Most Recommended Science/Mathematics/Philosophy Reads.

[TheJilvin]

UPDATE: This list is newly updated. Please continue posting your own if you haven't seen any on this list and I've corrected some small errors in difficulty ratings, and I took off many of the ridiculously hard mathematical reads. I've also added more insight into the descriptions.

I have decided to make a long list of my favorite reading and learning materials that may be of some use to people. I really think this forum should provide a list by itself of resources. So i'll just give some materials and a quick review of each. I will also make sure to give the difficulty level of each. Feel free to recommend things.

General Physics
1. The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene
-Explained as precisely as possible for layman understanding. I've changed my opinion on this one as this is a far too optimistic treatment of string theory. Im sure most of you have read this one. I now only recommend this mostly because he gives an excellent layman description of quantum mechanics and general relativity.(Difficulty: 1/5; no mathematics at all except for some footnotes)
2. The Trouble With Physics by Lee Smolin
-A healthy reminder of the current empirical vagueness of string theory. Great read. (Difficulty: 2/5)
3. Feynman Lectures on Physics, Vol. 1-3 by Richard Feynman
Perfect. If you see something by Feynman, buy it immediately. (Difficulty: Varies, ranges from 1/5 in the beginning of the first volume but is 5/5 at the end of Volume III)
4. The Road to Reality by Roger Penrose
Most comprehensive assessment of all of physics, great read, but a bit vague at times (Difficulty: 5/5; incredibly difficult mathematics, you have to have several other textbooks to keep up adequately.)
5. Relativity by Albert Einstein
Great read, a little hard to understand, just read a little slowly. The reason it is hard to understand is because the vernacular awkwardly stems from early 20th century translated German.(Difficulty: 2/5 mostly but 3/5 in parts)
6. Gravitation by Charles Misner, Kip Thorne, John Wheeler
My friend recommends this, apparently he thinks its the best physics read ever, and hes pretty well read in physics. (Difficulty: 5/5)
8. On the Shoulders of Giants by Stephen Hawking
An interesting lookback on the physics that changed our world forever. (Difficulty: 5/5)
9. Quantum Reality by Nick Herbert
Great exploration of the ontologies of quantum mechanics. Extremely low on math though so not a precise formulation of quantum mechanics itself, only interpretations of it. (Difficulty: 3/5)
10. A Brief History of Time/ The Universe in a Nutshell, by Stephen Hawking
I cannot believe I forgot these book. Shame on me. Best layman explanation of physical concepts I have ever seen. (Difficulty: 1/5)
11 QED by Richard Feynman
Feynman at his best. A surprisingly thorough and accurate text on Quantum Electrodynamics in a thin little book. (Difficulty: 4/5 at times)
12. A Stubbornly Persistent Illusion: Hawking on Einstein
Basically the same thing as "On the Shoulders of Giants" except only on Einstein. Einstein is in the former volume at the very end but only a little bit. Very good read.


Pure Mathematics
1. Principia Mathematica
Absolutely beautiful piece of work. What a masterpiece. (Difficulty 5/5)
2. Visual Complex Analysis by Tristan Needham
Brilliant textbook. I said before that nearly the whole thing could be found on Google books but they have decided suddenly to omit a ton of pages and you can only get 10% of it now, but you can still buy it. (Difficulty: 4/5)
3. Advanced Calculus Demystified
I was surprised at how good this book was because the "Demystified" series usually isn't terribly great, but this is the best textbook I have ever read in any subject. I'm not joking. (Difficulty: 4/5)
4. Mathematical Methods for Physicists by Arfken and Weber
This book is essential for anybody wanting to be a physicist or engineer. MAKE SURE YOU GET THE SIXTH EDITION BECAUSE THE FIFTH IS PURE CRAP (Difficulty: 5/5)


Evolution/Biology
Anything by Richard Dawkins
He's written one philosophy book (The God Delusion), but hell, thats worth buying too. (Difficulty 2/5)
The Structure of Evolutionary Theory by Stephen Jay Gould
A masterpiece. Dissents on some of Dawkins' views concerning the locus of evolutionary selection and the rates of evolution. Fortunately, alot of their disagreements actually boil down to misunderstandings of what is meant to be an "individual". This is an advanced discussion of modern evolutionary topics. The only beef that I have with Gould is that a lot of people are taken in by his awesome prose and can't examine the issues he presents. (Difficulty: 4/5)
On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection by Charles Darwin
Best scientific work in the 19th century. Darwin has set the standard for logical, emprical, and philosophical reasoning for all time after him. Of course he's wrong on some things, but he's wrong on surprisingly little. Plus, he's not an arrogant douchebag throughout his writings, so typical of 19th century scientists. (Difficulty 3/5)
Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne
Great piece of work. Shows the overwhelming evidence of evolution. (Difficulty 3/5)
The Greatest Show on Earth: the Evidence for Evolution by Richard Dawkins
Lays out the evidence for evolution. (Difficulty: 2/5)

Philosophy
Anything by Nietzsche
Yup. Awesome material.
1984 by George Orwell
Not a philosophy book, but its the best fiction book ever and I didn't make a topic for fiction. Strong philosophical implications READ IT.
Greek Philosophers
Read some Aristotle/Plato/etc; Any Greek philosopher. Alot of them have wise things to say but I have to say that some of them are pretty fucking stupid.
Anything by Dan Dennet
Godel, Escher, Bach
Awesome Awesome Awesome. Tricky at parts to wrap your head around.



Things not to read:
-Anything by creationists is almost painful. Read for entertainment purposes but prepare to be angered by the deception if you actually check their facts and sources.
- Ayn Rand; now I am a hardcore individualist, but this lady is a dickweed who ripped of Nietzsche's philosophy and applied it to economics. She turns people into complete assholes after they read her stuff and only likes something if it helps a large industry rake in some cash. Sure, I thought she was just promoting the idea that you aren't obligated to sacrifice yourself just for society or religion but it becomes increasingly clear that she only likes things with economic value. There are better individualist philosophers than her.

 

[desertedcities]

I always recommend to people to read the Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica in Latin (which very few can, and only one person I know did it. Took him forever, though).

Anyways...

For a starter, I usually tell people to read Sophie's World. It's a good book, and it helps with philosophical (and some scientific) principals of the ages. It's the starting point dealio, I guess.

Also, Das Capital and the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx (and Engels) are two I always recommend. No matter the person's dislike of the Communist ideal (the fear is painfully misled). Das Capital is one of my favorite studies of Capitalism, and I think the first. It still rings true.

Democracy in America by Alexis de Tocqueville is the best book on politics (especially democracy) ever written in my opinion. It's brilliant for lack of a better term.

I always tell people who are music theorists (and generally into math) to read Pythagoras, to Aristoxenus, to Zarlino, to Decartes, to M. De Brossard, to Jean-Phillipe Rameau, to (I'm gonna put it short) all the theorists up to today. Or at least a chronology of famous theorists to gain a theoretical foundation.

If you want a torturous, albeit, interesting 'new' look at history, I always say read The Philosophy of History by Hegel. It's painful to read, but it opens up a new look at looking back at history.

Voltaire (Candide etc.) I recommend, Rosseau (The Social Contract, etc.), Hume (Treatise on Human Nature), Herder (Reflections on the Philosophy of the History of Mankind), Goethe (Faust, etc), Shopenhauer (The World as Will and Idea, I like that one), of course Dostoyevsky's Crime and Punishment, Kafka I tell people to read as well.

And before I forget, if anyone wants to study more on religion, Huston Smith is one to read.

I'm too tired to think of the rest right now.

 

[MachineSp1rit]

oh good, i'll look into them. i'm especially interested in quantum physics and philosophy on certain themes.

one question, will i understand all of those if i know only highschool-level physics and math? i know them pretty good though, especially physics.

 

[Pulsar]

A very enjoyable book is "Who Got Einstein's Office? Eccentricity and Genius at the Institute for Advanced Study" by Ed Regis. It's a collection of anecdotes about the geniuses who worked at the Institute in Princeton: Einstein, Gà¶del, Oppenheimer, von Neumann and a whole bunch of other legends. Written with lots of humor, it's great to have a look on the every day lives of these not-so-every-day people. The eccentricities of Gà¶del are tragicomic.
In the same league is the classic "Surely You're Joking Mr. Feynman".

I just finished the excellent book "Einstein's Telescope" from Evalyn Gates. A very accessible, yet detailed and up-to-date discussion of gravitational lensing and the search for dark matter and dark energy. Highly recommended if you want to know the latest on this subject.

 

[TheJilvin]

To Mach1ne Spirit:

The following are much too difficult for high school math to cover:
-The Road to Reality
-Gravitation
-Quantum Mechanics
-String Theory Vols I+II

Ill add some more stuff I think of by editing my post later. In fact, i'll put a couple more on there now for laymen.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I usually tell people to read college-level physics, calculus, and biology books, and do all of the homework problems. Anyone who claims a doctorate in those subjects gets past those books early on, in order to get into a good post-doc program. If you can't even get past the basics, you don't have any grounds to argue against them. It is useful for people to learn a little humility, and to understand how little they actually know about the subjects.

Philosophy? Don't bother... most of that stuff is complete garbage. I guess the best bet is to read absolutely nothing from the past 100 years, because most of it has almost certainly already been said. Modern philosophy is 99% crap on a stick.

 

[Pulsar]

Philosophy? Don't bother... most of that stuff is complete garbage. I guess the best bet is to read absolutely nothing from the past 100 years, because most of it has almost certainly already been said. Modern philosophy is 99% crap on a stick.

Reminds me of an old joke...

