4 ms·
> I'm never going to read that thing. Is surprisingly accesible and easy to follow in fact. Such way to write science using logic and linking obvious facts ins
by pvaldes 6y ago
> I'm never going to read that thing.
Is surprisingly accesible and easy to follow in fact. Such way to write science using logic and linking obvious facts instead to trying to wrap all in math glitter couldn't happen today.
- EEMac 6y agoYou get bonus points for the term "math glitter"!
- DubiousPusher 6y agoHeck no! We are in a golden age of accessible science communication. You have to avoid the Gladwells and his ilk but there are people out there like Bill Bryson and Siddhartha Mukherjee that take really complex science, research it well and explain it in clear and practical language.
- guscost 6y ago> couldn’t happen today Well, except for Basic Economics ;)
- wsinks 6y agoBut is it as easily accessible as "Seeing Nature: Deliberate Encounters with the Visible World"? The bar of accessible is much much lower than the Origin of Species.
- pvaldes 6y agoBut 'Seing Nature' didn't made the same revolution on our knowledge as 'the Origin of the species'. Neither has the same historical or cultural impact in our society. There are still a lot of people releasing fake news about Darwin for promoting some religious agenda, so educate ourselves in his work to be able to disclose those liars is even more relevant now than ever. Why not read both books in a row starting with the origin?. Is a reasonable goal, will be intellectually rewarding, and everybody could do it in a month.
- pvaldes 6y agos/for promoting /with the purpose of promoting /