Reddit mentions: The best science essays books

Yeah, this is a safe space and all, and I think I get what you are trying to say, but I have to agree with other replies. Be careful who you talk about this too, as you do sound like a jackass. Can't say whether that impression is justified without meeting you, but I'm going to assume not. :)

So, if it helps, by the measures you chose I am in your intelligence range. Like other here, I was in a gifted kids program, sent to special extra educational events and courses, the standard stuff. Professionally you'd be impressed by my education and work experience, and I've ended up trading quips with various luminaries. So what does all that mean with regards to my IQ or my personal relationships - absolutely fuck all.

First, you are choosing IQ as a measure, but it is an incredibly abstract one. Its also one with a shady history of extreme selection bias and misuse. I think this book has a good overview of it in a chapter. Fundamentally, IQ demonstrates your ability to provide the expected answers for that particular test, and (at least for me) remains an unreliable indicator of intelligence in a broader sense. Even if you decide you think it is a good measure, it measures one sort of intelligence, and one that may correlate with academic success but doesn't necessarily correlate with being an original thinker, interesting to talk to or interested in the world.

So lets try and get to what I think you mean, stripped of the arbitrary units. You want to talk to interesting people. Is that right? If so then i think you need to reassess your view of interesting. An example, one fo my best friends is a carpenter. He has a fairly mediocre degree and not stellar grades, but he's a smart and fascinating guy. He is that because he has a thirst for knowledge, new ideas and systems. He knows much less than me about, say, the Greco-Persian wars or the conformation of transmembrane glycoproteins, but it really doesn't matter If I have something interesting to talk about he can and does pick up the essentials really quickly, and comes back with intelligent questions and insights. Is he as academically qualified than me - for sure. Is he less smart than me, I really don't think so. Equally I have a friend working at a very high level in an international organisations, one fo the smartest women I know. She has studiously avoided all news outlets for a decade at least.I;d try and talk to her about curent affairs and watch the disinterest flow over her face. She;s more interested in talking about the Eurovision song context. By your measure she's in the fraction of a percent you'd accept.

If you can only find engagement with people you can trade quips in Latin with, then I think you've missed out a lot. I also think you've yet to be struck by the between-the-eyes, spine-tingling type love for someone. When you are, it is quite possible that person will be entirely unlike you in every way but you won't be able to help yourself. I've seen it happen plenty of times, and I've seen it work out more than people who choose 'suitable mates' in the way you seem to be describing. Luckily, love and other emotions are what shifts a depressing numbers game to a more achievable, and ultimately satisfying, experience.

If someone doesn't interest you and you don't feel it, for sure don't get into a relationship with them. But to measure them against an arbitrary yardstick before you even consider them, thats just going to end with you miserable and alone. Even with the Japanese girl, it sounds like you were settling before you even started. Being with someone with an IQ under 120 doesn't mean settling, it just means considering alternates paths to the endpoint of a partner you can be happy with. And happy, thats the goal in the end, nto trophy wife (whether in smarts or looks).

Same for your kids, do you want smart kids of successful and happy ones. Smarts alone are not any guarantee of health, happiness or success. Once you have kids I would hope would want happiness for them more than just a high IQ score to brag about. Ans lastly, the heritability of IQ is not conclusively demonstrated, at least the genetic heritability. Intelligence of all sorts seems as connected to the social environment, support and aspirations of parents for their children as much as parental IQ. Biological determinism is misguided.

It's great that you want to study particle physics and String Theory! It's a really interesting subject. Getting a degree in physics can often make you a useful person so long as you make sure you get some transferable skills (like programming and whatnot). I'll reiterate the standard advice for going further in physics, and in particular in theoretical physics, in the hope that you will take it to heart. Only go into theoretical physics if you really enjoy it. Do it for no other reason. If you want to become a professor, there are other areas of physics which are far easier to accomplish that in. If you want to be famous, become an actor or a writer or go into science communication and become the new Bill Nye. I'm not saying the only reason to do it is if you're obsessed with it, but you've got to really enjoy it and find it fulfilling for it's own sake as the likelihood of becoming a professor in it is so slim. Then, if your academic dreams don't work out, you won't regret the time you spent, and you'll always have the drive to keep learning and doing more, whatever happens to you academically.

With that out of the way, the biggest chunk of learning you'll do as a theorist is math. A decent book (which I used in my undergraduate degree) which covers the majority of the math you need to understand basic physics, e.g. Classical Mechanics, Quantum Mechanics, Special Relativity, Thermodynamics, Statistical Mechanics and Electromagnetism. Is this guy: Maths It's not a textbook you can read cover to cover, but it's a really good reference, and undoubtably, should you go and do a physics degree, you'll end up owning something like it. If you like maths now and want to learn more of it, then it's a good book to do it with.

The rest of the books I'll recommend to you have a minimal number of equations, but explain a lot of concepts and other interesting goodies. To really understand the subjects you need textbooks, but you need the math to understand them first and it's unlikely you're there yet. If you want textbook suggestions let me know, but if you haven't read the books below they're good anyway.

First, particle physics. This book Deep Down Things is a really great book about the history and ideas behind modern particles physics and the standard model. I can't recommend it enough.

Next, General Relativity. If you're interested in String Theory you're going to need to become an expert in General Relativity. This book: General Relativity from A to B explains the ideas behind GR without a lot of math, but it does so in a precise way. It's a really good book.

Next, Quantum Mechanics. This book: In Search of Schrodinger's Cat is a great introduction to the people and ideas of Quantum Mechanics. I like it a lot.

For general physics knowledge. Lots of people really like the
Feynman Lectures They cover everything and so have quite a bit of math in them. As a taster you can get a couple of books: Six Easy Pieces and Six Not So Easy Pieces, though the not so easy pieces are a bit more mathematically minded.

Now I'll take the opportunity to recommend my own pet favourite book. The Road to Reality. Roger Penrose wrote this to prove that anyone could understand all of theoretical physics, as such it's one of the hardest books you can read, but it is fascinating and tells you about concepts all the way up to String Theory. If you've got time to think and work on the exercises I found it well worth the time. All the math that's needed is explained in the book, which is good, but it's certainly not easy!

Lastly, for understanding more of the ideas which underlie theoretical physics, this is a good book: Philsophy of Physics: Space and Time It's not the best, but the ideas behind theoretical physics thought are important and this is an interesting and subtle book. I'd put it last on the reading list though.

Anyway, I hope that helps, keep learning about physics and asking questions! If there's anything else you want to know, feel free to ask.

Here's a list of books I've read that have had a big impact on my journey.

First and foremost tho, you should learn to meditate. That's the most instrumental part of any spiritual path.

 Ram Dass – “Be Here Now” - https://www.amazon.com/Be-Here-Now-Ram-Dass/dp/0517543052 - Possibly the most important book in the list – was the biggest impact in my life.  Fuses Western and Eastern religions/ideas. Kinda whacky to read, but definitely #1

Ram Dass - “Journey Of Awakening” - https://www.amazon.com/dp/B006L7R2EI - Another Ram Dass book - once I got more into Transcendental Meditation and wanted to learn other ways/types of meditation, this helped out.

 Clifford Pickover – “Sex, Drugs, Einstein & Elves…” - https://www.amazon.com/Sex-Drugs-Einstein-Elves-Transcendence/dp/1890572179/ - Somewhat random, frantic book – explores lots of ideas – planted a lot of seeds in my head that I followed up on in most of the books below

 Daniel Pinchbeck – “Breaking Open the Head” - https://www.amazon.com/Breaking-Open-Head-Psychedelic-Contemporary/dp/0767907434 - First book I read to explore impact of psychedelics on our brains

 Jeremy Narby – “Cosmic Serpent” - https://www.amazon.com/Cosmic-Serpent-DNA-Origins-Knowledge/dp/0874779642/ - Got into this book from the above, explores Ayahuasca deeper and relevancy of serpent symbolism in our society and DNA

 Robert Forte – “Entheogens and the Future of Religion” - https://www.amazon.com/Entheogens-Future-Religion-Robert-Forte/dp/1594774382 - Collection of essays and speeches from scientists, religious leaders, etc., about the use of psychedelics (referred to as Entheogens) as the catalyst for religion/spirituality

 Clark Strand – “Waking up to the Dark” - https://www.amazon.com/Waking-Up-Dark-Ancient-Sleepless/dp/0812997727 - Explores human’s addiction to artificial light, also gets into femininity of religion as balance to masculine ideas in our society

 Lee Bolman – “Leading with Soul” - https://www.amazon.com/Leading-Soul-Uncommon-Journey-Spirit/dp/0470619007 - Discusses using spirituality to foster a better, more supportive and creative workplace – pivotal in my honesty/openness approach when chatting about life with coworkers

 Eben Alexander – “Proof of Heaven” - https://www.amazon.com/Proof-Heaven-Neurosurgeons-Journey-Afterlife/dp/1451695195 - A neurophysicist discusses his near death experience and his transformation from non-believer to believer (title is a little click-baity, but very insightful book.  His descriptions of his experience align very similarly to deep meditations I’ve had)

 Indries Shah – “Thinkers of the East” - https://www.amazon.com/Thinkers-East-Idries-Shah/dp/178479063X/ - A collection of parables and stories from Islamic scholars.  Got turned onto Islamic writings after my trip through Pakistan, this book is great for structure around our whole spiritual “journey”

 Whitley Strieber – “The Key: A True Encounter” - https://www.amazon.com/Key-True-Encounter-Whitley-Strieber/dp/1585428698 - A man’s recollection of a conversation with a spiritual creature visiting him in a hotel room.  Sort of out there, easy to dismiss, but the topics are pretty solid

 Mary Scott – “Kundalini in the Physical World” - https://www.amazon.com/Kundalini-Physical-World-Mary-Scott/dp/0710094175/ - Very dense, very difficult scientific book exploring Hinduism and metaphysics (wouldn’t recommend this for light reading, definitely something you’d want to save for later in your “journey”)

 Hermann Hesse – “Siddartha” - https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/siddhartha-hermann-hesse/1116718450? – Short novel about a spiritual journey, coming of age type book.  Beautifully written, very enjoyable.

Reza Aslan - “Zealot” - https://www.amazon.com/ZEALOT-Life-Times-Jesus-Nazareth/dp/140006922X - Talks about the historical Jesus - helped me reconnect with Christianity in a way I didn’t have before

Reza Aslan - “No god but God” - https://www.amazon.com/god-but-God-Updated-Evolution/dp/0812982444 - Same as above, but in terms of Mohammad and Islam.  I’m starting to try to integrate the “truths” of our religions to try and form my own understanding

Thich Nhat Hanh - “Silence” - https://www.amazon.com/Silence-Power-Quiet-World-Noise-ebook/dp/B00MEIMCVG - Hanh’s a Vietnamese Buddhist monk - in this book he writes a lot about finding the beauty in silence, turning off the voice in our heads and lives, and living in peace.

Paulo Coelho - “The Alchemist” - https://www.amazon.com/Alchemist-Paulo-Coelho/dp/0062315005/ - Sort of a modern day exploration of “the path” similar to “Siddhartha.”  Very easy and a joy to read, good concepts of what it means to be on a “path”

Carlos Castaneda - "The Teachings of Don Juan" - The Teachings of Don Juan: A Yaqui Way of Knowledge https://www.amazon.com/dp/0671600419 - Started exploring more into shamanism and indigenous spiritual work; this book was a great intro and written in an entertaining and accessible way. 

Jean-Yves Leloup - “The Gospel of Mary” - https://www.amazon.com/Gospel-Mary-Magdalene-Jean-Yves-Leloup/dp/0892819111/ - The book that finally opened my eyes to the potentiality of the teachings of Christ.  This book, combined with the one below, have been truly transformative in my belief system and accepting humanity and the power of love beyond what I’ve found so far in my journey.

Jean-Yves Leloup - “The Gospel of Philip” - https://www.amazon.com/Gospel-Philip-Magdalene-Gnosis-Sacred/dp/1594770220 - Really begins to dissect and dive into the metaphysical teachings of Christ, exploring the concept of marriage, human union and sexuality, and the power contained within.  This book, combined with the one above, have radically changed my perception of The Church as dissimilar and antithetical to what Christ actually taught.

Ram Dass - “Be Love Now” - https://www.amazon.com/Be-Love-Now-Path-Heart/dp/0061961388 - A follow-up to “Be Here Now” - gets more into the esoteric side of things, his relationship with his Guru, enlightenment, enlightened beings, etc.

Riane Eisler - “The Chalice and the Blade” - https://www.amazon.com/Chalice-Blade-Our-History-Future/dp/0062502891 - An anthropoligical book analyzing the dominative vs cooperative models in the history and pre-history of society and how our roots have been co-opted and rewritten by the dominative model to entrap society into accepting a false truth of violence and dominance as “the way it is”

Excellent points.

> If your brother came to you and said, "I had a spiritual experience in which God told me that I needed to sell all my stuff and move to Canada because vampires are eating their way north from South America." What would you say? According to OmniCrush you would say something like:

We can even use a more concrete example, such as described here by /u/bwv549 where a friend of his claims to have spoken with Jesus and has special knowledge about a destructive flood coming to Utah valley. Besides cases like this, adherents of almost every single religion can describe to you the supreme feelings of peace or love they've experienced while worshiping (many do interpret this to mean that their religion is the true one [see here and here as well]).

Check out this passage from Dr. Steven Novella's book in the section on neuropsychological humility:

> Perception Is Constructed

> The bottom line is this: Your real-time perceptions are not a passive recording of the outside world. Rather, they are an active construction of your brain. This means that there is an imperfect relationship between outside reality and the model of that reality crafted by your brain. Obviously, the model works well enough for us to interact with that reality, and that's actually the idea. Constructed perception is not optimized for accuracy but rather for functionality. ...
>
> Now you have crafted an image, but it doesn't mean anything yet. The next area of the visual cortex assigns meaning to the image--is that a tree or a whale? Okay, it finds a match, then makes further adjustments to the basic processing so that the image it constructed matches better with the thing it thinks it's seeing.
>
> Did you catch that? Visual processing is a two-way street. The basic visual information is processed up the chain as your brain constructs a meaningful image, and then the brain communicates back down the chain to tweak the construction so it fits better. Essentially, if your visual association cortex thinks you are looking at an elephant, it communicates back to the primary visual cortex and says, "Hey, make that look even more like an elephant." It changes what you actually see, not just how you interpret it. This all happens automatically, outside of your awareness. ...
>
> If you think that's it, think again, because so far I've only been talking about visual processing. Our brains are simultaneously processing auditory information, sensation from our bodies, vestibular information about gravity orientation and acceleration, and feedback from our muscles to tell how we're moving. Our brains favor continuity and internal consistency over accuracy, so all these streams are compared in real time and further adjustments made so they all fit together nicely. In a way, our brains are constructing a narrative about what is happening, and making that narrative make sense to us.
>
> Also in the stream, however, are our prior knowledge and expectations. We know elephants are big, so when we see a small elephant our brains tend to assume it is big and therefore must be far away. ...
>
> The lesson here is that even the most basic components of your existence are actively constructed by your brain. Each component can be disrupted and erased.
>
> How does all this affect critical thinking? Well, just as with memory, be wary of saying, "I know what I saw [or felt (my addition)]." Hmm...no, you don't. You have a constructed memory of a constructed perception based on filtered partial sensation and altered by your knowledge and expectations.

This (among a number of other biases to be aware of) has very significant implications for testimony development. Mormons either grow up learning (or accept based on hearing the testimonies of others, such as the missionaries) that a god exists and that the Holy Ghost will manifest the truth of all things to them and then come to embrace (through elective/religious faith it seems) that Moroni 10 and Alma 32 are valid heuristics to reach objective truth. However, just because the Church as an organization formally embraces a more logical process for reaching objective truth than many other faith traditions does not mean that that process has ever been demonstrated to be reliable (especially to the point of having sufficient confidence in it to warrant being willing to commit your entire life to that ideology by following specific guidelines and spending a significant amount of both time and money).

The Physics AS/A Levels are a funny lot of modules; I believe they're designed to be doable without any A Level-equivalent Maths knowledge, so they're riddled with weird explanations that really try to avoid maths - which often just makes everything harder in the long run. (I did AQA Physics A, but all were pretty similar as far as I gathered.)

With that in mind, if you're looking to study Physics further on, I'd recommend supplementing your mathematics. If you're doing Further Maths, you probably needn't bother, as the first year of any university course will bore you to death repeating everything you learnt about calculus etc.; if you're doing single Maths, I'd recommend getting confident with C1-4, and maybe purchasing the Edexcel (Keith Pledger) FP1/FP2 books to get slightly ahead before uni. They're great books, so might be useful to have for Y1 of uni and reference thereafter regardless. I was quite put off by the attitude towards Y1 maths of the Further Maths people (about half the cohort), who kept moaning about having done it all already, so found focusing in lectures a tad harder; I wish I'd bothered to read just a little ahead.

The second thing I'd recommend would be reading fairly broadly in physics to understand what aspect in particular you enjoy the most. In my experience, the students who have even a rough idea of what they want to do in the future perform better, as they have motivation behind certain modules and know how to prioritise for a particular goal, e.g. summer placement at a company which will look for good laboratory work, or even as far as field of research.

To that end (and beginning to answer the post!), books that aren't overly pop-science, like Feynman's Six Easy Pieces/Six Not-so-Easy Pieces are good (being a selection of lectures from The Feynman Lectures). Marcus Chown does a similarly good job of not dumbing things down too much in Quantum Theory Cannot Hurt You and We Need to Talk About Kelvin, and he talks about a good variety of physical phenomena, which you can look up online if they interest you. I could recommend more, but it really depends how you want to expand your physics knowledge!

E - darn, just read you're not in the UK. Oops. Mostly still applies.

Random selection of some of my favorites to help you expand your horizons:

The Demon-Haunted World by Carl Sagan is a great introduction to scientific skepticism.

Letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris is a succinct refutation of Christianity as it's generally practiced in the US employing crystal-clear logic.

Augustus: The Life of Rome's First Emperor by Anthony Everitt is the best biography of one of the most interesting men in history, in my personal opinion.

Travels with Herodotus by Ryszard Kapuscinski is a jaw-dropping book on history, journalism, travel, contemporary events, philosophy.

A Short History of Nearly Everything by Bill Bryson is a great tome about... everything. Physics, history, biology, art... Plus he's funny as hell. (Check out his In a Sunburned Country for a side-splitting account of his trip to Australia).

The Annotated Mona Lisa by Carol Strickland is a thorough primer on art history. Get it before going to any major museum (Met, Louvre, Tate Modern, Prado, etc).

Not the Impossible Faith by Richard Carrier is a detailed refutation of the whole 'Christianity could not have survived the early years if it weren't for god's providence' argument.

Six Easy Pieces by Richard Feynman are six of the easier chapters from his '63 Lectures on Physics delivered at CalTech. If you like it and really want to be mind-fucked with science, his QED is a great book on quantum electrodynamics direct from the master.

Lucy's Legacy by Donald Johanson will give you a really great understanding of our family history (homo, australopithecus, ardipithecus, etc). Equally good are Before the Dawn: Recovering the Lost History of Our Ancestors by Nicholas Wade and Mapping Human History by Steve Olson, though I personally enjoyed Before the Dawn slightly more.

Memory and the Mediterranean by Fernand Braudel gives you context for all the Bible stories by detailing contemporaneous events from the Levant, Italy, Greece, Egypt, etc.

After the Prophet by Lesley Hazleton is an awesome read if you don't know much about Islam and its early history.

Happy reading!

edit: Also, check out the Reasonable Doubts podcast.

Personally, I think you would get great suggestions on /r/physics. But since you're here...

Since you seem like you're just dipping your toes in the water, you might want to start off with something basic like Hawking (A Brief History of Time, The Universe in a Nutshell).

I highly recommend Feynman's QED, it's short but there's really no other book like it. Anything else by Feynman is great too. I found this on Amazon and though I haven't read it, I can tell you that he was the greatest at explaining complex topics to a mass audience.

You'll probably want to read about relativity too, although my knowledge of books here is limited. Someone else can chime in, maybe. When I was a kid I read Einstein for Beginners and loved it, but that's a comic book so it might not be everyone's cup of tea.

If you really want to understand quantum mechanics and don't mind a little calculus (OK, a lot), try the textbook Introduction to Quantum Mechanics by Griffiths. Don't settle for hokey popular misconceptions of how QM works, this is the real thing and it will blow your mind.

Finally, the most recent popular physics book I read and really enjoyed was The Trouble with Physics by Smolin. It's ostensibly a book about how string theory is likely incorrect, but it also contains really great segments about the current state of particle physics and the standard model.

Disclaimer: I am an engineer, not a physicist, biologist, etc.

I've always been partial to Feynman's writings when it comes to non-technical discussions of physics. Six Easy Pieces is a great place to start, and if you enjoy it, you can try out Six Not So Easy Pieces. QED is a very accessible book on quantum electrodynamics. Don't let the complex-sounding title fool you--Feynman makes this subject very easy to understand for the layperson.

I really enjoyed reading Relativity for the Million by Martin Gardner, although it's been quite a while since I read it. Gardner is a great author, and this book is perfect for the interested layperson. If you enjoy puzzles, check out his other books. If you want to get a little more technical, Relativity: The Special and the General Theory by Einstein is a good choice.

If you're up for a challenge and willing to commit to a bit of study, I recommend The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe by Roger Penrose.

As far as magazines go, I've found that Science News keeps me up-to-date on the latest developments in science without getting mired in the details of subjects that I may not be familiar with.

> do you know of any helpful formatting guides?

Here's a google search
that may help you get started. That said, just getting the words onto paper will be the hardest, longest portion of the work.

I would also suggest reading some non-fiction books for ideas of how you can layout your ideas.

"Group Theory in the Bedroom" for instance uses essays with postscripts/afterwords for each chapter. Each 'chapter' is it's own, self-contained work. You could yank out any chapter and have a cohesive work.

Meanwhile, "Guns, Germs, and Steel" breaks down more by topic/question and ties them together for a summary "the whole is greater than the parts" ending. You cannot take out a portion and still get the whole idea. They all intertwine.

Then you have biographies of all sorts that basically start with "So and so was born" and tell the story from there. You can yank out a portion and get a cohesive idea about "so and so's" high school years or education, but not the entire person.

I'd suggest leaning towards a Guns, Germs, and Steel style if you can. Tying together how fried chicken carries across cultures, connects huge portions of the planet, and carries an huge amount of "cultural capital" in popular culture and real life would be huge.

Some examples you can borrow/develop:

• KFC is huge in China, bigger than McDonalds even.
  
• The Japanese celebrate Christmas by eating KFC
  
• The film "The Help" includes Fried Chicken as a crucial plot point as a black woman teaches her white employer how to make it properly. Fried Chicken is a form of "Cultural capital" in the film.
  
  
  
  Last words: You're looking at the phenomenon of Fried Chicken, so sociological concepts like Phenomenonology and other Sociological terms will help you in the research phase of your question. Cultural rifts about fried chicken and "the right" way to make it for example will likely be discussed using terms like "cultural lag" and "norms".

a. Stanford. But a lot of people who work with me did not go to big-name schools. UC Irvine, Iowa State, Oregon state, etc. Where I work, there's lots of UW. Where I used to work before that; lots of RPI and USC.

b. I got great grades in high school, but slipped a little bit in college. (This made my life difficult later. A good GPA makes it easier to be hired, and is practically necessary if you want a Masters, something that many many many engineers have today). Classes: I'm sure I'm not the first one to tell you this, but take all the math and physics you can. And try to learn some of this stuff outside of school (it can be more fun that way), pick up some books, try to get through the Feynman Lectures on Physics (or just Six Easy Pieces and QED to start off), some Martin Gardner, books like Euler's Gem, learn HTML, try your hand at programming, build LEGO robots... all that kind of stuff will make it easier to learn the stuff you need to learn to become an engineer.

As one commenter has already pointed out, this kind of thing has been going on for a long time. Sometimes it's punctuated equilibrium, sometimes it's niche construction, sometimes it's group selection, and sometimes it's epigenetics, but debates about whether we need an extended synthesis to accomodate 'new' mechanisms of evolution are nothing new. In fact, go back fifty years and you'll find it was the hot topic of biology (see [G.C. Williams' Adaptation and Natural Selection] (http://press.princeton.edu/titles/558.html)).

That being said, it's important not to give the people defending these ideas short shrift (not saying anyone here is). There's a lot of impressive empirical and philosophical work meant to show the traditional framework can't readily accomodate the processes above, i.e. that they lead to new predictions and explanations which weren't really available before, so they can't be dismissed lightly.