The chair of the physics department goes to the provost for the annual budget review. "I've got some good news and some bad news. The good news is we have a lot of exciting things going on in the department - some potential Noble-prize winning stuff. The bad news is we need a new particle accelerator which will cost $10M."

The Provost is shocked. "That is a lot of money. It is incredible to me how different departments need different things. Why can't you be more like the math department? They only want paper, pencils and wastebaskets. And the philosophy department doesn't even want the wastebaskets..."

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Reminds me of an old joke...

The chair of the physics department goes to the provost for the annual budget review. "I've got some good news and some bad news. The good news is we have a lot of exciting things going on in the department - some potential Noble-prize winning stuff. The bad news is we need a new particle accelerator which will cost $10M."

The Provost is shocked. "That is a lot of money. It is incredible to me how different departments need different things. Why can't you be more like the math department? They only want paper, pencils and wastebaskets. And the philosophy department doesn't even want the wastebaskets..."

At least the literature and drama departments admit that there are a limited number of possible plots. We could probably eliminate all but the top 5% of philosophers making a living at it, and it would still be 2-3% too many. The new areas that philosophers have to study is incredibly limited. How much more can they talk about issues about which they are FUCKING WRONG?!?!?!

Seriously... they are like creationists, pretending that their arguments have merit, because they really, really mean it!

 

[Mazzerkhan]

At least the literature and drama departments admit that there are a limited number of possible plots. We could probably eliminate all but the top 5% of philosophers making a living at it, and it would still be 2-3% too many. The new areas that philosophers have to study is incredibly limited. How much more can they talk about issues about which they are FUCKING WRONG?!?!?!

Seriously... they are like creationists, pretending that their arguments have merit, because they really, really mean it!

On that note may I highly recommend "the philosopher and the wolf" by mark Rowlands. Think you'll find him in the permissable 2-3%.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

On that note may I highly recommend "the philosopher and the wolf" by mark Rowlands. Think you'll find him in the permissable 2-3%.

Funny... his ideas are the sort of almost purely distilled garbage that I am opposed to. The sort of bizarre "Iron John" macho posing with the wolf is bad enough, but his whole "vehicle externalism" is the real crime. The whole thing is effing garbage, looking to slice accepted concepts into tiny bits, by distinctions without meaningful difference, and certainly with no practical difference.

Or not. I think hashing out these distinctions without differences is mostly a waste of time, and I'm not quite bored enough to argue it yet.

 

[Sparky]

At least the literature and drama departments admit that there are a limited number of possible plots. We could probably eliminate all but the top 5% of philosophers making a living at it, and it would still be 2-3% too many. The new areas that philosophers have to study is incredibly limited. How much more can they talk about issues about which they are FUCKING WRONG?!?!?!

Lol you would like our university where B.A. stands for bugger all! :lol:

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Lol you would like our university where B.A. stands for bugger all! :lol:

And Ph.D. stands for "Piled Higher and Deeper"?

 

[ImprobableJoe]

To be a little more on-topic: I would like to see the more popular "layperson" explanations of science and math be balanced by books that show how incredibly difficult it is to understand these topics. People need to understand that reading a book on physics makes you qualified to discuss physics the way playing a driving game on XBox makes you qualified to build a race car from scratch and race it on the NASCAR circuit.

 

[TheJilvin]

Ill do an explicit contrast because it sounds like a great idea actually.

This is far less true of evolutionary theory. You can actually have a rather comprehensive understanding of evolutionary theory if you read alot of books.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Ill do an explicit contrast because it sounds like a great idea actually.

This is far less true of evolutionary theory. You can actually have a rather comprehensive understanding of evolutionary theory if you read alot of books.

... if you accept that scientists in general know what they are talking about. :lol:

 

[TheJilvin]

"... if you accept that scientists in general know what they are talking about. "

Well, then again, it is pretty much a giant Satanic atheistic conspiracy; with secularist corporations trying to rape the minds of the youth with anti-Christian propaganda such as "We evolved from monkeys so you can just kill anybody you want to if you think its fun!" or "The earth isn't the center of the universe! You can eat as many babies as fills your tummies because the earth just isn't good enough to be center anymore!"

Heliocentrist evolutionist bastards...

 

[Walter_Kovacs]

What would be a good book for someone with limited knowledge of evolution, a book that covers the basics and maybe goes a little deeper?

 

[TheJilvin]

A good book for starters on evolution would be "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins.

 

[CupOfWater]

Stephen hawking wrote a great book once, called A Brief History of Time. Awesome book. Difficulty 2/5 and 3/5

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Stephen hawking wrote a great book once, called A Brief History of Time. Awesome book. Difficulty 2/5 and 3/5

I'd suggest that book with the warning that no one understands anything more after reading that book than they do before reading that book... anyone who claims that they understand the issues after reading that book REALLY doesn't understand anything at all.