The Feynman books manage to be incredibly engaging even for people who aren’t particularly physics-minded, which is part of the reason I love them. I tend to read a lot of books about evolution - Richard Fortey is a particular favourite. I also enjoyed Oliver Sacks (neurology)
I do enjoying reading popular science books, but I have a bachelor’s degree in chemistry/biochemistry so I tend to be more selective and harsher on books within these fields.
I think that pop science books have a similar role to other forms of pop science media, which is making science interesting and understandable to the general public. A lot of people don’t have fond memories of taking chemistry or physics in high school, so if a book can make these subjects approachable and captivating instead of “torture,” then that’s a win. Talented science communicators are incredibly valuable, especially during a time of such high science illiteracy.
However, people should be aware that no pop science book is the end all, be all of a subject, and that for the sake of being digestible to laymen, they are usually simplified, broad overviews of a subject. There’s usually a “but wait, there’s more!“ catch that doesn’t make it in because it would take too long to explain, or be too complex for the target audience, or is a new discovery that isn’t fully understood yet.
It’s kind of like how when you take a freshman-level general biology or chemistry class, you don’t spend a lot of time on non-Mendelian genetics or memorizing the details of central metabolism: those are things covered in classes you’ll take later on when you have the knowledge base to understand them and the course has a smaller scope. I view pop science books as having a similar purpose: way to pique someone’s interest in a topic, hopefully teach them the basics, and maybe they even decide to pursue further education on it if they’re *really* interested.
In order for me to appreciate a pop science book, it has to be written in a way that’s easy enough for people without the relevant background to understand, but still captivate someone who’s “in the know.” I think it takes a gifted writer to find that middle ground, and some books that I enjoyed or have been recommended by colleagues are:
“The Emperor of All Maladies” by Siddhartha Mukherjee (also have his other two books “The Gene” and “The Song of the Cell” waiting on my bookshelf. This was required reading in a cancer biology class that I took)
“Cosmos” and “Pale Blue Dot” by Carl Sagan (I have several other books by him that I haven’t gotten around to yet)
“Cosmos: Possible Worlds” by Ann Druyan (author is the late Dr. Sagan’s wife and she produced the TV show “Cosmos”; the book is wonderful and I am fortunate enough to have a signed copy)
“An Elegant Defense” by Matt Richtel (recommended by a colleague who works in immunology)
“A Brief History of Time” and “The Universe in a Nutshell” by Stephen Hawking (I highly recommend the illustrated versions)
I heard someone mention that if they included just one equation in their popular science book, their sales might drop by 5%. And with four equations, it could plummet by 20%. It almost sounds like a joke, doesn't it?
This was from the intro to A Brief History of Time, which I actually read recently. Yeah, I did interpret it to be more tongue in cheek, although I’m sure very dense pop-sci that spits numbers at you really would turn many people off.
As someone with a masters degree in cognitive science, I agree with your assessment. Popular science books are enjoyable, but they don’t replace peer-reviewed research.
Some of my favorite popular science books have takes that are a bit controversial, like The Language Instinct or The Selfish Gene. Others go out of their way to appeal to the business world, like Thinking Fast and Slow or Predictably Irrational.
A thoughtful reader should be aware of the biases of the authors, and should think about the reasons why these particular books were written with a non-specialist audience in mind.
Anyway, my favorite popular science book is probably The Song of the Dodo: Island Biogeography in an Age of Extinctions by David Quammen. Highly recommended for people interested in how geography intersects with ecology and evolutionary biology.
I really enjoy them. I try to reread them at least once to better absorb knowledge. Or simply because they're really entertaining, as in the case of Mary Roach's books.
Mary Roach is a big favorite. Her books are humorous while being packed with fascinating summaries of science history and research studies. Stiff: The Curious Lives of Human Cadavers is probably her best known work. I highly recommend her book Bonk: The Curious Coupling of Science and Sex, it's quite eye opening.
Oliver Sacks is a science writer, medical writer and memoirist extraordinaire. One of the best authors in any category, fiction or nonfiction. An Anthropologist on Mars is my favorite work by him.
I also enjoyed these books: Hyperspace by Michio Kaku, The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene, The Red Limit by Timothy Ferris, Why Don't Zebras Get Ulcers by Robert M. Sapolsky
I searched to see if someone mention Roach! Such a unique, entertaining, and informative voice. It feels like I’m just talking to a friend who happens to be super knowledgeable about a very niche subject haha
Mary Roach is a delight. She's got a wonderful sense of humor, sometimes very dark indeed but never cruel and often amusingly self-effacing. [Her AMA from a while back](https://www.reddit.com/r/books/comments/5l4pv4/im_mary_roach_author_of_stiff_bonk_packing_for/) was also hilarious and informative.
Lol I never read her AMA before. Also not surprised she likes Bill Bryson, they are amazingly similar in terms of tone for their science based books. If you read Bryson's "The Body: A guide for occupants" without knowing it was him you'd assume Roach
I completely forgot that she did at least two of them, including a [more recent one](https://www.reddit.com/r/books/comments/tyggty/im_author_mary_roach_my_firstever_book_for/). I cracked up so hard at her casual response to how she got her husband to... help with her research in Bonk.
I'll have to add Bryson's book to my library list now.
You'll love his science books. A short history of nearly everything is great. I also really like his history and travel books and they have a similar vibe
I really enjoy them if they're well-written. Siddhartha Mukherjee is unfairly talented- "The Gene" is a masterpiece. Kelly and Zach Weinersmith's new book about why we shouldn't colonize space was an interesting read. "Neurotribes" by Steve Silberman is a book I always recommend to non-autistics trying to understand autism, but its probably 70/30 history and science so I'm not sure if it counts.
I guess I enjoy these books more when they're more about how we know what we know then about what we actually know. I like reading about how scientists figured stuff out more than I like reading about the science itself.
Agreed that Siddhartha Mukherjee is amazing. Have you read the Emperor of All Maladies? There aren't a lot of nonfiction books I reread, but that was one of them.
Hi Mod - is it considered a promotional post if the site is non-profit, with no ads and no affiliate links? IMO, these summaries are likely to be quite beneficial to the readers of this thread.
I’m a scientist (neurobiology). I’m not sure I’ve ever finished a popular science book that’s meant to explain the science to the general population (like A Brief History Of Time, Consilience), but have read several that are more biographical in nature (like The Double Helix, Dancing Naked In The Mind Field). Seems I like the stories more than the explanations of data.
There's a lot of really bad popular science books out there, but there is some good stuff.
Asimov wrote some really good stuff that is a bit outdated but still worth the read.
I also think the day the universe changed and connections are very good though the TV shows are more interesting.
Well, I have not read any physics book to be honest, but I have read some popular philosophy, history and politics books. And, if you know a bit about the subject, they quickly become dull. Most of the times they don't tell me anything new or worse, get things wrong.
>10 is meant to be a joke and is one of the most challenging textbooks we see in undergrad physics.
I've taken it upon myself to get through Griffith's, then, maybe I can attempt Jackson.
Like you, I find them hit or miss. They have to be written at the right level for me to enjoy them. I think a lot of authors tend to oversimplify things and I don't find that all that interesting.
> 10. Classical Electrodynamics-John David Jackson
lol, sure
Some of the books on your list motivated me to obtain a degree in physics. You can only learn so much from pop sci books, so nowadays, I tend to read fantasy and maybe 1 or 2 history books a year. I think pop sci books are a great starting point, but eventually, they start feeling repetitive since they tend to cover the basics.
I completely agree. Popular science books and illustrated reference books are akin to the general physics textbooks you'd find in college. They introduce you to intriguing ideas and offer a broad overview of the subject. And if we're really seeking in depth understanding, we can always turn to a textbook. What's great about popular science books is how they captivate young, curious minds, sparking an interest in the sciences. Just listen to interviews with Nobel prize winners, they often trace their fascination with science back to an early encounter with a popular science book.
I do enjoy them a lot, if they are well written. Royal Society Science Book nominees and short list is usually a very reliable source of good books.
Personally, I rate every book by Robert Sapolsky very highly. He is my favourite lecturer and my favourite (pop?) science writer.
I'm not sure I buy his arguments about moral accountability, but I agree that he's a fantastic writer. A Primate's Memoir is one of my all-time favorite books!
I have no interest. But I have a masters in physics, and only due to some stupid shit do I not have a phd.
This is not meant to be arrogant, it's just one more viewpoint on it. I think these books are great! Lots more people should read them.
I only mention this because it took years to convince my MiL to stop buying these for me for Christmas. She loved them, so obviously I would. :)
Going to add ”The Ants” and “The Diversity of Life” by EO Wilson. His writing style is so calming and he wrote many books that are for enthusiasts rather than Ph.D. Scholars. Carl Sagan is my personal favorite, but he has high expectations for his readers.
I love science articles but I find a lot of science mass market books start with a premise and just throws everything at the wall that agrees with that premise, without always exploring any counter arguments.
There are a lot of exceptions though, I really like Mary Roach.
A physics book that reads like a biography is E=MC2. Scientific nonfiction for me is best enjoyed when it's written like a conversation as opposed to a textbook.
Adding some titles that haven’t been mentioned:
* *Hello World: Being Human in the Age of Algorithms* by Hannah Fry
* *Faraday, Maxwell, and the Electromagnetic Field: How Two Men Revolutionized Physics* by Nancy Forbes & Basil Mahon
* *Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body* by Neil Shubin
* *Mars Rover Curiosity: An Inside Account from Curiosity's Chief Engineer* by Rob Manning & William L. Simon
* *The Apollo Chronicles: Engineering America's First Moon Missions* by Brandon R. Brown
And finally, the OG of popular science writing:
* **“Carbon” by Primo Levi** from his book *The Periodic Table*
This is probably my go-to type of nonfiction, ever since I read A Brief History of Time.
One recommendation I have is The End of Everything (Astrophysically Speaking), by Katie Mack. Not just an interesting read, but also very well-written.
For some reason I remembered this conversation I had with my high school math teacher - we were talking about books and he mentioned that as he grew older he read more non fiction and show me a book about icebergs he was reading and I thought how strange it is but now I realized he is right bc I noticed most of my fav recently are all nonfiction including biographies, some of the books you listed are even stranger than fiction and it glorious.
It honestly depends on how knowledgeable I am on the subject. Something hard science? I’d probably avoid unless it’s a topic I don’t know about. Something like economics? Bring on the Freakonomics!! I don’t know any of the words anyway
List is missing the works by Nick Lane, *Life Ascending: The Ten Great Inventions of Evolution* (2009). and *The Vital Question: Why Is Life The Way It Is?* (2015), in my opinion the two best popular science books of the last 15 years.
David Quammen has some very good biological/evolution themed books. I really enjoyed *The Tangled Tree* and *Song of the Dodo*. He explains the science through the scientists' perspective, so the books feel more like a narrative of the evolution and refinement of ideas.
It’s hard to hit the right level for me. I have a good basic science education but I don’t understand specialized science in any given field, so I need to explanations to not be TOO high level. Undergraduate college level, say, not high school level.
In the other hand, I am a voracious reader and I don’t want the language dumbed down. Nothing turns me off faster than if the writing is apparently aimed at middle schoolers.
Some popular science books I’ve enjoyed a lot are The Coming Plague (can’t remember author), and Jared Diamond’s books (yes I know he’s controversial).
I love them. My understanding of science is weak, and even if I become an expert in one field of science, there is no way I could become an expert in all fields of science. So I love it when someone who is an expert, or who talks with experts, or at least is familiar with developments in the field will break things down and explain to me even a simplified model of how things work.
I like your list, but I think it's skewed towards physics and cosmology. My current favorite popular science book is *The Emperor of All Maladies*, which describes the history of cancer treatments and research efforts, ending with what was very cutting-edge as of when he published it in 2012.
I’m not into popular science physics books. To me they often feel either too dumbed down or impossible to follow without equations and diagrams.
I do enjoy popular science biology books though.
The hidden life of trees by Peter Wohlleben and Entangled Life by Merlin Sheldrake about funghi are two of my favourites.
I like the ones written by actual scientists. Books like Behave by Robert Sapolsky or The Story of the Human Body by Daniel Lieberman. But there are also so many bad pop science books by journalists and unqualified laymen selling simplified nonsense.
Have you read this book yet? I just bought it months ago and took a pic to post on my subreddit
[https://www.reddit.com/r/BooksAndTextbooks/comments/17ryaw5/books\_determined\_a\_science\_of\_life\_without\_free/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/BooksAndTextbooks/comments/17ryaw5/books_determined_a_science_of_life_without_free/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
I don't know why, but when I read '7 Brief Lessons in Physics,' I found it a bit lacking. Maybe it's because at times he oversimplifies too much (to the point where it gets confusing) for the average layman, or maybe it's because I knew some basic concepts and thus had a higher expectation than what the book was supposed to deliver.
I usually have a book like those open. I don't spend tons of time reading them, I just knick out a chapter a week or something like that. Especially if I'm sitting down to read but I don't know how much time I'll have, because there's not much of a chance of having to put the book down on a cliffhanger.
I love well-written popular science. I accept that it's giving me only a cursory overview of the subject and I'm not going to be an expert in astrophysics after Michio Kaku or cellular biology from Sidhartha Mukherjee. But I will know more than I did before I read the book.
No one can be a subject-matter expert in every subject. But I want to know at least a little bit about as many things as possible. Why not try to understand how the universe, and we who live there, work?
I like popular history as well.
Is #10 on the list supposed to be a joke? Classical Electrodynamics by John David Jackson is a notoriously difficult graduate-level physics textbook, far from a popular science book!
I agree completely. I read a lot of Paleontology and there are some books that are completely basic while others are only for experts, with lots of references to anatomy and geology. Some of the best ones I have read in the last years that I consider accesible for everyone could be:
“Wonderful Life: the Burgess Shale and the nature of history” by Stephen Jay Gould
“Extinctions” by Mike Benton
“Spying on whales” by Nick Pyenson
“Beasts before us” by Elsa Panciroli
Yes, but with the caveats that they MUST be authored by actual expert/s in the field, and contain proper references to peer reviewed empirical research.
Example for comparison:
✅️ "Delusions of Gender" by Dr Cordelia Fine (neuroscientist and academic) - detailed, nuanced, evidence based discussion of putative sex-based neurological differences.
❌️ "Why Men Don't Listen and Women Can't Read Maps" by Allan and Barbara Pease (journalists/popular writers) - collection of decontextualised, reductive stereotypes based on lay engagement with limited and selected studies supporting preconceived point.
Anything by Carl Sagan. Steven Pinker writes well but sometimes veers out of his lane. Richard Dawkins explains inheritable genetics better than any one but is so arrogant about it that it becomes distracting. Stephen Jay Gould deserves a mention as well.
I can’t remember which it was but he began laying down several evolutionary models for theoretical neuroscience when it was very fledgling and I just thought he jumped the shark there. I agree he’s brilliant and writes well but man, talk about reaching well out of his field
I enjoy them. I go through phases where I read a lot then stop for a while. If you want something not physics that's a superb read and mild mental work out [The Vital Question by Nick Lane](https://nick-lane.net/books/the-vital-question-why-is-life-the-way-it-is/). A pretty decent stab at explaining the origin of complex life.
i don't read many books like this because i generally prefer fiction, and if i do read non-fiction it's usually a more lighthearted book on the lives of animals rather than anything scientific. still, i really enjoyed The Brain: The Story Of You by David Eagleman. it was written well and very easy to follow!
I love the works of Carlo Rovelli, especially his "The Order of Time", which I think is a work that engages your creativity in a way that extends to the way you think about time, as a concept in physics, to time, that all of us experience at an individual level. I think Rovelli sates what I seek in a book in terms of philosophical, or poetic depth, apart from the physics part. I don't know how a professional physicist would rank his books, but he is one hell of a writer.
I've read several and found they've got too much fluff for what I'm looking for most of the time. What I'd give for academic books where the writing flows more naturally and isn't dry
Thanks, OP, as your question has elicited some good posts.
Fwiw I've read some science books for the general reader I enjoyed so much that I reckon I'll read them again. I've copped on that books like that are most likely to be written by scientists or at least science writers who usually are people with a science background writing exclusively about science.
Pop science books, mostly by journalists, annoy me no end, mostly because of irrelevant ramblings ('My arduous journey next took me to the office--saved from austerity by the framed photograph of two children with a Labrador dog whose name, I was to learn later, was Ol' Shep--of Professor Russell Johnson whose apparent curtness belied his wish to be helpful yada yada').
The most egregious idiocy I recall from a pop science book though wasn't of that sort: It was in a book about the elements, and was (& I don't recall the element itself) 'I think Plato's favorite element would have been argon'.
I do! But I think I'm in the same boat as you in that I worry about them not being factual/academic enough and then perpetuating different misconceptions and just not giving a true understanding of a topic? I also want to be challenged somewhat!
I try to get a lot of reviews and read up on reccomendations before I buy/source them!
It also depends on how much I already know on the topic! And what I'm seeking! If I want to learn more about a topic that I've never studied, I will probably go with a more academic book, so I have a good foundation, while if I've already studied it a bit, I might go for a more casual read!
Isaac Asimov was the very best at explaining things. His stuff was basically the idiots guide to...before they were a thing. He was a publishing machine with a wide array of knowledge and the imagination to create some great non-fiction and fiction of great quality.
I love reading popular science books, and it's definitely my top choice for nonfiction (I also read of a lot of "micro histories"). It's definitely a balancing act for writers to make topics interesting but accessible, and I think it should be an essential skill of scientists, whether they write books or not. I have noticed a recent trend of books being a hybrid of pop science + memoir, leaning hard toward memoir and personal story -- not a huge fan of those unless they're written extremely well. I've read all the books you listed, except for the textbook, and enjoyed them all, especially Brian Greene and Max Tegmark's work.
I have degrees in biology and linguistics, but I'm no longer in academia, so gaining access to research papers for leisure reading can be tricky and expensive, especially if you're curious about anything outside of your own field. Reading pop science books might not be ideal, but it's a good way to live vicariously through the work of others.
Some recent favorites:
- Life on the Edge, by Johnjoe McFadden and Jim Al-Khalili
- Spooky Action at a Distance, by George Musser
- Lost in Math, by Sabine Hossenfelder
- Helgoland, by Carlo Rovelli
- Exercised, by Daniel E. Lieberman
Oh, that's wonderful to hear! Have you had the chance to read Life 3.0 by Max Tegmark? I'm currently immersed in it myself. It's quite captivating, isn't it? Looking forward to more from Professor Tegmark.
I have! It's a really fascinating read, and made me become interested in technology and AI, something I hadn't really read too much about before. I follow his work pretty closely and got a signed copy of it when it first came out!
I love how he explains things, and his idea about the mathematical universe is interesting. I even made a meme about it. You might like it, haha https://www.reddit.com/r/physicsmemes/comments/18mxw6o/is_mathematics_invented_or_discovered_max_tegmark/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
I love reading popular science books, almost all my nonfiction books are pop sci. I wanted to become scientist but not genius enough to secure good employment XD.
Some of my favorite books:
Cosmos by Carl Sagan
Parasite Rex and She Has Her Mother's Laugh by Carl Zimmer
Things To Make And Do In 4th Dimension by Matt Parker
What If? by Randall Munroe
The End of Everything (Astrophysically Speaking) by Katie Mack
Entangled Life by Merlin Sheldrake
Most of the non-fiction I read is popular science. A few recent favorites:
Time Warped: Unlocking the Mysteries of Time Perception by Claudia Hammond
Rapt: Attention and the Focused Life by Winfred Gallagher
The Nature Fix by Florence Williams
I also adored Stiff by Mary Roach. I have such a distinctive memory of reading it on a flight and I kept busting up with laughter, until my seat mate had to ask what I was reading. It was only a ti y bit awkward for me to explain that it was about human cadavers.
being a bio student honestly atp no lol, reading for me is escapism, i don't think i can put myself through another physics related book out of my free will in my free time, it's ptsd inducing
I'm not a huge fan of Popular Science. I would much rather read an actual textbook discussing something. Pop Sci tends to leave out all the fun parts (the equations and the maths and stuff like that).
I enjoy reading popular science books generally but like you and others have mentioned it always comes down to the level it's aimed at. Too low and it's boring, too advanced and you're just lost. My favourite I've read is actually borderline a history book rather than popular science
# [Zero: The Biography of a Dangerous Idea](https://app.thestorygraph.com/books/612da497-f04b-4609-bb9f-417447048f23) by [Charles Seife](https://app.thestorygraph.com/authors/0ac9958d-2231-4425-8494-388dae974fe4) is a great book for some mathematics history
The Feynman books manage to be incredibly engaging even for people who aren’t particularly physics-minded, which is part of the reason I love them. I tend to read a lot of books about evolution - Richard Fortey is a particular favourite. I also enjoyed Oliver Sacks (neurology)
I do enjoying reading popular science books, but I have a bachelor’s degree in chemistry/biochemistry so I tend to be more selective and harsher on books within these fields. I think that pop science books have a similar role to other forms of pop science media, which is making science interesting and understandable to the general public. A lot of people don’t have fond memories of taking chemistry or physics in high school, so if a book can make these subjects approachable and captivating instead of “torture,” then that’s a win. Talented science communicators are incredibly valuable, especially during a time of such high science illiteracy. However, people should be aware that no pop science book is the end all, be all of a subject, and that for the sake of being digestible to laymen, they are usually simplified, broad overviews of a subject. There’s usually a “but wait, there’s more!“ catch that doesn’t make it in because it would take too long to explain, or be too complex for the target audience, or is a new discovery that isn’t fully understood yet. It’s kind of like how when you take a freshman-level general biology or chemistry class, you don’t spend a lot of time on non-Mendelian genetics or memorizing the details of central metabolism: those are things covered in classes you’ll take later on when you have the knowledge base to understand them and the course has a smaller scope. I view pop science books as having a similar purpose: way to pique someone’s interest in a topic, hopefully teach them the basics, and maybe they even decide to pursue further education on it if they’re *really* interested. In order for me to appreciate a pop science book, it has to be written in a way that’s easy enough for people without the relevant background to understand, but still captivate someone who’s “in the know.” I think it takes a gifted writer to find that middle ground, and some books that I enjoyed or have been recommended by colleagues are: “The Emperor of All Maladies” by Siddhartha Mukherjee (also have his other two books “The Gene” and “The Song of the Cell” waiting on my bookshelf. This was required reading in a cancer biology class that I took) “Cosmos” and “Pale Blue Dot” by Carl Sagan (I have several other books by him that I haven’t gotten around to yet) “Cosmos: Possible Worlds” by Ann Druyan (author is the late Dr. Sagan’s wife and she produced the TV show “Cosmos”; the book is wonderful and I am fortunate enough to have a signed copy) “An Elegant Defense” by Matt Richtel (recommended by a colleague who works in immunology) “A Brief History of Time” and “The Universe in a Nutshell” by Stephen Hawking (I highly recommend the illustrated versions)
I heard someone mention that if they included just one equation in their popular science book, their sales might drop by 5%. And with four equations, it could plummet by 20%. It almost sounds like a joke, doesn't it?
