What are the most important science books? I know about Euclid and Newton, but can I have a more comprehensive list that goes up to contemporary times but does not ignore the classics either?
What are the most important science books?
What are the most important science books? I know about Euclid and Newton, but can I have a more comprehensive list that goes up to contemporary times but does not ignore the classics either?
Goes up in what sense?
Are you looking for historically important works or are you looking for comprehensive works?
While (translated, modernized) versions of Euclid are still readable, you'll generally find that old important books are not super helpful to study from in a modern context.
Related
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_important_publications_in_science
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_important_publications_in_mathematics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_important_publications_in_computer_science
I'm looking for what I asked
THEN FIND IT!
And I get you two readings of "important" and a whole list of lists on Wikipedia for one of those interpretations.
You want to study science as if it was philosophy. This is not how science works. Science is not about worshipping old white men. Science is only about facts and logic. Go buy the newest textbooks. Nobody reads original texts by Newton. They are written poorly and the contents are outdated.
>You want to study science as if it was philosophy.
Yes
If we grant that applicability is a metric by which to judge scientific research, then a problem is that we can value some insights over others.
You can take something like Newton and study it historically, but the ways people judge mathematics pre-Peano (ca. 1870) is qualitatively different than how it's done today (for better or worse) and all old masters of physics, say, have uttered and written down valuable as well as objectively wrong stuff
E.g. Kelvin wrote, quote
>Radio has no future
>heavier than air flying machines are impossible
>Xrays will prove to be a hoax
>Evolution is not possible because the sun is too young
In general you'll find people rant against their rivals and spread bullshit, from mechanics to electricity.
Pic also related, just because i have it on my mind. On a similar note, Microsoft predicted in the late 80's that no human will ever need more than 600 kilobyte for all their personal data to store.
>the ways people judge mathematics pre-Peano (ca. 1870) is qualitatively different than how it's done today
QRD?
Introduction of quantifier and subsequent (re?)-interpretation of "mathematical Proof" as a chain of deduction so formalizable that they can be in principle computer-checked.
Frege, Peano, Cantor, Russel did their stuff 1870 onwards, a starting point could be pinned down to
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begriffsschrift
It was then also found that you can model (that's a fully technical term) essentially any sort of math (be it geometry or algebra) using sets (in somewhat the same sets that any picture is just a bunch of pixels which each are just byte sizes values) and so there was the idea you can squeeze math into logical theories.
Related is
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logicism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_mathematics#Foundational_crisis
A well loved shitpost topic on IQfy btw.
Didn't this letter make Russell suicidal?
Just study philosophy, science doesnt work like that. The “classics” were stepping stones but now wrong. For science you just want a recent textbook. You wont learn anything from “classic” science texts, there basically alchemy lmao
>Just study philosophy, science doesnt work like that.
Why not?
Because its an evolutionary process. Newton spent more time reconstruction buildings from the bible than he did on physics. He purposely made his work public work confusing in order to maintain his superiority complex. The reality is we teach that shit to kids now. If you think reading old alchemy texts will give you a leg up in chemistry your just wrong. Science doesn’t work like that. Now if you buy Hobbes Leviathan, its as good as when it was written because it’s different type of thinking and argument style. Get it?
>Science doesn’t work like that
Why not?
Because its empirical and not philosophical. Your not going to take medical advice from Soranus of Ephesus but your going to argue one cant learn to think scientifically without Newton? Its not a good argument. You just have to genuinely curious, thats who and what the first scientist was, and from they its been a on going debate that always leans on the most recent and accurate data. Even the greeks argued among themselves and not what the old timers said. They were busy writing not reading Egyptian tablets.
>Because its empirical and not philosophical.
It's obviously both, but your reply is a total nonsequitur in any case and my question still stands unanswered.