Here's some resources to shed light on your question:

• Massimo Pigliucci did a write-up on the topic, responding to [Jerry Coyne's criticism of the extended synthesis idea] (https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2009/02/16/are-we-ready-for-an-extended-evolutionary-synthesis/), [here] (http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.ca/2009/02/jerry-coyne-and-extended-evolutionary.html) (Pigliuicci is a big supporter of the EES)
  
• [Pigliucci's An Extended Synthesis for Evolutionary Biology] (http://www.biol.uw.edu.pl/empseb2010/images/artPigliucci2.pdf) is a classic
  
• [Evolution: The Extended Synthesis] (http://www.amazon.ca/Evolution-Extended-Synthesis-Massimo-Pigliucci/dp/0262513676), edited by Pigliucci, is another good source
  
• Not by a philosopher, but [Gould's Structure of Evolutionary Theory] (http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674006133) is a good source for the history of the modern synthesis v. extended synthesis and of course his [punctuated equilibrium] (http://evolucion.fcien.edu.uy/Lecturas/GouldyEldredge1993.pdf), as well as other ideas meant to motivate revising the synthesis (some of which the architects of the synthesis, like Ernst Mayr, explicitly denied)
  
• Elliot Sober is a huge proponent of group selection, which is one of the things people say the Modern Synthesis came to ignore and so needs to be updated in light of. His and David Sloan Wilson's [Unto Others] (http://www.amazon.ca/Unto-Others-Evolution-Psychology-Unselfish/dp/0674930479) is a good source on this.
  
• For an alternative perspective to Sober's, check out the [Illusory Riches of Sober's Monism] (http://joelvelasco.net/teaching/167win10/kitcher%20etal%2090%20-%20the%20illusory%20riches%20of%20sobers%20monism.pdf) by Phil Kitcher, Kim Sterelny, and Ken Waters. Sober replies to them in [The Poverty of Pluralism] (http://joelvelasco.net/teaching/167win10/The%20Poverty%20of%20Pluralism%20-%20A%20Reply%20to%20Sterelny%20and%20Kitcher.pdf).
  
• Again not philosophers, but John Maynard Smith and Eors Szathmary deal with the major transitions in evolution (which are often treated from a multi-level perspective) from the gene's eye point of view in the [Major Transitions in Evolution] (http://www.amazon.ca/Major-Transitions-Evolution-Maynard-Smith/dp/019850294X)

Audio Books are your friend, like seriously pick up something to listen to.

Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman! (Adventures of a Curious Character) by Richard P. Feynman


The Pleasure of Finding Things Out: The Best Short Works of Richard P. Feynman

"What Do You Care What Other People Think?": Further Adventures of a Curious Character


The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory by Brian Greene


The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality by Brian Greene


The Hidden Reality: Parallel Universes and the Deep Laws of the Cosmos by Brian Greene


Physics of the Impossible: A Scientific Exploration by Michio Kaku

Einstein's Cosmos: How Albert Einstein's Vision Transformed Our Understanding of Space and Time: Great Discoveries by Michio Kaku


The Black Hole War: My Battle with Stephen Hawking to Make the World Safe for Quantum Mechanics by Leonard Susskind (This one I recommend on the highest degree, personally I have read it 3 times)


A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking

The Theory of Everything: The Origin and Fate of the Universe by Stephen W. Hawking


Pale Blue Dot: A Vision of the Human Future in Space by Carl Sagan


Contact by Carl Sagan


Billions & Billions: Thoughts on Life and Death at the Brink of the Millennium by Carl Sagan

All these books I've listened to or read, and I recommend all of them some more then others, I have tons more about Quantum Mechanics, Physics, Biology, Cosmology, Astronomy, Math etc. But I'm to lazy to list all of them here.

> moving very slowly through time (i.e, the jiggling atoms are slower

Those are not the same thing. You're getting it backwards. Moving slowly through space doesn't mean you're moving slowly through time. It just means it takes longer to get to where you're going in space.

If you put a clock on an airplane, and you synchronize it with your watch, and then the airplane flies around the world, when it lands, your watch will have measured more elapsed time than the clock on the plane. (People have actually done this with atomic clocks, and it really happens.)

The movement of the airplane through space "uses up" some of its movement through time, so the airplane has moved through less time than you have while you were standing still. The clock (and everything else, like how hungry the passengers are) reflects this. Note that for an airplane, the difference is a tiny fraction of a second, but it's real and has to be compensated for in GPS satellites for example.

(Note that if neither of you speeds up or slows down, each of you is moving slower than the other, which is one of the weird things about relativity and why it's called "relativity".)

When you cool an object, the atoms move more slowly through space; that is correct. Their time doesn't slow down. Chemical reactions (like milk spoiling) progress more slowly, because it's less likely that when two molecules in the substance bump into them they're less likely to be going fast and hence bump together hard enough to react. Water evaporates more slowly when it's cold because any given water molecule getting to the surface is less likely to be going fast enough to pop free of the surface and into the air. But think about it like bumping two lumps of clay together: if you get the two lumps going faster, they're more likely to stick together.

If you make something very hot (like in a particle accelerator like the LHC) by making it move very fast, the time the particle experiences slows down, so a particle that would normally undergo radioactive decay in a billionth of a second sticks around long enough to see. The "cosmic rays" you sometimes hear about are particles coming in from space that only live a fraction of a second, but they're going so fast that their time is so slow (compared to ours) that they last long enough to get all the way from space down to the ground, several seconds.

Fun stuff.

If you want some basic normal every-day "here's how physics works" explained by the guy who won a Nobel prize for explaining to theoretical quantum mechanics theory guys how to understand quantum mechanics, try this: http://www.amazon.com/Six-Easy-Pieces-Essentials-Explained/dp/0465025277 No math involved.

If you want to learn why Einstein's relativity works the way it does, and you understand the Pythagorean Theorem about how long the sides of a right triangle are, try http://www.amazon.com/Six-Not-So-Easy-Pieces-Relativity-Space-Time/dp/B0009IINXE

Basically, if you understand https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxrlcLktcxU#t=32 you can understand why Relativity works the way it does. (Mind, you might not believe it... :-)

Forgive me if you already know this stuff and I'm just being confusing because I'm talking about it in a confusing way.

Civil engineering to shipbuilding: Structures and The new science of strong materials, by J.E. Gordon. These are incredibly enlightening.

Physics (also some chemistry and biology): It Must Be Beautiful: Great Equations of Modern Science is a collection of essays by great scientists - among others, it contains a very insightful discussion on the birth of the Schroedinger equation, which is rather different from the usual stories of cats in boxes, chicken crossing the road, gods playing dice, and the like.

Chemistry: The Elements: A Very Short Introduction, by Philip Ball.

Biochemistry: Chance and necessity, by Jacques Monod. Seems it's out of print, I guess my knowledge of the field is a bit out-of-date. There must be some other book out there that explains elegantly protein folding and enzymatic regulation, which are the base mechanisms of living matter.

The main tenets of Darwin's ideas, mainly the idea that evolution occurs because of natural selection on variations, has stayed the core of evolutionary theory. However, the processes and scope of evolutionary theory have expanded dramatically and have done away with some of the assumptions that Darwin held. As Timizle and civilizedanimal have mentioned, Darwin was operating in a world that didn't know about Mendelian inheritance so many of his theories on how variation occurred are often very wrong. Darwin had a brilliant understanding to the What, but he didn't have the evidence to explain the How.

Darwin, and most evolutionary biologists through the 1960s, thought that evolution was only the result of slow, gradual change selected upon by natural selection. However, there are growing bodies of evidence, mostly from epigenetics and Evo-Devo (Evolutionary developmental biology) that evolution can occasionally happen in larger jumps and also take some different paths than gradual genetic change. As is the usual disclaimer, these Wikipedia articles are not definitive science texts, but good introductions to the topics.

A good book that opened my eyes to how much evolutionary theory has advanced beyond the basic concepts of Darwinism was Evolution: The Extended Synthesis. It gives a great account of the last 30-40 years of evolutionary biology written by scientists who are active today. It can get a little technical at times, but a decent understanding of the basics of evolution should be enough to understand almost all of it.

What part of evolution? Common ancestry is as solid as anything in biology. The role of natural selection is more controversial these days. Some people (e.g., Dawkins) think natural selection is absolutely central; the only way you can get complexity in the natural world. Others (e.g., Stuart Kauffman, Mary Jane West-Eberhard) think the role of natural selection has been overstated. They emphasize things like development, self-organization, etc.

EDIT: Just to make it clear if it wasn't, when I say the role of natural selection in evolutionary theory is becoming more disputed, I am not talking at all about Intelligent Design. Kauffman, West-Eberhard, and the rest are thoroughly committed to a naturalistic, scientific understanding of complexity in the natural world. If you'd like to learn more, check out Stuart Newman's page for his articles, Mary Jane West-Eberhard's page for her articles, Stuart Kauffman on PubMed, Gerd Müller's page for his articles, and the collection of articles in Evolution: The Extended Synthesis.

NASA climatologist James Hansen.

> Hansen was invited by Rafe Pomerance to testify before the United States Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on June 23, 1988.[75][76] Hansen testified that "Global warming has reached a level such that we can ascribe with a high degree of confidence a cause and effect relationship between the greenhouse effect and observed warming...It is already happening now"[52] and "The greenhouse effect has been detected and it is changing our climate now...We already reached the point where the greenhouse effect is important."[77] Hansen said that NASA was 99% confident that the warming was caused by the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and not a random fluctuation.[52][77]

> According to science historian Spencer R. Weart, Hansen's testimony increased public awareness of climate change.[78] According to Richard Besel of California Polytechnic State University, Hansen's testimony "was an important turning point in the history of global climate change."[76] According to Timothy M. O'Donnell of the University of Mary Washington, Hansen's testimony was "pivotal," "ignited public discussion of global warming and moved the controversy from a largely scientific discussion to a full blown science policy debate," and marked "the official beginning of the global warming policy debate."[79] According to Roger A. Pielke of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, Hansen's "call to action" "elevated the subject of global warming and the specter of associated impacts such as more hurricanes, floods, and heat waves, to unprecedented levels of attention from the public, media, and policy makers."[80]

-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen#US_Senate_committee_testimony

Nothing about it being debunked.

Guessing you could use some of this:

http://howglobalwarmingworks.org/

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/climateqa/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2010/05/natural_anthropogenic_models_narrow.png

http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/exec-office-other/climate-change-full.pdf

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

...and maybe some of this:

https://www.theskepticsguide.org/

https://smile.amazon.com/Skeptics-Guide-Universe-Really-Increasingly/dp/1538760533

All the video sources I'm finding seem... spotty, but Richard Feynman's lectures on physics are the best in my opinion. He starts out with the basic foundations modern physics and progresses into much more difficult territory. They're well written, and definitely a good read for anyone who wants a basic understanding of physics.

I have these copies of his lectures which I like because they split up the easy and the hard topics in to separate books. But this is just personal opinion, and there are many, many copies of his works out there.

Most universities have a physics 101 class tailored to people like you. If you are already in school, you could express your interest to the teacher and ask to sit in on the class. I've done this for several classes and never had a teacher refuse my request, but if they say no, you can always just pay a little money and audit the class. The cost varies per school, but at my university it was only $30.

If you are looking for a book, I'd suggest Richard Feynman's Six Easy Pieces. I don't remember it containing any math at all, but is excellent for understanding some of the fundamental concepts of physics.

If you have a particular concept you'd like to understand, you can ask me! I would love to talk about physics to anyone at anytime.

Feynman's Six Easy Pieces is a great introduction to quantum mechanics. Gary Zukov's book The Dancing Wu Li Masters doesn't have a great reputation among physicists because it strays a bit into mysticism, but I think it's a pretty good read. Capra's Tao of Physics is in the same category. For an easy-to-understand discussion of the weirdness of quantum mechanics, Fred Kuttner and Bruce Rosenblum's Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness is excellent.

This is an Amazon list of books on the subject that I found helpful:

Robert Kroese, author of Schrödinger's Gat

It's probably not quite as directly tied to the specifics of first-year curriculum as Klein, but Feynman's Six Easy Pieces is a great intro to the big picture in physics. If you really want to understand physics, Feynman is one of your best resources.

I highly recommend Letters to a Young Scientist by Edward O. Wilson for your son. Not only is Wilson the most renowned entomologist in the world, but his book is meant to inspire young students to find a passion in sciences and how to be successful in it.

how do you get a deterministic system to spit out random numbers? If you can isn't that a bit disconcerting?

http://www.amazon.com/Group-Theory-Bedroom-Mathematical-Diversions/dp/0809052199
Has a good chapter on the subject matter

The problem with spitting out consecutive digits of pi is that you have indexed them to a non-random variable in n.

We do a pretty good job at approximating randomness with computers, but the quality of the random numbers is often questionable. This is of great importance in Monte Carlo methods. For one of the better random number generators, read up on the mersenne twister.

YES YES YES.

this book is great, but you must buy the special illustrated edition of it, it really brings the subject matter alive

http://www.amazon.com/Short-History-Nearly-Everything-Illustrated/dp/0767923227

Rather good book I was given a few years back called Periodic Tales. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Periodic-Tales-Curious-Lives-Elements/dp/0141041455 Well worth a read if you have any interest in the elements, but in a less scientific way and more about the human side. Lots of interesting bits of information about some of the odd/crazy things people did on discovering something new (everything is a miracle cure!!)

>Where do I start?

Please read the FAQ.
**
>Where can I read why the big bang is the closest theory or idea of rightness. Where can I read about ideas of the particles that made up every atom or whatnot smaller spec to create the big bang?*

Start with:

• The Illustrated A Brief History of Time / The Universe in a Nutshell - Two Books in One By Stephen Hawking
  
  And
  
  
• A Short History of Nearly Everything: Special Illustrated Edition by Bill Bryson.
  
  No atheist bible exists. However many atheists arrive at their position from skepticism. A sort of mental filter used to make sure our beliefs align with reality and not some sort of snake-oil. The same filter you yourself use to avoid being scammed by "Nigerian Princes".
  
  You can consult the classic book
  
  
• The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark By carl Sagan, as a primer into skepticism.
  
  Or if you want a fast version from youtube.
  
  
• Open-Mindedness by QualiaSoup.
  
  **
  
  >Atheist, do you even acknowledge the idea of a God?
  
  Of course the question remains, which god? It's too easy to have a vague god with no definable attributes.
  
  I acknowledge the idea. But an idea can still be imaginary. If a friend told me dragons existed, and each time I said that was impossible, and then they changed the goalposts until "dragon" meant something entirely too vague to disprove, then we aren't getting anywhere in terms of actually proving my friend isn't mistaken, and just wants dragons to exist.
  
  See more here: [The Dragon in my Garage*](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJRy3Kl_z5E). (4 min on youtube)

I don't think you understood my post. If you aren't aware of the scientific discussions surrounding antidepressants you might want to read up on the literature. I'm simply explaining the uncertainties and limitations of science, as anyone trained in science will recognize. When I say trained in science, I'm not referring to someone with a STEM degree, but a well educated scientist. The sort of critical thinkers we used to refer to as scientists, such as the writers in this anthology, which is a good starting point:

https://www.amazon.ca/Oxford-Book-Modern-Science-Writing/dp/0199216819

But yes, I have two STEM degrees from the best universities in this country as well as a graduate degree in the politics, philosophy, sociology, and public policy of science and technology.

For intuition, I recommend everything by Richard Feynman; a good starting point is Six Easy Pieces. Gerard ’t Hooft has a list of the subjects to master: How to become a GOOD Theoretical Physicist

Fortunately, special relativity isn't that mathematically intensive. If you took college algebra and trigonometry, it will be familiar to you. If you took calculus, it will be mathematically easy. Although the concepts are certainly difficult.

This book presents it at a very simple level.

This book and this book present some very interesting physics at a layman level. I'd suggest it to anybody curious about topics such as relativity.

Aristotle wrote a book called Physics, but it's not about banging plastic cars into one another on a table: http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/physics.html or http://www.amazon.com/Aristotles-Physics-Aristotle/dp/0803250932

I'm not discounting your sincerity. Nevertheless, God exists and wants you a lot.

• Aquinas: Summa Theologiae, Book 1 ("Prima Pars"): http://www.amazon.com/Aristotles-Physics-Aristotle/dp/0803250932
  
• Alvin Plantinga: start here and then look up his books: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oL5rykiekBs
  
• Norman Geisler: http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&page=1&rh=n%3A283155%2Cp_27%3ANorman%20Geisler
  
  There is no point in telling anyone that you don't believe in God. You have this bursting desire, but do you know of any real-life stories where people have done this and it led to something good and wonderful?

I just saw Letters to a Young Scientist by Edward O. Wilson in a bookstore yesterday and am very tempted to read it. It seems like a great read for anyone interested in pursuing science (not specifically chemistry) as a career.

Unfortunately, a good understanding of quantum mechanics requires a basic understanding of classical physics.

I would recommend "The Dancing Wu Li Masters" by Gary Zukov. https://www.amazon.com/Dancing-Wu-Li-Masters-Overview/dp/0060959681/ref=sr_1_1 "6 Easy Pieces" by Richard P. Feineman https://www.amazon.com/Six-Easy-Pieces-Essentials-Explained/dp/0465025277/ref=sr_1_1? My personal favorite is "Understanding Physics" by Isaac Asimov https://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Physics-Volumes-Magnetism-Electricity/dp/B000RG7YPG/ref=sr_1_2? HTH

Awesome.

A great book I read recently on the elements is Periodic Tales

I can help a bit, I'm an American but I live in Brittany and speak Breton.

Here are a list of books that should help

http://www.amazon.fr/Le-Bezen-Perrot-nationalistes-luniforme/dp/2952144613
http://www.amazon.fr/Lhermine-croix-gamm%C3%A9e-mouvement-collaboration/dp/2843982391/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_y
http://www.amazon.fr/Agents-du-Reich-en-Bretagne/dp/2915623805/ref=pd_sim_b_2
http://www.amazon.com/miliciens-maquisards-enqu%C3%AAte-r%C3%A9sistance-Centre-Bretagne/dp/2737350638/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1380923884&sr=8-1&keywords=9782737350634

Here's a decent article in English
http://www4.uwm.edu/celtic/ekeltoi/volumes/vol4/4_1/leach_4_1.pdf

If you have any other questions let me know. Chañs vat dit gant da destenn ha kenavo ar c'hentañ tro.

[Six Easy Pieces: Essentials of Physics Explained by Its Most Brilliant Teacher] (http://www.amazon.com/Six-Easy-Pieces-Essentials-Explained/dp/0465025277/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1373335527&sr=1-3&keywords=richard+feynman)

When we are talking about something irrational, yes.

For good examples of rational things people believe that they cannot prove, see the book of the similar name.

I, for instance, believe that the nature of the universe is entirely understandable, and that the creatures that we become will eventually have the ability to answer any meaningful question.

Inventory: 16 Films Featuring Manic Pixie Dream Girls, 10 Great Songs Nearly Ruined by Saxophone, and 100 More Obsessively Specific Pop-Culture Lists
by The A.V. Club

Imponderables
by Dave Feldman

Why Things Are: Answers to Every Essential Questions in Life
by Joel Achenbach

Don't Know Much About Geography: Everything You Need to Know About the World but Never Learned
by Kenneth C. Davis

The Jinn from Hyperspace: And Other Scribblings--Both Serious and Whimsical
by Martin Gardner

Did Adam and Eve Have Navels?: Debunking Pseudoscience
by Martin Gardner

What Einstein Told His Cook: Kitchen Science Explained
by Robert L. Wolke

Feynman. Anything you can find on him. "The Feynman Lectures on Physics" is a brilliant introduction. It is aimed at college level but there's a significant portion of general audience material. A book was written that is a subset of the Feynman lectures that concentrates on the non-mathematical (which apparently means "easy") parts.

Edit: Okay, perhaps not anything you can find.

I think a a fantastic book was released today to help with this exactly. The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe: How to Know What's Really Real in a World Increasingly Full of Fake

Thanks! Is this the one you mean? http://www.amazon.com/Six-Easy-Pieces-Essentials-ebook/dp/B004OVEYNU/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1343059628&sr=8-4&keywords=six+easy+pieces

I had a similar thought after reading What we believe but cannot prove.

When public speaking and someone laughs, how do you know they aren't laughing at you?

Vice comes off as hilariously naive in that post. "Every year, the online magazine Edge--the so-called smartest website in the world, helmed by science impresario John Brockman--asks top scientists, technologists, writers, and academics to weigh in on a single question...And the list is long. Like, book-length long."

Um, Brockman is a literary agent and publisher. Some or all of those folks are his clients. Every year he sells the answers, indeed in book form. Not that that's bad or that Brockman isn't interested in science, but come on, Vice, let's frame things realistically.

Really expensive collection of lectures
or
The third chapter of Six Easy Pieces which is the six easiest lectures from the same collection. I opted for cheap, but that complete set is looking mighty tempting.

15 might be a good age to introduce her to some Dick.

Richard Feynman's 6 Easy Pieces:

http://www.amazon.com/Six-Easy-Pieces-Essentials-Explained/dp/0465025277

Six Easy Pieces by Richard Feynman

I'm a science noob and I was told this is a good layman-introductory book. Fingers crossed people haven't read this already.

Gracias!

No, el de Feynman es biográfico, basado en grabaciones que hizo un cuate de él. Es excelente. Acaba de salir una versión en novela gráfica que se llama Feynman.

Para divulgación de Feynman ahorita estoy leyendo uno que se llama Six Easy Pieces, que es un extracto para mensos de sus famosas lecturas de física.

> Feynman

Feynman was the original ELI5 when it came to physics. I remember this book clearing up a lot of things for me.

I skimmed all your references and I find it a weird way to teach atheism as it seems to be largely an historical account and nothing explicitly to do with why/how.
The only reason atheism (without god(s)) exists is due to the large population of theists whom have no rational basis for that claim. The only sort of common trait is the use of logic and the scientific method, largely due to the departure from theism which required those skills. But this is not even a requirement either as the lack of belief could have been inherited from parents or from a separate false belief.

If one was to teach atheism, as in why people don't hold the belief that god(s) exist, I would think it would start with logic (valid, invalid, weak, strong arguments, soundness etc), the scientific method, skeptism/critical thinking, common fallacies(with a religious bias), some philosophy and some of the common arguments and counter points Some sort of challenge to try to prove one religion as true over another where you have to apply the same logic to both equally could also be useful for rooting out errors. ie if your holy book is true because the book/author states it is then you have to assume the other holy books self referential claim is true because it also makes the same claim with the same amount/quality of evidence which should show that it invalid as a method for proof.

Some better alternatives to your course material, in my opinion, are A Manual for Creating Atheists, The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe: How to Know What's Really Real in a World Increasingly Full of Fake and this youtube playlist on logic and argumentation

No not reliable at all. New age spiritual nonsense with the word quantum thrown around with no rhyme or reason!

Read any of these instead. Actual physics books for new to physics readers;

Astrophysics for People in a Hurry https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0393609391/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_.n-xDb972EWGF

Storm in a Teacup: The Physics of Everyday Life https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/178416075X/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_Po-xDbCXBA3FT

Six Easy Pieces: Essentials of Physics Explained by its Most Brilliant Teacher https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0465025277/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_sq-xDbBG45M3D

how about Scientific Skepticism as defined in the awesome new book The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe: How to Know What’s Really Real in a World Increasingly Full of Fake


https://www.amazon.com/Skeptics-Guide-Universe-Really-Increasingly/dp/1538760533

I'd disagree. While the Lectures book itself is a harder lift, he further adapted it for lay audiences as Six Easy Pieces.

http://www.amazon.com/Six-Easy-Pieces-Essentials-Explained/dp/0465025277

https://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Extended-Synthesis-MIT-Press/dp/0262513676

All pandas are fluffy.
Some pandas have red fur.
Therefore, some pandas are fluffy with red fur.

The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing by Richard Dawkins We read that book in my Philosophy of Science class! There's a little bit of everything in it! You should check it out! My Intro to Logic class is also ending! Boooo!

I have a book recommendation for you.

https://www.amazon.com/Skeptics-Guide-Universe-Really-Increasingly/dp/1538760533/ref=mp_s_a_1_1

skeptics guide to the universe

Comes out in a few weeks.

​

https://www.amazon.com/Skeptics-Guide-Universe-Really-Increasingly/dp/1538760533

https://www.amazon.com/Skeptics-Guide-Universe-Really-Increasingly/dp/1538760533

Also there are things that cant be explained thought scientific method

http://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/scientific-experiments/scientific-method10.htm|

What We Believe but Cannot Prove:

http://www.amazon.com/What-Believe-but-Cannot-Prove/dp/0060841818

It's so much fun to learn about this stuff. Here's one place to start:

http://www.amazon.com/Six-Easy-Pieces-Essentials-Explained/dp/0465025277/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1451954715&sr=1-4&keywords=feinman

Did it have a noticeable taste?

I had a few cases of water that got sun affected and you could really taste the plastic. My cousin told me I was mad and gladly drank them all.

From my elementary knowledge of physics (Six Easy Pieces) it wouldn't be a great idea.

Oh shit I have this book