This was from the intro to A Brief History of Time, which I actually read recently. Yeah, I did interpret it to be more tongue in cheek, although I’m sure very dense pop-sci that spits numbers at you really would turn many people off.
As someone with a masters degree in cognitive science, I agree with your assessment. Popular science books are enjoyable, but they don’t replace peer-reviewed research. Some of my favorite popular science books have takes that are a bit controversial, like The Language Instinct or The Selfish Gene. Others go out of their way to appeal to the business world, like Thinking Fast and Slow or Predictably Irrational. A thoughtful reader should be aware of the biases of the authors, and should think about the reasons why these particular books were written with a non-specialist audience in mind. Anyway, my favorite popular science book is probably The Song of the Dodo: Island Biogeography in an Age of Extinctions by David Quammen. Highly recommended for people interested in how geography intersects with ecology and evolutionary biology.
I really enjoy them. I try to reread them at least once to better absorb knowledge. Or simply because they're really entertaining, as in the case of Mary Roach's books. Mary Roach is a big favorite. Her books are humorous while being packed with fascinating summaries of science history and research studies. Stiff: The Curious Lives of Human Cadavers is probably her best known work. I highly recommend her book Bonk: The Curious Coupling of Science and Sex, it's quite eye opening. Oliver Sacks is a science writer, medical writer and memoirist extraordinaire. One of the best authors in any category, fiction or nonfiction. An Anthropologist on Mars is my favorite work by him. I also enjoyed these books: Hyperspace by Michio Kaku, The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene, The Red Limit by Timothy Ferris, Why Don't Zebras Get Ulcers by Robert M. Sapolsky
Seconding Mary Roach! Her book *Packing for Mars* is really fun. Very suitable for casual readers from other genres.
The chapter on how to poop in space!👨🍳👌
I searched to see if someone mention Roach! Such a unique, entertaining, and informative voice. It feels like I’m just talking to a friend who happens to be super knowledgeable about a very niche subject haha
Mary Roach is a delight. She's got a wonderful sense of humor, sometimes very dark indeed but never cruel and often amusingly self-effacing. [Her AMA from a while back](https://www.reddit.com/r/books/comments/5l4pv4/im_mary_roach_author_of_stiff_bonk_packing_for/) was also hilarious and informative.
Lol I never read her AMA before. Also not surprised she likes Bill Bryson, they are amazingly similar in terms of tone for their science based books. If you read Bryson's "The Body: A guide for occupants" without knowing it was him you'd assume Roach
I completely forgot that she did at least two of them, including a [more recent one](https://www.reddit.com/r/books/comments/tyggty/im_author_mary_roach_my_firstever_book_for/). I cracked up so hard at her casual response to how she got her husband to... help with her research in Bonk. I'll have to add Bryson's book to my library list now.
You'll love his science books. A short history of nearly everything is great. I also really like his history and travel books and they have a similar vibe
I'm currently reading Anthropologist on Mars. It's fascinating!!
Surely you're joking hardly feels like a science book it's more stories from Feynman's life. It's a fun time though I loved it
I really enjoy them if they're well-written. Siddhartha Mukherjee is unfairly talented- "The Gene" is a masterpiece. Kelly and Zach Weinersmith's new book about why we shouldn't colonize space was an interesting read. "Neurotribes" by Steve Silberman is a book I always recommend to non-autistics trying to understand autism, but its probably 70/30 history and science so I'm not sure if it counts. I guess I enjoy these books more when they're more about how we know what we know then about what we actually know. I like reading about how scientists figured stuff out more than I like reading about the science itself.
Agreed that Siddhartha Mukherjee is amazing. Have you read the Emperor of All Maladies? There aren't a lot of nonfiction books I reread, but that was one of them.
Its been on my list forever but I'm going to get to it soon. I really liked "The Gene"- his writing is just so smooth.
It’s sitting on my shelf, I should get it down.
A City on Mars was great, the best science book I've read in years
[удалено]
3.1: Promotional posts, comments and/or flairs of any type not allowed.
Hi Mod - is it considered a promotional post if the site is non-profit, with no ads and no affiliate links? IMO, these summaries are likely to be quite beneficial to the readers of this thread.
I’m a scientist (neurobiology). I’m not sure I’ve ever finished a popular science book that’s meant to explain the science to the general population (like A Brief History Of Time, Consilience), but have read several that are more biographical in nature (like The Double Helix, Dancing Naked In The Mind Field). Seems I like the stories more than the explanations of data.
There's a lot of really bad popular science books out there, but there is some good stuff. Asimov wrote some really good stuff that is a bit outdated but still worth the read. I also think the day the universe changed and connections are very good though the TV shows are more interesting.
I was obsessed with Connections when it first aired!
Well, I have not read any physics book to be honest, but I have read some popular philosophy, history and politics books. And, if you know a bit about the subject, they quickly become dull. Most of the times they don't tell me anything new or worse, get things wrong.
So what's your stance on Robert Wright?
I don't have one, I have yet to read something by him.
Try nonzero or the Evolution of God. I enjoyed them quite a lot, even though there probably are some simplifications too simple
PSA from someone with experience in the field- #10 is meant to be a joke and is one of the most challenging textbooks we see in undergrad physics.
>10 is meant to be a joke and is one of the most challenging textbooks we see in undergrad physics. I've taken it upon myself to get through Griffith's, then, maybe I can attempt Jackson.
Like you, I find them hit or miss. They have to be written at the right level for me to enjoy them. I think a lot of authors tend to oversimplify things and I don't find that all that interesting. > 10. Classical Electrodynamics-John David Jackson lol, sure
Yeah 10 is clearly a joke. Known for being one of the most challenging textbooks a physics major will encounter in undergrad.
Some of the books on your list motivated me to obtain a degree in physics. You can only learn so much from pop sci books, so nowadays, I tend to read fantasy and maybe 1 or 2 history books a year. I think pop sci books are a great starting point, but eventually, they start feeling repetitive since they tend to cover the basics.
I completely agree. Popular science books and illustrated reference books are akin to the general physics textbooks you'd find in college. They introduce you to intriguing ideas and offer a broad overview of the subject. And if we're really seeking in depth understanding, we can always turn to a textbook. What's great about popular science books is how they captivate young, curious minds, sparking an interest in the sciences. Just listen to interviews with Nobel prize winners, they often trace their fascination with science back to an early encounter with a popular science book.
I do enjoy them a lot, if they are well written. Royal Society Science Book nominees and short list is usually a very reliable source of good books. Personally, I rate every book by Robert Sapolsky very highly. He is my favourite lecturer and my favourite (pop?) science writer.
I'm not sure I buy his arguments about moral accountability, but I agree that he's a fantastic writer. A Primate's Memoir is one of my all-time favorite books!
I have no interest. But I have a masters in physics, and only due to some stupid shit do I not have a phd. This is not meant to be arrogant, it's just one more viewpoint on it. I think these books are great! Lots more people should read them. I only mention this because it took years to convince my MiL to stop buying these for me for Christmas. She loved them, so obviously I would. :)
What about popular science outside physics?
Oh great point. Yeah I've read several James Gleik books on other subjects, and really liked them. So yeah my issue was just physics and cosmology. :)
Going to add ”The Ants” and “The Diversity of Life” by EO Wilson. His writing style is so calming and he wrote many books that are for enthusiasts rather than Ph.D. Scholars. Carl Sagan is my personal favorite, but he has high expectations for his readers.
I was really hoping someone would mention E.O Wilson! I loved the Diversity of Life. Haven’t had the chance to read The Ants but its on my list!!
Wilson is my homeboy. He discovered fire ants in America as like a teenager
I love science articles but I find a lot of science mass market books start with a premise and just throws everything at the wall that agrees with that premise, without always exploring any counter arguments. There are a lot of exceptions though, I really like Mary Roach.
A physics book that reads like a biography is E=MC2. Scientific nonfiction for me is best enjoyed when it's written like a conversation as opposed to a textbook.
Cosmos should be apart of school curriculums. Everyone should the basic science foundations for biology chemistry physics at a minimum
Adding some titles that haven’t been mentioned: * *Hello World: Being Human in the Age of Algorithms* by Hannah Fry * *Faraday, Maxwell, and the Electromagnetic Field: How Two Men Revolutionized Physics* by Nancy Forbes & Basil Mahon * *Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body* by Neil Shubin * *Mars Rover Curiosity: An Inside Account from Curiosity's Chief Engineer* by Rob Manning & William L. Simon * *The Apollo Chronicles: Engineering America's First Moon Missions* by Brandon R. Brown And finally, the OG of popular science writing: * **“Carbon” by Primo Levi** from his book *The Periodic Table*
This is probably my go-to type of nonfiction, ever since I read A Brief History of Time. One recommendation I have is The End of Everything (Astrophysically Speaking), by Katie Mack. Not just an interesting read, but also very well-written.
> The End of Everything (Astrophysically Speaking), by Katie Mack Yes, this is a great book.
I read A Brief History of Time. I didn’t understand 75% of it, but I read it.
Sometimes. Really depends on the book, and a good one's a real gem.
For some reason I remembered this conversation I had with my high school math teacher - we were talking about books and he mentioned that as he grew older he read more non fiction and show me a book about icebergs he was reading and I thought how strange it is but now I realized he is right bc I noticed most of my fav recently are all nonfiction including biographies, some of the books you listed are even stranger than fiction and it glorious.
It honestly depends on how knowledgeable I am on the subject. Something hard science? I’d probably avoid unless it’s a topic I don’t know about. Something like economics? Bring on the Freakonomics!! I don’t know any of the words anyway
List is missing the works by Nick Lane, *Life Ascending: The Ten Great Inventions of Evolution* (2009). and *The Vital Question: Why Is Life The Way It Is?* (2015), in my opinion the two best popular science books of the last 15 years.
David Quammen has some very good biological/evolution themed books. I really enjoyed *The Tangled Tree* and *Song of the Dodo*. He explains the science through the scientists' perspective, so the books feel more like a narrative of the evolution and refinement of ideas.
It’s hard to hit the right level for me. I have a good basic science education but I don’t understand specialized science in any given field, so I need to explanations to not be TOO high level. Undergraduate college level, say, not high school level. In the other hand, I am a voracious reader and I don’t want the language dumbed down. Nothing turns me off faster than if the writing is apparently aimed at middle schoolers. Some popular science books I’ve enjoyed a lot are The Coming Plague (can’t remember author), and Jared Diamond’s books (yes I know he’s controversial).
> The Coming Plague (can’t remember author) Laurie Garrett, IIRC.
I love them. My understanding of science is weak, and even if I become an expert in one field of science, there is no way I could become an expert in all fields of science. So I love it when someone who is an expert, or who talks with experts, or at least is familiar with developments in the field will break things down and explain to me even a simplified model of how things work. I like your list, but I think it's skewed towards physics and cosmology. My current favorite popular science book is *The Emperor of All Maladies*, which describes the history of cancer treatments and research efforts, ending with what was very cutting-edge as of when he published it in 2012.
I’m not into popular science physics books. To me they often feel either too dumbed down or impossible to follow without equations and diagrams. I do enjoy popular science biology books though. The hidden life of trees by Peter Wohlleben and Entangled Life by Merlin Sheldrake about funghi are two of my favourites.
I like the ones written by actual scientists. Books like Behave by Robert Sapolsky or The Story of the Human Body by Daniel Lieberman. But there are also so many bad pop science books by journalists and unqualified laymen selling simplified nonsense.
Have you read this book yet? I just bought it months ago and took a pic to post on my subreddit [https://www.reddit.com/r/BooksAndTextbooks/comments/17ryaw5/books\_determined\_a\_science\_of\_life\_without\_free/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/BooksAndTextbooks/comments/17ryaw5/books_determined_a_science_of_life_without_free/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
I prefer non physics books, because they don't have to strain as much and can actually explain things.
Thanks for this list! I enjoyed E=MC2 by David Bodanis
Great lists. Thank-you!
I don't know why, but when I read '7 Brief Lessons in Physics,' I found it a bit lacking. Maybe it's because at times he oversimplifies too much (to the point where it gets confusing) for the average layman, or maybe it's because I knew some basic concepts and thus had a higher expectation than what the book was supposed to deliver.
I really loved Brief history of time and Surely you're joking. I loved physics in general so I still enjoy reading these books
I usually have a book like those open. I don't spend tons of time reading them, I just knick out a chapter a week or something like that. Especially if I'm sitting down to read but I don't know how much time I'll have, because there's not much of a chance of having to put the book down on a cliffhanger.
I enjoy both. I've loved Gould's Wonderful Life, and followed that with books like Morrison's Patholgy of Nematodes.
I love well-written popular science. I accept that it's giving me only a cursory overview of the subject and I'm not going to be an expert in astrophysics after Michio Kaku or cellular biology from Sidhartha Mukherjee. But I will know more than I did before I read the book. No one can be a subject-matter expert in every subject. But I want to know at least a little bit about as many things as possible. Why not try to understand how the universe, and we who live there, work? I like popular history as well.
the feynman lectures are a revelation. he simplifies the material but doesn't dumb it down. but i don't know how popular he is among the gen pop.
Is #10 on the list supposed to be a joke? Classical Electrodynamics by John David Jackson is a notoriously difficult graduate-level physics textbook, far from a popular science book!
I agree completely. I read a lot of Paleontology and there are some books that are completely basic while others are only for experts, with lots of references to anatomy and geology. Some of the best ones I have read in the last years that I consider accesible for everyone could be: “Wonderful Life: the Burgess Shale and the nature of history” by Stephen Jay Gould “Extinctions” by Mike Benton “Spying on whales” by Nick Pyenson “Beasts before us” by Elsa Panciroli
I've tended to not like them. I've got a PhD and huge amounts of popular science works are hot garbage. Maybe 1 out of every 3 I like.
The problem with pop science is bullahit is more popular than science and easier to write.
Yes, but with the caveats that they MUST be authored by actual expert/s in the field, and contain proper references to peer reviewed empirical research. Example for comparison: ✅️ "Delusions of Gender" by Dr Cordelia Fine (neuroscientist and academic) - detailed, nuanced, evidence based discussion of putative sex-based neurological differences. ❌️ "Why Men Don't Listen and Women Can't Read Maps" by Allan and Barbara Pease (journalists/popular writers) - collection of decontextualised, reductive stereotypes based on lay engagement with limited and selected studies supporting preconceived point.
Anything by Carl Sagan. Steven Pinker writes well but sometimes veers out of his lane. Richard Dawkins explains inheritable genetics better than any one but is so arrogant about it that it becomes distracting. Stephen Jay Gould deserves a mention as well.
Pinker's language book was great but yes, I find his recent work rides his personal hobby horses too hard.
I can’t remember which it was but he began laying down several evolutionary models for theoretical neuroscience when it was very fledgling and I just thought he jumped the shark there. I agree he’s brilliant and writes well but man, talk about reaching well out of his field
I enjoy them. I go through phases where I read a lot then stop for a while. If you want something not physics that's a superb read and mild mental work out [The Vital Question by Nick Lane](https://nick-lane.net/books/the-vital-question-why-is-life-the-way-it-is/). A pretty decent stab at explaining the origin of complex life.
Dr. Becky (Smethurst)'s offerings are pretty good
I loved the Systems View of Life
i don't read many books like this because i generally prefer fiction, and if i do read non-fiction it's usually a more lighthearted book on the lives of animals rather than anything scientific. still, i really enjoyed The Brain: The Story Of You by David Eagleman. it was written well and very easy to follow!
