Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Good Science Books

  1. Nov 26, 2006 #1
    The other day at my library, I picked up a book by Ben Bova, which was called Jupiter, and since I finished it that same day, I went back and got his whole collection of books, or at least what the library had.

    I'm hoping to create this section for a place to list good authors of good sf books.

    Here is my list so far:

    Ben Bova
    Arthur C. Clarke

    I also found this good science text-book at my local Half Price Book Store:

    Fundamentals of Physics: Fifth Edition

    by Halliday, Resnick, and Walker

    Publisher: John Wiley & Sons, Inc
    Last edited: Nov 26, 2006
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 26, 2006 #2
    Do not confuse science books with science-fiction books. They are not the same. I do not care that much for science-fiction, as most of the things they say and/or do is completely irrelevant to science as well as often mentioning sciencetific terms in an incorrect way.
  4. Nov 26, 2006 #3


    User Avatar
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    Are you sure about that?

    Most science-fiction writers are also members of the science community as well. For example, Isaac Asimov. I wouldn't say what he wrote was completely irrelevant or anything of the sort. I know this even after never reading one of his books. I've read so many of his essay's and he talks about them often enough because it introduces the reader to fun topics.

    Yeah, anyways, don't think so harshly. You must have read the worst of the lot or something. Some writers can make us look like fools when it comes to knowing about science.

    I used to think the same way, but not anymore. I still don't read them, but I don't consider them useless at all.
  5. Nov 26, 2006 #4
    I need only to say one name to turn all of your arguments into dust: Douglas Adams. He is one of the most famous sci-fi writer in the world. Or why not any of the star trek books? I stand by my initial arguments. Do not hold sci-fi that high.
  6. Nov 26, 2006 #5


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    I was momentarily taken aback when I saw SF under the title of Good Science Books.

    I agree with Mattara - the Science and Science Fiction are two separate things - and shouldn't be confused. Likewise History and Historical Fiction shouldn't be confused.

    For many years I was loathed to read fiction, until I took a class in Science Fiction as an elective in my senior year of high school. I like some science fiction because one can ask 'what if' - and address issues of how science and technology affects humans in terms of individual and collective thinking and behavior.

    Science fiction writers, e.g. Asimov, do employ elements of science in order to make a story more plausible. But having been working in the nuclear industry for 20+ years, with some exposure to aerospace, I have to laugh at Asimov's use of nuclear energy. Back in 50's nuclear held so much promise, and people speculated way beyond reality as to the possibilities of harnessing that form of energy.

    I prefer to invest most of my time in the real hardcore facts of science rather than fiction. On the other hand, I do enjoy a good story now and then.

    As for real science books, we have a forum at PF devoted to Math and Science Books:

    > Science Education > Academic & Career Guidance > Science Book Reviews
  7. Nov 26, 2006 #6
    I guess that I stand corrected then...

    I'll just use this forum to ask about good science textbooks otherwise.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook