4 ms·

Where would you put Richard Dawkins? His science books? I've always found them to be methodical and instructive.

• dredmorbius 10y ago
  He's in. A larger part of my confusion is that I'm doing some massive revision -- call it a refactoring -- of my worldview. Not an absolute overturning, but tossing off massive amounts of cruft, teasing out the odd bits of real truth, and digging further for more connections. Many of the more insightful authors I could name simply aren't very well known. Many aren't in the hard sciences, though some (again, Smil delves there) are. Generally I'd point very hard at many of the folks associated with the Santa Fe Institute (Geoffrey West, W. Brian Arthur, David Krakauer, Sander van der Leuuw, J. Doyne Farmer), and others. Since I'm reassimilating and assessing, a lot's up in the air. I'd considered a few other names, mostly older -- Carl Sagan and Isaac Asimov. I'd give slightly stronger cred to Asimov than Sagan, I think Asimov was more grounded in science, while Sagan tended to get a bit fuzzy. Though I also give Sagan serious credit for his attacks on bullshit and pseudo-science. To a large extent though I'm mining more distant authors -- the past 250-300 years. Adam Smith (though largely revising my "conventional wisdom" assessment of him), Charles Darwin (quite possibly the most significant scientist of all time), Newton, Aldo Leopold, Howard and Eugene Odum, Alfred Lotke, William Ophuls (though more politics). It's complicated.
  • bharath28 10y ago
    Completely agree on Asimov. I spent a quite a bit of my childhood reading anything that was written by Asimov that i could lay my hands on. I always felt so much in awe at the kinds of things he'd make me think about. I'll have to check out the Sante Fe Institute stuff - thanks for the recommendations!