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
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

It's On You - Nick Chater and George Loewenstein *****

Going on the cover you might think this was a political polemic - and admittedly there's an element of that - but the reason it's so good is quite different. It shows how behavioural economics and social psychology have led us astray by putting the focus way too much on individuals. A particular target is the concept of nudges which (as described in Brainjacking ) have been hugely over-rated. But overall the key problem ties to another psychological concept: framing. Huge kudos to both Nick Chater and George Loewenstein - a behavioural scientist and an economics and psychology professor - for having the guts to take on the flaws in their own earlier work and that of colleagues, because they make clear just how limited and potentially dangerous is the belief that individuals changing their behaviour can solve large-scale problems. The main thesis of the book is that there are two ways to approach the major problems we face - an 'i-frame' where we focus on the individual ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Introducing Artificial Intelligence – Henry Brighton & Howard Selina ****

It is almost impossible to rate these relentlessly hip books – they are pure marmite*. The huge  Introducing  … series (a vast range of books covering everything from Quantum Theory to Islam), previously known as …  for Beginners , puts across the message in a style that owes as much to Terry Gilliam and pop art as it does to popular science. Pretty well every page features large graphics with speech bubbles that are supposed to emphasise the point. Funnily,  Introducing Artificial Intelligence  is both a good and bad example of the series. Let’s get the bad bits out of the way first. The illustrators of these books are very variable, and I didn’t particularly like the pictures here. They did add something – the illustrations in these books always have a lot of information content, rather than being window dressing – but they seemed more detached from the text and rather lacking in the oomph the best versions have. The other real problem is that...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Laws of Thought - Tom Griffiths *****

In giving us a history of attempts to explain our thinking abilities, Tom Griffiths demonstrates an excellent ability to pitch information just right for the informed general reader.  We begin with Aristotelian logic and the way Boole and others transformed it into a kind of arithmetic before a first introduction of computing and theories of language. Griffiths covers a surprising amount of ground - we don't just get, for instance, the obvious figures of Turing, von Neumann and Shannon, but the interaction between the computing pioneers and those concerned with trying to understand the way we think - for example in the work of Jerome Bruner, of whom I confess I'd never heard.  This would prove to be the case with a whole host of people who have made interesting contributions to the understanding of human thought processes. Sometimes their theories were contradictory - this isn't an easy field to successfully observe - but always they were interesting. But for me, at least, ...
Post a Comment
Read more