Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Classic Books of Science?

Posted by timothy on Tue May 05, 2009 10:15 AM
from the autodidacts-do-it-by-themselves dept.
half_cocked_jack writes "What are the classic books of science from throughout history? I'm currently reading On the Origin of Species on my Kindle 2, and it's sparked an interest in digging up some of the classic books of science. I'm looking for books from the ancient and medieval worlds and books from the golden ages of scientific discovery. Books like: Galileo's The Starry Messenger; Newton's Principia; Copernicus's On The Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres; and Faraday's The Chemical History of a Candle. I know that I can likely find these books in a format I can use on my Kindle (found a few on Gutenberg already), but what I need is a checklist of these books to guide my reading. Suggestions?"
+ -
story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • One Resource (Score:4, Informative)

    by stoolpigeon (454276) * <bittercode@gmail> on Tuesday May 05 2009, @10:17AM (#27831273) Homepage Journal

    - The Book Page - [att.net] provides free on-line classic and not-so-well known books, articles and more. Antiquarian science texts and articles - complete with original wood-cuts and copper-plate Figures read "cover to cover", or use your Browsers search function to find and read specific sections. Choose from HTML, or pdf (eBook) or MS Reader format.
     
    Not a list like you are looking for, but may help in tracking down things you would be interested in reading.

    • Re:One Resource (Score:5, Interesting)

      by MrNaz (730548) * on Tuesday May 05 2009, @10:20AM (#27831331) Homepage

      You may be interested to read about the role that the Middle East played in the development of modern science. While they are not very mainstream (hey, history gets written by those on top at any point, which at the moment happens to be Western nations), there are many books that deal with the advanced science that was being carried out in that region. Here are some tidbits to get you started:

      Modern optics was pioneered by the discoveries of Ibn Sahl (who discovered Snell's law 800 years before Snellius renamed it [wikipedia.org]).

      In the 9th century, 500 years before Europeans started arguing whether the world was round, Al-Battani and his ilk calculated the circumference of the Earth at 40,253km. Correct to within 200km!

      Al-Jabr [wikipedia.org] is the Arab mathematician who discovered (or invented, whichever way you lean on that topic) algebra. It is still named after him.

      Good luck with this. Scientific history is fascinating!

      (Full disclosure: I am a Muslim, which is why I find this topic so interesting.)

      • Re:One Resource (Score:5, Informative)

        by LotsOfPhil (982823) on Tuesday May 05 2009, @10:33AM (#27831557)

        In the 9th century, 500 years before Europeans started arguing whether the world was round, Al-Battani and his ilk calculated the circumference of the Earth at 40,253km. Correct to within 200km!

        Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the Earth 1000 years before that. "Recent scholarship finds that since about the 3rd century BC, virtually no educated person in Western civilization has believed in a flat Earth." link. [wikipedia.org]

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          Beat me to it, dammit!

          It was obvious to any sea-farers that the earth was round - boats disappeared over the horizon, which could only be explained by either a curved surface, or them falling over the edge. Since most of them came back, the "curved earth theory" was never seriously questioned.

          So, how long have people been using boats? A loooong time.

          Q:Name Christopher Columbus' 4 ships.
          A:The Nina, the Pinta, the Santa Maria, and the one we don't speak about because it fell over the edge.

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            It was obvious to any sea-farers that the earth was round - boats disappeared over the horizon, which could only be explained by either a curved surface, or them falling over the edge.

            There are plenty of other explanations, such as:

            "the horizon is the limit of sight through atmosphere, just as deeper water becomes increasingly hard to see through until eventually you can't."
            or
            "the horizon is a trick of the light that affects things at extreme distances, similar to a mirage"
            or
            "the earth is shaped like a cont

            • Re:One Resource (Score:4, Insightful)

              by tomhudson (43916) <hudson&videotron,ca> on Tuesday May 05 2009, @12:39PM (#27833779) Journal
              Only the last two (#3 and #4) would take into account the fact that the mast is the last thing to disappear, and in nature, there are LOTS of sperical objects to serve as models (apples, oranges, grapes, etc), whereas I don't think they had contact lenses ... (your #3) It's by calculating the curve that they were able to deduce the radius of the earth. If the earth weren't round, the water would flow over the curved edge and disappear, and the seas would have dried up. Also, there would have been a current taking all ships with it over the edge. No such current, so the earth was round, not just "curved like a contact lense."

