Dan's comments (member since Jan 21, 2009)

Dan's comments from the Science and Inquiry group.

Finally got a chance to read the book -- it was a good overview especially for a medical layman like myself. And he admirably succeeds in portraying the human side of surgeons.

I found myself wanting more out of certain chapters, such as the one on autopsies, which I felt could have had more detail about the actual procedure, how pathologists learn from the procedure, more of the ethical questions that families and doctors face, etc. The book reads too much like a series of articles than what I was expecting, though I'm impressed that Gawande has time for his surgery, family, and writing!

I've been swamped with work too but am reading Complications when I get some spare time. Summer should be lighter workload, more vacations, more reading!

All these suggestions look great. I'll also nominate Awakenings by Oliver Sacks, which a friend once recommended to me.

Tracy, your "Botany of Desire" suggestion is another great choice (and one that has been sitting on my office bookshelf unread for a while). I'm now reading Michael Pollan's "In Defense of Food" and he's an engaging (if a bit too polemical, at least in that book) writer.

Just finished it! I hadn't been the biggest Bryson fan in general, but I was quite impressed by the scope of this book, and the clarity of the writing. I'm not a scientist so can't speak to whether he got the details basically right or made mistakes, but I can't help thinking that a lot of high school students would get more out of reading this than the typical textbook (at least, they could read this first, to get inspired to read the textbooks).

I'm eager to hear what others thought of the book.

Carolyn, that book looks very interesting. Another one in the microbiological sphere that I'll put on the table is Parasite Rex : Inside the Bizarre World of Nature's Most Dangerous Creatures, by science writer (and Goodreads author!) Carl Zimmer.

William wrote: Not what I expected....

My guess is that Johnson thought that other books (on which he relies a good deal) had covered the details of the scientific history thoroughly and that his contribution therefore would be to place Priestley into the larger cultural context of his time, as well as to make some deeper, Kuhn-ian points.

As to whether he succeeds in this project, well ... ultimately not in this book as written. It's just too short and attenuated to really support its more profound claims. I did enjoy reading it a lot and would hope that Johnson would eventually revisit the topic and produce a meatier second edition. Though given his rate of output of new books, I doubt that will occur.

Chantel, the book is a lively, engaging read, so I've been able to make pretty rapid progress even with limited time available for reading this past weekend. I'd encourage you to give it a go!

Tracy wrote: Not what I would have expected of one of the great scientists of the Enlightenment.

Yeah, I wish he had gone into Priestley's fascination with Revelations a bit more. As with some other aspects of the book, Johnson offers more of a taste than a full meal. (Just finished it this morning and really liked the book overall.) How Priestley reconciled his Unitarianism with "the horns of the great beast" is not clear, but then again he also clung to the phlogiston theory well after many other chemists abandoned it.

This episode is reminiscent of Isaac Newton's ventures into alchemy and astrology (see more at this Wikipedia page), though at least one could argue with Newton that he considered those fields to be within the realm of the natural world. Another analogous example that comes to mind is Linus Pauling's advocacy of extreme doses of Vitamin C. In all these cases what most scientifically minded people would consider the irrational side of their work doesn't really discredit their overall legacy, just serves as a reminder of their fallibility.

Hmm, I'm not a big Bryson fan so I switched my vote to "The Lady Tasting Tea."

Would love to see some activity over in the "Invention of Air" thread ...

Tracy wrote: think Priestley was the first, or at least I don't know of anyone else who put it in those terms.

Thanks for the reply ... interesting point about Newton being taken as the new Aristotle as it were. From the little I know about the topic I know Newton was widely venerated in the 18th century natural philosophy community, though I'm not sure how uncritically.

Like you I'm enjoying the book a lot too -- I'm up through the Intermezzo, which I found to be a captivating section. At times Johnson's prose can be rather sweeping, which is why I react skeptically to his broader claims (like whenever "invented" comes up!). As I read I'm finding myself wondering to what extent Johnson has made a conscious or unconscious identification with Priestley himself -- most clearly in praising him for the project they share, the popularization of science.

JuliAnna wrote: Anyone who has begun reading should feel free to start the discussion.

Like Chantel I'm enjoying what I've read so far (still in Chapter 1). Before it slips my mind I wanted to quote a sentence from that chapter and see what other people think about it (page 34): "He had invented a whole new way of imagining science; instead of a unified, Newtonian pronouncement, Priestley recast natural philosophy as a story of progress, a rising staircase of enlightenment, with each new innovation building on the last."

I'm wondering if the "invented" part of this statement is too strong a claim. Were there no other thinkers between Newton and Priestley (or prior to Newton for that matter) who had framed scientific inquiry in these progress-based terms?

On the group home page it shows this book as starting Feb 1 and finishing Feb 28 ... is that supposed to be March 1-31 or are we going to try to discuss it later this month?

That one looks intriguing. My nomination is for a work also in the scientific biography genre but dealing with history of geology:

The Seashell on the Mountaintop

Study results make sense to me, intuitively ... though I'd be interested to compare them to those of Steven Johnson (coincidentally the author of the winning book in our poll) in his Everything Bad Is Good For You, which apparently (I haven't read it) reaches the opposite conclusion. If anyone's read that book I'd like to hear which side of the debate is more compelling to you.

William wrote: "I haven't really thought about what to do in case of a tie."

My 2 cents: pick the shorter one for Feb. since it's both a shorter month and in any case curtailed a bit since we won't have a poll winner until Jan 28, and so most people won't finish reading until a few days into Feb.

Great idea for a thread! I'm a web programmer employed at a government consulting firm. A couple of years ago I began working on a project for the National Science Foundation and that helped rekindle an interest in science ... in high school and the first couple of years of college I had wanted to get into physics or astronomy. Ultimately I switched over to the humanities for my major, and actually I read a decent amount on history and philosophy of science in college and grad school, so those topics still hold appeal.

My elder two daughters (I have three, 9, 7, and 1) are showing a lot of interest in the natural sciences and so another reason I joined the group (similar to Chantel's reason) was to brush up on biology, zoology, botany etc. so I can keep up with them!

Re whether to start in Feb or March -- if the book chosen is short/easy-to-read enough we could discuss it say starting the second week of Feb and then pick a longer work for March. Both the ones mentioned so far are under 250 pages so probably good candidates (and I doubt either are overly technical). Anyway, just a thought.

Physics for Future Presidents sounds like a timely choice in the new Obama era! I'd be willing to give that one a try.

As an alternative or future choice, since history of science is leading in the poll right now, I've heard a lot of good things about The Invention of Air.

Logistical question -- is there someone in the group who makes an "official" decision about a group read, or is it pretty much just a democratic choice?

Just joined ... does the group do any joint readings? The Steven Weinberg book JuliAnna mentioned looks like a good candidate for a group discussion.