>your going to argue
>your
lol
Its not both, if you did philosophy you would understand. 100cm in 1 meter isnt up for debate and you wont find it in a newton text either. Philosophy is absent of facts and objectivity because it’s entirely thought experiments. The number of bones on the human hand, there’s an objective answer to that according to science, which isnt true of philosophy. If you want to read some alchemy texts and say “lol npc believe n radioactivity, unlike based newton” thats celebrity worship and its not science its a cult. I guess you have to learn how to extract the answer, philosophy isn’t science im sorry your just wrong and have to grow.
The 90 IQ take of a functionally illiterate highshcool dropout.
The only people defending the classics are the people who never read them.
>t.
>y-you're p-projecting
Literally a nonhuman drone trope.
You’ve made this post like 7 times in a row. Just got study
Does getting called out get under your skin? I will never dignify a nonhuman like you with a legitimate reply.
Did you forget to take your meds? What critical insights are missing from the wikipedia history that would definitively prove it isn't enough? You don't even know because you're a Dunning-Kruger gay.
Take your meds, you'll be more productive and happier.
Except the only difference between Newton and Physics 101 is how things are worded and notated.
Consider this, a list of 70 or so classical (i.e. no quantum effects considered) theories of gravity
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternatives_to_general_relativity
Those basically go from Einstein Anno 1925 (who had the third or so metric theory of gravity) to the 80's.
Quantum mechanics came a decade or more before such theories and quantum electrodynamics you can trace back to the 30's, meaning those theories were all developed and studied, well known that they aren't the complete picture.
If you look at electromagnetism 100 years prior, the spectrum of theories was far wilder. Thermodynamics also has it's fair share of different approaches.
As opposed to Plato discussing the pros and cons of base democracy, or Kierkegaard randing against the media or Nietzsche complaining about art under actotalizing Religion, old science is super interesting but not a place to dedicate your precious time to. Not unless you unironically want to stud and develope theories of heat as a medium, like
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory
Unlike ideas of ethics in stoicism, a genius 1750 chemist is just outdated today. All that's good in those text, academically, has hopefully been worked into later texts.
Notice how you are unable to even begin addressing the actual question. Interesting pattern with you drones.
I don't think you do anybody a favour by trolling like that, the thread is old enough
I'm not trolling. I genuinely don't understand what's wrong with you. I see how your asinine post is tangentially related to what was asked, and I can see how someone could try to consolidate it into a bad argument, but you don't even get that far. I don't know. You're genuinely stupid on a whole new level. I remember the days when we had regular morons posting here but this latest wave... you're hardly even people.
Science isn't just a set of facts to be memorized. It's a centuries-long process of reasoning that began with the ancient Greeks attempting to understand the world through first principles and picked up again during the Enlightenment.
If you're interested in actually understanding how progress is made through reasoning, deduction, and experiment you should read the classic texts.
On the other hand, if you're an NPC and you just want to be fed the "facts" as brought to you by SOIYENCE^TM then never mind.
Reading a Wikipedia page on the history of science is more than enough, if you really want to be a pseud about it. Investing any more time into this pointless endeavour is literally a waste of time.
Yea and most of that history is “as the Lord revealed it to me in a dream…”
I studied philosophy before science and I get your point its not a bad one but its not accurate. You could be the greatest scientist who ever lived without Newton. As you said, Democritus did more for science than anyone without having ever studied it. But hey, go ahead and real classics like henry corenluis agrippa, I already did, its a waste of time. If reading neils bohrs papers triggers a revelation for you, great.
If you wanted to get into philosophy of science you could've just said so.
Laudan's essay "The Demise of the Demarcation Problem"
Aristotle Physics/Metaphysics
Ananth on Aristotle, Lindberg's chapter "Aristotle's Philosophy of Nature"
Lindberg "The Legacy of Ancient and Medieval Science"
Harrison and Lindberg's Early Christianity"
Pearcey and Thaxton's paper, "Christianity and the Scientific Revolution"
Shapin's book "The Scientific Revolution"
Shapin's book "Cordelia's Love"
Francis Bacon "The Great Instauration"
Darwin Origin Chapter XIV
Michael Ruse The Darwinian Revolution
Del Ratzsch "Nature, Design, and Science" (You can start on chapter 7 "Beyond the Empirical" to skip the christ-homosexualry)
Del Ratzsch "Humanness in their Hearts: Where Science and Religion Fuse" (This could be interpreted as christ-homosexualry but it fit's Kant's pluralistic metaphysics better)
John Losee "A Historical Introduction to the Philosophy of Science"
David L. Hull, Darwin's science and Victorian philosophy of science
Sedgewick's "Objections to Mr. Darwin's Theory of the Origin of Species"
Campbell "Landmark Essays on Rhetoric of Science: Case Studies"
Peter Dear's essay "The Intelligibility of Nature"
Gould "Great Scablands Debate"
Thomas Kuhn Structure of Scientific Revolutions
Baumberg "The Secret Life of Science"
Weinberg "Dreams of a Final Theory"
Weinberg "Beautiful Theories"
Pierre Duhem "The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory"
Don't bother with Popper.
Based choice of reading list and based choice of e-thot.
Except for the anti-Christian cope.
I made that post with a potential reader in mind and I didn't want them to think I was trying to convert them. I can see COVID really left this place a shithole.
>If you wanted to get into philosophy of science you could've just said so.
I could've if I wanted, but I don't want to get into philosophy of science. That's why I listed Newton and Euclid/
So you just want... to read outdated theory?...
Philosophy and science are heads of the same coin. Science is the how and philosophy is the why.
>Nobody reads original texts by Newton
NPC take.
Newton was an NPC like you and he was reading contemporary books but fortunately Isaac Barrow told him to read Euclid and Newton was forever grateful to Barrow for pointing him in the right direction.
Lagrange read Newton in detail at a time when Newton was already starting to go out of fashion among NPCs.
Arnol'd read both Newton and Lagrange.
Go read Euler, he is the master of us all.
If you truly want to learn, you should first read the masters rather than the commentators. You can read the commentaries AFTER you have read the main works.
Only correct advice ITT. Delusional schizos like
hate it.
The advice is shit because it makes stupid claims and metaphysical assertions.
Muh logic and scientific process. This view is prevalent among children and Indian engieers
Not my problem you hate science and logic. I suggest you grow up.
Indian engineers fly rocket to space. American engineers turn men into eunuchs.
This is kind of a weird reading suggestion, but hear me out. One of the most important books I ever read for understanding science is called Foundations of Mechanical Accuracy. It describes the process of creating accurate measuring tools from scratch with hand tools. Kind of a niche subject, right? But it represents something very important: the creation of objectively, provably accurate shapes using the clumsy hands of man. It can be seen as a method of establishing facts: how can we PROVE this surface is in fact perfectly flat? How can we PROVE that this measurement is accurate? Therein lies the hidden value of this process. The ability to establish unquestionable truth and fact using methods and measurements available to the common man. And that, in essence, is what science is. The process of establishing truth. Learning about all the little hidden assumptions that one tends to unconsciously make about shapes and measurements reveals traps of logical thinking that are reflected in all scientific processes. Reading this book, therefore, allows one to more critically analyze their own quest for truth. It forces one to ask themselves whether they truly know what they think they know, and how they know it. So anyway, a bit long winded, but this is why I recommend this somewhat oddball choice for a person interested in going deeper down the scientific rabbit hole. And of course, it's also of great interest for anyone interested in how precision measurement devices were historically created.
High IQ post.
Masturbatory pseudo-intellectuals who only concern themselves with purely theoretical concepts will hate this post.
Carlos Castaneda. study yourself.
>You want to study science as if it was philosophy. This is not how science works. Science is not about worshipping old white men. Science is only about facts and logic. Go buy the newest textbooks. Nobody reads original texts by Newton. They are written poorly and the contents are outdated.
I read newton and its a waste of time. Id love to sell you my copy of principia,
>I read newton and its a waste of time
That just tells me you're dumb.
>Id love to sell you my copy of principia,
No, thanks. Newton is dead so I have no qualms about pirating his books.
Sorry but proofs using sewing wheels and pendulums for 300 pages to just explain 3 formulas found o the kids section if the nasa website is a waste of time unless your a science historian. Newtons work was already out of date 6 months after publishing it and if you actually read this shit and studied it you would know that.
When I was in my first year of undergrad there was this guy who reminds me of OP. He was the quintessential pseud. Constantly obsessed with talking about Newton and how his "Principia Mathematica" was the deepest and most insightful text in the history of science. It was literally his life goal to read and understand this text which he presumed not even professors understood. He often asked me whether I think I would understand it, and at some point I got so annoyed by his autism that I avoided him.
This guy failed all his STEM classes. He failed calculus, he failed intro to programming, he failed intro to CS, he failed inorganic chem, etc. I graduated, started my job, went on with my life. Now recently, 10 years later I heard that this guy is still in university. And he hasn't yet finished his undergrad degree.
Did he finally read Principia though?
NJ Wildberger has great series on the history of mathematics
https://www.youtube.com/c/njwildberger/playlists?view=50&sort=dd&shelf_id=5
>Reading a Wikipedia page on the history of science is more than enough
I like how quickly midwit normie intellectual fashion changes. Just a decade ago the same class of "people" were all pretending to be well-read and looking down upon anyone who hasn't read [insert obscure author's obsolete take here]. Now they're openly anti-intellectual, telling you to stop doing your own research, to stop thinking about philosophical questions, and now to outright stop reading.
Stop avatargayging, NPC
>t. picrel
Why are you seething and why are you so overly anti-intellectual?
Stop projecting, NPC
You will reply again, directly or indirectly. You are nonhuman and have no impulse control.
Yes, I will reply again, NPC. Are you going to cry now? Maybe shit your pants too?
You will reply again like the literal programmed bot that you are. :^)
Looks like you just sharted in your pants NPC :*( (this is me protecting my nose from the stink)
Anyone who is sufficiently intelligent to do their own research will quickly recognize that philosophy and history of science are a waste of time and this time is better invested in learning actual science. But apparently people like OP and you are not capable of doing their own research. OP wants to be spoonfed like a baby, and you only waste your time botposting in this kind of thread.
You might as well outright state that you are subhuman instead of churning out this standardized 90 IQ NPC rhetoric. You've immediately exposed yourself in your first few words. Who are you even trying to convince here? Literally the only people who think you're human are heavily dysgenic, uneducated clinical cretins like you.
>projecting
Literally every scientist reached this conclusion or they’d be studying history. Sounds like you need the philosophy help though.
This. You guys are arguing against like we haven’t already been there. I own and have read the classics but for time/money realism, get a real textbook. Anything that was “good” in the classics is still there in a modern textbook. Spending a summer reading how the Periodic-Table was revealed to mendelevee will not make you a better school scientist anymore than knowing Orwell preferred beer in a china mug will make you a better writer. Read the opening of Frankenstein, your making the same mistake studying alchemy in the age of chemistry. Good luck though.
>t. functionally illiterate imbecile
>i have no thoughts of my own
Post your copy of principia
>philosophy and history of science are a waste of time
Wrong. Physics is just an extension of philosophy. And in fact, you'd learn more physics by reading a history of physics than you would by reading a modern textbook.
> https://www.huffpost.com/entry/is-newtons-principia-stil_b_12335694
Next Steps and the Way Forward in the Modified Cosmological Model
>tfw the early form and evolution of western science was foundationally established and possible with scholastic Aristotelians, Christian metaphysics/epistemology and its institutions
>tffw the underdetermination of theory by data today has created problematic academic movements in science which are progressed primarily by money and political power
>tfw there was no scientific revolution
>tfw this thread
Reminder that the people saying that philosophy is useful to science are not educated beyond high school.
Read Darwin
>classics
absolute moron