Skip to main content

Authors - D

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


Thibault Damour (with Mathieu Burniat)

Erich von Daniken

David Darling

David Darling (with Dirk Schulze-Makuch)

Kate Darling

Charles Darwin

Idrapamit Das

Laurent Daudet (with Appupen)

Paul Dauvergne

Romeel Davé

Thomas Davenport (with Steven Miller)

Paul Davies

Sally Davies

Daniel Davis

Richard Dawkins

Mark Stuart Day

Niall Deacon

David Deamer (with Wallace Kaufman)

Peter Dear

Kees van Deemter

Ronald Deibert

Louis Del Monte

Mark Denny

John Derbyshire

Clément and Guillaume Deslandes

Adrian Desmond (with James Moore)

Guy Deutscher

Keith Devlin

Louise Devoy

Lee De-Wit

Iain Dey (with Douglas Buck)

Persi Diaconis (with Ron Graham)

Persi Diaconis (with Brian Skyrms)

Philip K. Dick

Virginia Dignum

Andrew Dilnot (with Michael Blastland)

Thomas Disch

Douglas Dixon (with John Adams)

Cory Doctorow

Pieter van Dokkum

Paul Dolan

Pedro Domingos

Athene Donald

Michael Dowd

Neil Downie

Douwe Draaisma

Liam Drew

Karl Drinkwater

Sarah Dry

Marcus du Sautoy

Stephen Dubner (with Steven Levitt)

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