Skip to main content

Authors - A

A-B-C-D-E-F-G-H-I-J-K-L-M-N-O-P-Q-R-S-T-U-V-W-X-Y-Z

Steven Abbott

Marc Abrahams

Nancy Ellen Abrams (with Joel Primack)

David Acheson

Amir Aczel

Jeremy Adam (with Jason Marsh and Dacher Keltner)

John Adams (with Douglas Dixon)

Peter Adds et al

Charles Adler

John Agar

Nicholas Agar

Joseph d'Agnese (with Gordon Rugg)

Anthony Aguirre

Brad Aiken

Mary Aiken

Felix Alba-Juez

Hugh Aldersey-Williams

Brian Aldiss

Amir Alexander

Ken Alibek (with Stephen Handelman)

Jim Al-Khalili

Jim Al-Khalili (with Johnjoe McFadden)

Wade Allison

Ali Almossawi

Daniel Altschuler (with Fernando Ballesteros)

Ernesto Altshuler

Marco Alverà

Ben Ambridge

Kingsley Amis

Anil Ananthaswamy

Chris Anderson

Poul Anderson

Natalie Angier

Anil Ananthaswamy

Emily Anthes

Rob Appleby (with Ra Page) Editors

Robert Appleton

Dan Ariely

Robyn Arianrhod

Kyle Arnold

Helen Arney (with Steve Mould)

Kat Arney

Dominic Arsenault

Isaac Asimov

Frances Ashcroft

Peter Atkins

'Dr Austin'

Anthony Aveni

Azeem Azhar

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How Life Works - Philip Ball *****

Wow. This is quite simply the best biology book I've ever read. At its heart are two essentials: one is the science mantra 'It's more complex than we thought', and the other is that the public at large - and even many biologists - have put too much focus on genetics as the central shaping force of life and the inner development and workings of organisms, coming close to ignoring the many other layers of complex systems that make life what it is and drive evolution. You would think we would have got the message about 'It's more complex than we thought,' and the associated concept that 'It's more complex than we tell you at school or in science TV shows' by now. It's true of all the sciences. In physics, for example, we've known that the reality is more complicated than 'light is wave' for over a century now. But biological systems are so vastly more intricate and messy than anything dealt with in physics. Until recently, even those

Fluke - Brian Klaas ****

On the whole, popular science books tell us about what science and scientists have achieved. Fluke is very different in this respect - in it, social scientist and professor of global politics Brian Klaas tells us about what the social sciences have failed to achieve, and why. Perhaps the most familiar aspects of this are in introducing the reader to the implications of chaos theory and of complexity, plus the fall out of the replication crisis that has rendered many older (and quite a few new) social science studies useless. Using plenty of engaging stories (including the fact that his own existence is the outcome, amongst other things, of a horrific killing) Klaas builds a picture of just how many small inputs come together to make anything happen in the complex system of human society. The implication of this is that is practically impossible to usefully predict the future in the social sciences (so much for Asimov's psychohistory) - in fact, hardly any social science (which incl

A Chorus of Big Bangs - Adam Susskind ***

This is an oddity, which is trying to do something that scientists usually avoid at all costs: making us think about what we take on faith when we consider cosmology. If the 'F' word is a problem for you, I wouldn't bother to read any further, but Adam Susskind is certainly right to point out it is not just the religious part of the world population who rely on faith - to take the atheist standpoint that most scientists espouse also requires faith in the adequacy of sometimes tenuous theories when dealing with a science as hands-off as cosmology. Susskind does a good job of identifying a range of cosmological theories that have been repeatedly patched up when holes have been found, to the extent that some now feel quite flaky. Many of the theories Susskind identifies are indeed currently problematic, but easily replaced by a better future scientific theory - for example dark matter, dark energy and inflation. Others are more fundamental and we genuinely don't have a par