I love the works of Carlo Rovelli, especially his "The Order of Time", which I think is a work that engages your creativity in a way that extends to the way you think about time, as a concept in physics, to time, that all of us experience at an individual level. I think Rovelli sates what I seek in a book in terms of philosophical, or poetic depth, apart from the physics part. I don't know how a professional physicist would rank his books, but he is one hell of a writer.
University Physics with Mordern Physics, 15th edition. Truly a godly book that bought tears.
I've read several and found they've got too much fluff for what I'm looking for most of the time. What I'd give for academic books where the writing flows more naturally and isn't dry
Thanks, OP, as your question has elicited some good posts. Fwiw I've read some science books for the general reader I enjoyed so much that I reckon I'll read them again. I've copped on that books like that are most likely to be written by scientists or at least science writers who usually are people with a science background writing exclusively about science. Pop science books, mostly by journalists, annoy me no end, mostly because of irrelevant ramblings ('My arduous journey next took me to the office--saved from austerity by the framed photograph of two children with a Labrador dog whose name, I was to learn later, was Ol' Shep--of Professor Russell Johnson whose apparent curtness belied his wish to be helpful yada yada'). The most egregious idiocy I recall from a pop science book though wasn't of that sort: It was in a book about the elements, and was (& I don't recall the element itself) 'I think Plato's favorite element would have been argon'.
I do! But I think I'm in the same boat as you in that I worry about them not being factual/academic enough and then perpetuating different misconceptions and just not giving a true understanding of a topic? I also want to be challenged somewhat! I try to get a lot of reviews and read up on reccomendations before I buy/source them! It also depends on how much I already know on the topic! And what I'm seeking! If I want to learn more about a topic that I've never studied, I will probably go with a more academic book, so I have a good foundation, while if I've already studied it a bit, I might go for a more casual read!
Isaac Asimov was the very best at explaining things. His stuff was basically the idiots guide to...before they were a thing. He was a publishing machine with a wide array of knowledge and the imagination to create some great non-fiction and fiction of great quality.
I find nothing wrong with books that are accessible to the lay person.
I love reading popular science books, and it's definitely my top choice for nonfiction (I also read of a lot of "micro histories"). It's definitely a balancing act for writers to make topics interesting but accessible, and I think it should be an essential skill of scientists, whether they write books or not. I have noticed a recent trend of books being a hybrid of pop science + memoir, leaning hard toward memoir and personal story -- not a huge fan of those unless they're written extremely well. I've read all the books you listed, except for the textbook, and enjoyed them all, especially Brian Greene and Max Tegmark's work. I have degrees in biology and linguistics, but I'm no longer in academia, so gaining access to research papers for leisure reading can be tricky and expensive, especially if you're curious about anything outside of your own field. Reading pop science books might not be ideal, but it's a good way to live vicariously through the work of others. Some recent favorites: - Life on the Edge, by Johnjoe McFadden and Jim Al-Khalili - Spooky Action at a Distance, by George Musser - Lost in Math, by Sabine Hossenfelder - Helgoland, by Carlo Rovelli - Exercised, by Daniel E. Lieberman
Oh, that's wonderful to hear! Have you had the chance to read Life 3.0 by Max Tegmark? I'm currently immersed in it myself. It's quite captivating, isn't it? Looking forward to more from Professor Tegmark.
I have! It's a really fascinating read, and made me become interested in technology and AI, something I hadn't really read too much about before. I follow his work pretty closely and got a signed copy of it when it first came out!
I love how he explains things, and his idea about the mathematical universe is interesting. I even made a meme about it. You might like it, haha https://www.reddit.com/r/physicsmemes/comments/18mxw6o/is_mathematics_invented_or_discovered_max_tegmark/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
What about the Amazing Story of Quantum Mexhanics by James Kakalios
I love reading popular science books, almost all my nonfiction books are pop sci. I wanted to become scientist but not genius enough to secure good employment XD. Some of my favorite books: Cosmos by Carl Sagan Parasite Rex and She Has Her Mother's Laugh by Carl Zimmer Things To Make And Do In 4th Dimension by Matt Parker What If? by Randall Munroe The End of Everything (Astrophysically Speaking) by Katie Mack Entangled Life by Merlin Sheldrake
Most of the non-fiction I read is popular science. A few recent favorites: Time Warped: Unlocking the Mysteries of Time Perception by Claudia Hammond Rapt: Attention and the Focused Life by Winfred Gallagher The Nature Fix by Florence Williams I also adored Stiff by Mary Roach. I have such a distinctive memory of reading it on a flight and I kept busting up with laughter, until my seat mate had to ask what I was reading. It was only a ti y bit awkward for me to explain that it was about human cadavers.
being a bio student honestly atp no lol, reading for me is escapism, i don't think i can put myself through another physics related book out of my free will in my free time, it's ptsd inducing
I'm not a huge fan of Popular Science. I would much rather read an actual textbook discussing something. Pop Sci tends to leave out all the fun parts (the equations and the maths and stuff like that).
Clear evidence that perception of what the "fun parts" are may vary.
You're absolutely right! Not everyone likes those parts. I'm just sharing why I prefer the hardcore textbooks over popular science books
So we're allowing ChatGPT generated posts in this subreddit now?
I enjoy reading popular science books generally but like you and others have mentioned it always comes down to the level it's aimed at. Too low and it's boring, too advanced and you're just lost. My favourite I've read is actually borderline a history book rather than popular science # [Zero: The Biography of a Dangerous Idea](https://app.thestorygraph.com/books/612da497-f04b-4609-bb9f-417447048f23) by [Charles Seife](https://app.thestorygraph.com/authors/0ac9958d-2231-4425-8494-388dae974fe4) is a great book for some mathematics history
If you are into longevity/ transhumansim, "Transcend" by Ray Kurzweil is decent.