              The "slight bulges" (your #4) fails for a similar reason - ships have to climb UP a bulge, which takes energy, so either they're going from higher to lower when they start (so no need for wind or rowers) or they're going from lower to higher (so the return doesn't need wind or rowers), so it fails based on simple obsedrvation - you aren't going "downhill" in either direction.

          • Re:One Resource (Score:5, Insightful)

            by tomhudson (43916) <hudson&videotron,ca> on Tuesday May 05 2009, @11:43AM (#27832889) Journal

            In 200 years people will boggle that we believed that most people in the late middle ages thought the Earth was flat.

            Here, let me fix that for you:

            If we don't get rid of the fundie influence on education, in 200 years people will believe that most people living in the twentieth century were living in the middle ages. With the dinosaurs. And some dude named Flintstone.

      • Re:One Resource (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Attila Dimedici (1036002) on Tuesday May 05 2009, @10:41AM (#27831707)
        Europeans believed that the Earth was round BEFORE there were any muslims.
        My sentiment on this has nothing to do with muslims. The idea that educated Europeans thought the Earth was flat is a myth made up by certain 19th Century writers and popularized by people who were trying to show that Christianity is anti-science.
      • Re:One Resource (Score:5, Informative)

        by l2718 (514756) on Tuesday May 05 2009, @11:06AM (#27832161)
        "Al-jabr" is one of laws for manipulating algebraic expressions. The man was named Al-Khawarizi, and from his name we derive a different word -- "Algorithm".
      • Re:One Resource (Score:5, Informative)

        by Leafheart (1120885) on Tuesday May 05 2009, @11:12AM (#27832277)

        Check these and a whole lot of other Arab scientist treaties. They are truly ahead of their time (as kept by western civilization of science advcance, and pearls of an age where the Muslins were the scientific lead.

        Ibn al-Haytham [wikipedia.org]'s - Book of Optics [wikipedia.org]

        Muhammad ibn Musa Khwarizmi [wikipedia.org] - The Compendious Book on Calculation by Completion and Balancing [wikipedia.org]

        Disclamer: I'm not Muslim but I do think we need to give due credit where credit is due

      • Re:One Resource (Score:4, Informative)

        by octal_sio (1521925) on Tuesday May 05 2009, @11:21AM (#27832457)
        Arabic books and their authors indeed played an amazing role in the history of science. It's disturbing seeing them arrive to what they are now...

        Anyway, a few more Arabic classics off the top of my head:

        - Pretty much anything written by Ibn Sina [wikipedia.org]. (The Canon of Medicine is a pretty good one)
        - Ibn AlNafis's [wikipedia.org] Commentary on the Anatomy in Ibn Sina's Canon [wikipedia.org] (where he described the circulatory system)
        - As parent mentioned, the original book on algebra [wikipedia.org], by AlKhwarizmi. The word "algorithm" is named after him, while "algebra" was named after his book. "Jabr" in Arabic means completion.
        - Omar Khayyam's many treatises on Maths and Astronomy.

        There's much more on Astronomy, Physics, Chemistry, Philosophy of Science and the Experimental Method, etc.
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          It's disturbing seeing them arrive to what they are now...

          "Arrive"?

          Do you think it's possible that centuries of colonialism and exploitation by western empires could have contributed to their "arrival"?

          I'm not saying this is necessarily so, I'm just wondering.

          It could be coincidental that so many civilizations that happened to occupy land that held abundant resources or strategic value to the West became somewhat backward and dictatorial.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          Besides, you look at the Middle East now, and there's an active fight against science.

          So it's just like the United States, eh?

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          The Middle East did very little, if anything, with these discoveries, hence.

          The multiple religious crusades perpetrated on them during their most intellectually productive centuries might have had a little something to do with that.

  • by eldavojohn (898314) * <my/.username@@@gmail.com> on Tuesday May 05 2009, @10:18AM (#27831291) Homepage Journal
    On the Shoulders of Giants [amazon.com] was a book I picked up on the cheap ... a weighty tome assembled by Stephen Hawking of classic books of science (some of which you listed).

