Top 20 NYT science bestsellers mostly not exactly about science

_{Denyse O'Leary

June 15, 2014

Books of interest, News

1}_{Categories
Books of interest
News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Here. An intriguing look at what today’s science-minded public reads:

1 QUIET by Susan Cain. Crown. Introverts — one-third of the population — are undervalued in American society. (1)

(Could be the introverts don’t get out enough.)

8 THE GIRLS OF ATOMIC CITY by Denise Kiernan. Simon & Schuster. Thousands of women took well-paying jobs in Oak Ridge, Tenn., during World War II, not knowing that the government project where they worked was enriching uranium for the first atomic bomb. (7)

This is interesting, but sounds like it is really history, not science.

Indeed, it is interesting how much of the list is really about history or struggling with mental issues, and such. Not a criticism, just an observation.

This looks good though:

13 INSIDE OF A DOG by Alexandra Horowitz. Scribner. The canine brain. What the world is like from a dog’s point of view. (13)

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

“On the other hand, it is interesting to note that Darwin used theological arguments far more than Meyer does.” Which should really come as no surprise...
What is surprising (or rather perhaps amusing) is that you seem to be aware that Darwin's book is heavily laden with theological arguments whereas Meyer's is not, and yet you consider the former "science" and the latter "religion". .cantor_{June 21, 2014
June
06
Jun
21
21
2014
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT}

"On the other hand, it is interesting to note that Darwin used theological arguments far more than Meyer does." Which should really come as no surprise given that he did study theology and, at one time, was planning to become a parson.Acartia_bogart_{June 16, 2014
June
06
Jun
16
16
2014
11:55 AM
11
11
55
AM
PDT}

Explain to me why creationist books should be in the science section and not the religion section?
Depending on the book, it would be due to the fact it discusses science and not religion.Joe_{June 16, 2014
June
06
Jun
16
16
2014
11:47 AM
11
11
47
AM
PDT}

I think Darwin deserves more credit than he sometimes gets in the ID community. Given what science knew at the time, his theory was brilliant and quite plausible (though not a slam dunk, as he understood). Further, he candidly admitted that there were serious weaknesses & objections, such as the explanation for the Cambrian (Silurian back then) explosion. On the other hand, it is interesting to note that Darwin used theological arguments far more than Meyer does.anthropic_{June 16, 2014
June
06
Jun
16
16
2014
11:22 AM
11
11
22
AM
PDT}

Maybe we SHOULD move Origin of the Species to the religion section of B&N? It certainly contains less science in it than does Darwin's Doubt and Signature in the Cell.OldArmy94_{June 16, 2014
June
06
Jun
16
16
2014
10:42 AM
10
10
42
AM
PDT}

Well said Cantor! Darwin's Doubt is based on science. Meyer points out that even Darwin recognized problems in his own theory and that if those problems (such as the lack of transitionals in the earliest strata)could not be solved then his whole theory was weak at best. Meyer is only allowing the solution to these problems to go beyond naturalistic explanantions because the naturalistic explanations are absurd!ringo_{June 16, 2014
June
06
Jun
16
16
2014
10:09 AM
10
10
09
AM
PDT}

Explain to me why creationist books should be in the science section and not the religion section?
Because Darwin's Doubt is not a "creationist" book. Any more than Origin of Species is an "atheist" book. You can't have it both ways.cantor_{June 16, 2014
June
06
Jun
16
16
2014
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PDT}

"Your reply just proves that you are an incorrigible troll, uninterested in rational discussion. If you would like to discuss this, by all means. Explain to me why creationist books should be in the science section and not the religion section?Acartia_bogart_{June 16, 2014
June
06
Jun
16
16
2014
08:50 AM
8
08
50
AM
PDT}

This just proves that Barnes and Noble is better at categorizing subjects that Amazon or the publisher.
Your reply just proves that you are an incorrigible troll, uninterested in rational discussion.cantor_{June 16, 2014
June
06
Jun
16
16
2014
08:14 AM
8
08
14
AM
PDT}

"If you really want to know what today’s science-minded public reads, you need to look at the “Christianity” section of Barnes and Nobles. That’s where I found Darwin’s Doubt last year, even though its dust jacket clearly states “SCIENCE/LIFE SCIENCE/EVOLUTION” This just proves that Barnes and Noble is better at categorizing subjects that Amazon or the publisher.Acartia_bogart_{June 16, 2014
June
06
Jun
16
16
2014
06:32 AM
6
06
32
AM
PDT}

Someone who is an introvert has particular personality traits. He isn't "struggling with mental issues."ricotorpe_{June 16, 2014
June
06
Jun
16
16
2014
01:47 AM
1
01
47
AM
PDT}

Indeed. They science as a noun. A thing.Not a verb. Not a mere methodology. they desire to present all conclusions in these fields as coming from a higher standard of research called science but are actually history, interpretation, or trival knowledge things. these authors seek large audiences and thats the purpose. its not to teach or advance science. Its not the right list to put these books in the science list.Robert Byers_{June 16, 2014
June
06
Jun
16
16
2014
12:50 AM
12
12
50
AM
PDT}

For several days after Signature in the Cell came out, I stopped by a local Barnes and Noble on my way home, and moved the copies of the book out of the religious section back into the science section. It is what it is.Upright BiPed_{June 15, 2014
June
06
Jun
15
15
2014
07:13 PM
7
07
13
PM
PDT}

As for Darwin's Doubt in B&Noble, I've noticed exactly the same thing, the attempt to keep it in the religious ghetto of books. Amazon is a bit better, as it is #1 in Organic (under Evolution), Paleontology, and (groan) Creationism. Obviously Amazon put it in the latter category at the behest of critics, as Meyer is not a creationist nor advocates creationism in the book. But the scary label does help keep the curious from reading the book, which is the purpose.anthropic_{June 15, 2014
June
06
Jun
15
15
2014
06:14 PM
6
06
14
PM
PDT}

An intriguing look at what today’s science-minded public reads
If you really want to know what today's science-minded public reads, you need to look at the "Christianity" section of Barnes and Nobles. That's where I found Darwin's Doubt last year, even though its dust jacket clearly states "SCIENCE/LIFE SCIENCE/EVOLUTION" But no where in the index of Darwin's Doubt can you find "Christianity", "Christ", "Jesus" or even "religion". You can find "God" in the index under "The God Delusion" and "God is Not Great" which of course are books you will only find in the science section.awstar_{June 15, 2014
June
06
Jun
15
15
2014
04:25 PM
4
04
25
PM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply