Skip to main content

Why Don't Things Fall Up? - Alom Shaha *****

At first glance, Alom Shaha's book is another of those compact hardbacks with six or seven essays that have done so well in the popular science field since Rovelli's Seven Brief Lessons in Physics. Even the subtitle 'and six other science lessons you missed at school' suggests this. But in reality, Shaha is doing something far more original and interesting. Popular science for absolute beginners.

The thing is, most popular science titles are written either by scientists or professional science writers who typically have a science-based degree. Shaha is, indeed, such a science writer, but he is also a secondary school science teacher. Scientists rarely grasp how to present science in a way that doesn't assume a reasonable amount of pre-knowledge. Science writers are usually better than this, but tend to favour the exotic and exciting bits of science, which often means going into more depth than many readers feel comfortable with. This is genuinely a book on science for people who don't read science books.

At first sight, Shaha's seven questions are distinctly simplistic. We get 'Why is the sky blue?', 'Why don't things fall up?', Why does ice cream melt?', 'What is the smallest thing?', 'What are stars?', 'Are fish animals?' and 'What am I made of?' Although these might seem something that could be answered in a couple of paragraphs (or with 'Yes' in answer to 'Are fish animals?'), Shaha uses the questions as starting points to delve into a whole range of scientific concepts, starting at the most basic level. So, for example, in the ice cream chapter, we get explorations of atoms/molecules, temperature, states of matter, statistical mechanics, Brownian motion and the basics of chemistry.

All this is done in a chatty, approachable fashion with some lovely little surprises. The absolute best is that when talking about waves, Shaha introduces the 'jelly baby wave machine' - I was hooked at its first mention, but in an appendix he even tells you how to build one. I might never do it, but it's somehow very pleasing that I now know how to do so.

There is one inevitable downside to a book like this - because Shaha is intent on keeping things as simple as possible (though a couple of equations do creep in), there is the occasional oversimplification. For example we are told that the force of gravity 'exists between any two objects with mass', which, while true, misses the reality that things without mass (photons, for example) can also be influenced by gravity. Similarly we are told about Franklin's infamous kite-in-a-thunderstorm experiment as if he actually undertook it, while it's generally considered by historians of science that he didn't actually do it.

Apart from that, I have just one concern. This is a book about science for people who don't read science books. Which is a great concept. But would someone who doesn't read science books ever read this book (even though they might benefit hugely)? I've a horrible feeling it won't necessarily reach the audience who most need to read it - but hopefully it will. Either way, it's a great idea, beautifully executed. 

Hardback:   
Kindle 
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
Review by Brian Clegg - See all Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly email free here

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

David Spiegelhalter Five Way interview

Professor Sir David Spiegelhalter FRS OBE is Emeritus Professor of Statistics in the Centre for Mathematical Sciences at the University of Cambridge. He was previously Chair of the Winton Centre for Risk and Evidence Communication and has presented the BBC4 documentaries Tails you Win: the Science of Chance, the award-winning Climate Change by Numbers. His bestselling book, The Art of Statistics , was published in March 2019. He was knighted in 2014 for services to medical statistics, was President of the Royal Statistical Society (2017-2018), and became a Non-Executive Director of the UK Statistics Authority in 2020. His latest book is The Art of Uncertainty . Why probability? because I have been fascinated by the idea of probability, and what it might be, for over 50 years. Why is the ‘P’ word missing from the title? That's a good question.  Partly so as not to make it sound like a technical book, but also because I did not want to give the impression that it was yet another book

The Genetic Book of the Dead: Richard Dawkins ****

When someone came up with the title for this book they were probably thinking deep cultural echoes - I suspect I'm not the only Robert Rankin fan in whom it raised a smile instead, thinking of The Suburban Book of the Dead . That aside, this is a glossy and engaging book showing how physical makeup (phenotype), behaviour and more tell us about the past, with the messenger being (inevitably, this being Richard Dawkins) the genes. Worthy of comment straight away are the illustrations - this is one of the best illustrated science books I've ever come across. Generally illustrations are either an afterthought, or the book is heavily illustrated and the text is really just an accompaniment to the pictures. Here the full colour images tie in directly to the text. They are not asides, but are 'read' with the text by placing them strategically so the picture is directly with the text that refers to it. Many are photographs, though some are effective paintings by Jana Lenzová. T

Everything is Predictable - Tom Chivers *****

There's a stereotype of computer users: Mac users are creative and cool, while PC users are businesslike and unimaginative. Less well-known is that the world of statistics has an equivalent division. Bayesians are the Mac users of the stats world, where frequentists are the PC people. This book sets out to show why Bayesians are not just cool, but also mostly right. Tom Chivers does an excellent job of giving us some historical background, then dives into two key aspects of the use of statistics. These are in science, where the standard approach is frequentist and Bayes only creeps into a few specific applications, such as the accuracy of medical tests, and in decision theory where Bayes is dominant. If this all sounds very dry and unexciting, it's quite the reverse. I admit, I love probability and statistics, and I am something of a closet Bayesian*), but Chivers' light and entertaining style means that what could have been the mathematical equivalent of debating angels on