity – but a rocket can travel at 5 miles per hour and escape provided it remains under power. This section definitely needs revising.
However, these and any other errors are a tiny fraction of the entries, something you would expect in any book of this scale. I do have one other concern, though – what this book is for. It really isn’t the sort of book you sit down and read from cover to cover (which is why, despite liking it, I can only give it 3 stars, as a reference book is only borderline popular science). It’s much more something to dip in. In his introduction, the author says ‘My aim as a writer was to combine the breadth of a reference book – for example, a dictionary of science – with the accessibility and sense of fun that you get from a piece of popular science writing.’ This is fine, and the entries are very readable, but there is no way you can give much of the feel of good popular science writing in a couple of paragraphs. So in the end, it is really a reference book. And then we have a challenging thought.
Remember the way those keywords are highlighted like hypertext. How much better if they were hypertext. This arguably shouldn’t be a book, it should be a website. I sympathise with Paul Parsons, because as an author you get paid for writing a book, but it’s very difficult to get money out of a website – nonetheless, that’s what this is. And then you have to put it up against the likes of Wikipedia. Okay, Wikipedia entries aren’t anywhere near as readable as these, but the science entries are usually excellent, they often have a fair introductory couple of paragraphs, equivalent to these mini-articles, but then plunge into impressive depth if you want more. Wikipedia is nowhere near as consistent, but it is very powerful, and easy to access.
So this book is well written, covers a huge range and is a wonderful project. It would perhaps work well as a dip-in book to keep in the loo, or a waiting room, or another ‘five minutes to spare’ location. But it isn’t a read-through book, and it can’t compete as a reference. My own mini-article book on physics suffered from exactly the same criticism in its review. A lovely book, but perhaps a bit of a folly in today’s multimedia environment.

Paperback:  
Review by Brian Clegg

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Superior - Angela Saini *****

It was always going to be difficult to follow Angela Saini's hugely popular Inferior, but with Superior she has pulled it off, not just in the content but by upping the quality of the writing to a whole new level. Where Inferior looked at the misuse of science in supporting sexism (and the existence of sexism in science), Superior examines the way that racism has been given a totally unfounded pseudo-scientific basis in the past - and how, remarkably, despite absolute evidence to the contrary, this still turns up today.

At the heart of the book is the scientific fact that 'race' simply does not exist biologically - it is nothing more than an outdated social label. As Saini points out, there are far larger genetic variations within a so-called race than there are between individuals supposedly of different races. She shows how, pre-genetics, racial prejudice was given a pseudo-scientific veneer by dreaming up fictitious physical differences over and above the tiny distinct…

Where are the chemistry popular science books?

by Brian Clegg
There has never been more emphasis on the importance of public engagement. We need both to encourage a deeper interest in science and to counter anti-scientific views that seem to go hand-in-hand with some types of politics. Getting the public interested in science both helps recruit new scientists of the future and spreads an understanding of why an area of scientific research deserves funding. Yet it is possible that chemistry lags behind the other sciences in outreach. As a science writer, and editor of this website, I believe that chemistry is under-represented in popular science. I'd like to establish if this is the case, if so why it is happening - and what can be done to change things. 


An easy straw poll is provided by the topic tags on the site. At the time of writing, there are 22 books under 'chemistry' as opposed to 97 maths, 126 biology and 182 physics. The distribution is inevitably influenced by editorial bias - but as the editor, I can confirm …

The Art of Statistics - David Spiegelhalter *****

Statistics have a huge impact on us - we are bombarded with them in the news, they are essential to medical trials, fundamental science, some court cases and far more. Yet statistics is also a subject than many struggle to deal with (especially when the coupled subject of probability rears its head). Most of us just aren't equipped to understand what we're being told, or to question it when the statistics are dodgy. What David Spiegelhalter does here is provide a very thorough introductory grounding in statistics without making use of mathematical formulae*. And it's remarkable.

What will probably surprise some who have some training in statistics, particularly if (like mine) it's on the old side, is that probability doesn't come into the book until page 205. Spiegelhalter argues that as probability is the hardest aspect for us to get an intuitive feel for, this makes a lot of sense - and I think he's right. That doesn't mean that he doesn't cover all …