5 ms·

Tangential to this topic, but Isaac Asimov wrote a book called "The Chemicals of Life" in 1954, just after Watson and Crick identified the double-helix structur

Tangential to this topic, but Isaac Asimov wrote a book called "The Chemicals of Life" in 1954, just after Watson and Crick identified the double-helix structure of DNA. Many people don't know this, but Asimov was, at one point, a professor of Biochemistry at Boston University. The book provides a high-level overview of the biological functions of the body and why we need certain components (essential amino acids, vitamins, minerals, etc.). Certain elements of it are dated (scientists didn't understand the purpose of cholesterol back then), but the general principles hold true. If you're a tech-minded person who understands very little about biology, you may find the book illustrative. You can find a used copy on Amazon for relatively cheap.

folli 6y ago
I'm definitely not trying to downplay Asimov, but reading a >60 year old book to learn more about biology might not be the best use of your time. There has been an exponential (I'm not using this word lightly) knowledge gain in the last decades. The function of cholesterol won't be the only thing that's completely outdated.
- waterheater 6y ago
  I see utility in reading scientific literature produced with a vastly different outlook. What old scientists emphasized back then is worth investigating today to understand how and why they arrived at their conclusions (you know, that whole "study history to avoid repeating mistakes" spiel). Could they simply not observe the world with fine-enough detail? Where did their views derive from? Asimov's broad strokes in here are correct, even if specific details aren't. His presentation of biological principles is lucid to a degree few can match.
- Reelin 6y ago
  In general, I agree that you're probably right. Asimov tends to be remarkably articulate though so it might be worth it (or it might not, I've never read that particular title). Note that while older scientific materials (ie research papers, not topical sources) often have huge gaps compared to current knowledge, they are still generally impressively accurate in what they do say. Good science really does operate as a refinement process for the most part.
- antisyzygy 6y ago
  I could see that for a field like biology. In some other disciplines older texts weather better.

folli 6y ago

I'm definitely not trying to downplay Asimov, but reading a >60 year old book to learn more about biology might not be the best use of your time. There has been an exponential (I'm not using this word lightly) knowledge gain in the last decades. The function of cholesterol won't be the only thing that's completely outdated.

waterheater 6y ago
I see utility in reading scientific literature produced with a vastly different outlook. What old scientists emphasized back then is worth investigating today to understand how and why they arrived at their conclusions (you know, that whole "study history to avoid repeating mistakes" spiel). Could they simply not observe the world with fine-enough detail? Where did their views derive from? Asimov's broad strokes in here are correct, even if specific details aren't. His presentation of biological principles is lucid to a degree few can match.
Reelin 6y ago
In general, I agree that you're probably right. Asimov tends to be remarkably articulate though so it might be worth it (or it might not, I've never read that particular title). Note that while older scientific materials (ie research papers, not topical sources) often have huge gaps compared to current knowledge, they are still generally impressively accurate in what they do say. Good science really does operate as a refinement process for the most part.
antisyzygy 6y ago
I could see that for a field like biology. In some other disciplines older texts weather better.