    I think I got the hardcover for ~$8 at a used bookstore. Amazon seems to indicate it's not available on the kindle but here's what's in it:

    1. Nicolaus Copernicus "On the Revolutions of [the] Heavenly Spheres" (1543)

    2. Galileo Galilei "Dialogues [or Discourses and Mathematical Demonstrations] Concerning Two [New] Sciences" (1638)

    3. Johannes Kepler Book Five of "Harmonies of the World" (1618)

    4. Sir Isaac Newton "The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy" (1687)

    5. Albert Einstein "The Principles of Relativity: A Collection of Original Papers on the Special Theory of Relativity" (1922)
  • Two more (Score:3, Informative)

    by mc1138 (718275) on Tuesday May 05 2009, @10:19AM (#27831309) Homepage
    Gray's Anatomy... not the show. And I'd add A brief history of time, although fairly recent, I'd tag it in their as a book that will most likely be considered on par with older books in a similar vein.
    • Re:Two more (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Ecuador (740021) on Tuesday May 05 2009, @11:11AM (#27832259) Homepage

      Dear God. You compare "A brief history of time" to "Principia" and "On the Origin of Species"???
      "A brief history of time" is an excellent read, however it is a "popular science" book that contains the minimum possible amount of physics and math. For, say, lawyers or doctors I guess it is as "scientific" as they can go with physics, but that in no way can make it a "classic book of science". I considered it a light (and very amusing) read when I was 14 when, in contrast, Newton's proofs were still a challenge to read much later.

  • by goombah99 (560566) on Tuesday May 05 2009, @10:19AM (#27831311)

    St. Johns teaches from the "great books". e.g. learn physics from Newton, etc...

    just nab their sylabus and you have not only what you want but also what you need, a list the great purged of historical anachronisms and ones that are poor for teaching. (e.g. you probably don't want to learn medicine from a list of bodily humors)

  • by Beetle B. (516615) <beetle_b@[ ]il.com ['ema' in gap]> on Tuesday May 05 2009, @10:22AM (#27831389)

    If your goal is to learn the subject material, I wouldn't bother with most - equivalents from the 20th century may likely be better.

    Don't forget Euclid's Elements. I also think there were some groundbreaking math books from the Arab era, but don't know if you can find them on the Internet - or whether there are translations available.

    • by CraftyJack (1031736) on Tuesday May 05 2009, @11:04AM (#27832113)

      If your goal is to learn the subject material, I wouldn't bother with most - equivalents from the 20th century may likely be better.

      Important question there. Keep in mind that notation and scientific writing style have changed significantly over the years.

      • That and seminal works are often overhyped. Don't get me wrong - they may have made a great impact, but they're usually indicative of the beginning of a new field, and it may have taken decades/centuries for the field to figure itself out. Only then is it presented in a better manner for learning.

        Take calculus. Limits weren't put on a firm rigorous basis till people like Bolzano, Weierstrauss and Cauchy over a hundred years after Newton. And general integration theory didn't come around until the late 19th century and early 20th.

        Of course, there are always exceptions...

  • by OldFish (1229566) on Tuesday May 05 2009, @10:24AM (#27831419)

    Einstein's relativity paper is free:

    http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/5001 [gutenberg.org]

  • Feynman (Score:4, Informative)

    by Jamamala (983884) on Tuesday May 05 2009, @10:27AM (#27831457)
    What about the Feynman Lectures on Physics?
    Although it's obviously much newer than all the books you listed, and is still under copyright.
  • Physics (Score:5, Informative)

    by clare-ents (153285) on Tuesday May 05 2009, @10:27AM (#27831469) Homepage

    Einstein, The principles of relativity.

    Very readable papers on special relativity, essentially the same way it's taught now in a modern physics class (at least mine was).

    Feynman, QED

    Smart arse replaces great big pile of maths with pretty pictures with arrows in. Excellent.

    Copernicus, On the revolutions of Heavenly Spheres,

    Won't tell you very much, but worth it for the sheer horror of deriving the motions of the planets as viewed from Earth without using fractions.

    Feynman, Lectures

    The best presentation of a decent physics course there is. May only be comprehensible to people who already have a physics degree, I never tried reading it until I already had most of one at which point I was entranced.

    • Re:Physics (Score:4, Informative)

      by SatanicPuppy (611928) * <<Satanicpuppy> <at> <gmail.com>> on Tuesday May 05 2009, @10:45AM (#27831809) Journal

      QED is fucking awesome. Feynman is about the most readable person you'll find on any of these lists (Darwin is dry as dust...100 pages of morphological bone changes in pigeons and you'll gnaw off your own limbs).

      I have only an advanced laymans understanding of physics (4 classes at the undergrad level) and his explanations were concise, clear, and very easy to follow.

  • by eggoeater (704775) on Tuesday May 05 2009, @10:27AM (#27831475) Journal
    An annual publication gathering the best non-fiction science writing for the year. Usually edited by a good science writer (eg. Glick).
    I love them because of the variety and it usually gives you a good idea of the science without boring you with mundane details or being too pedantic.
  • Ancient Engineers (Score:3, Insightful)

    by earlymon (1116185) on Tuesday May 05 2009, @10:33AM (#27831553) Homepage Journal

    Ancient Engineers by L. Sprague De Camp

    Absolutely not what you've asked for - but a possibly invaluable essay that I expect would be quite useful to guide your understanding during your quest.

  • Ooh! ooh! (Score:3, Informative)

    by a whoabot (706122) on Tuesday May 05 2009, @10:45AM (#27831797)

    I suggest the New Organon by Francis Bacon. This edition [amazon.com] seems to be available for the Kindle.

    Or how about even Aristotle's Physics? That's a nice book to read if you've never read any Aristotle or even any philosophy before. Bacon in the New Organon was trying to advocate a new method of science against the Aristotelian tradition.

    And it probably cannot be called a classic, but Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions would probably be interesting to you. And as a foil to Kuhn's work, Popper's Conjectures and Refutations.

  • Orthogonal view (Score:4, Interesting)

    by paiute (550198) on Tuesday May 05 2009, @10:53AM (#27831943)

    Although I do not adhere to it strictly (for one instance, I keep a copy of Herodotus by the hopper for intermittant rereading), I have rules of thumb that I go by when considering books worth my while:

    1. Read fiction by the dead
    2. Read nonfiction by the living.

  • by Ecuador (740021) on Tuesday May 05 2009, @10:54AM (#27831963) Homepage

    Well, how about going further back. Copernicus is quite "modern" I would say. He himself had read the work of Aristarchus from the 3rd century BC entitled "On sizes and distances", which not only proposes the heliocentric theory, but even does calculations on the sizes and distances (didn't expect that?) of the Sun and the Moon.
    Allow me to note here that although the heliocentric theory was not accepted by many in ancient Greece, the fact that the earth and the heavenly bodies were spheres was common knowledge from the 5th/4th century BC. In fact by the 3rd century BC they knew the radius within 10%. So sad that all this knowledge was lost for centuries...
    Anyway, another classic book that is almost a century older than Aristarchus' book is Aristotle's "Physica" (or "Physics"). Aristotle wrote on many subjects (e.g. politics, ethics, physics etc) and his works an all fields were considered the definitive works of the era.
    I know you said science, but I thought I should also mention the oldest Science-Fiction book I have read, which is Lucian's "True Story" or "True History" (the Greek word is the same for both, in any case the title has the same effect). The two science books I mentioned are not that easy reads, however this one is a very amusing book from the 2nd century AD. I mean it has battles on the Moon, what else do you want!

  • Carl Popper (Score:3, Interesting)

    by digitig (1056110) on Tuesday May 05 2009, @11:15AM (#27832331)
    I'd strongly recommend Carl Popper's "The Logic of Scientific Discovery" -- quite readable (as these things go) and of critical importance in understanding what science actually is -- even if you don't accept Popper's view of what science is, he shows thoroughly why what often passes for "science" amongst amateurs is actually a mash of incompatible views.
  • affectation (Score:3, Insightful)

    by bcrowell (177657) on Tuesday May 05 2009, @11:26AM (#27832539) Homepage

    My advice would be not to make an affectation of reading original works. Here [nytimes.com] is a good article that discusses this "Great Books" paradigm, and points out how poorly it fits in the sciences especially.

    One example you gave was Newton's Principia. Well, I'm a physicist, and I've read most of the Principia. I would not recommend it to anyone. First off, it's all written in the language of Euclidean geometry, merely because most of Newton's audience wasn't familiar with algebra, and certainly not with calculus, which had only been published a few years before the Principia came out. Today, the way to approach the subject is to read a treatment that uses modern math that you're familiar with. If you know calculus and analytic geometry, you can read a two-page proof [lightandmatter.com] of the elliptical orbit law, a result that took Newton the bulk of his entire book to prove because of the mathematical tools to which he limited himself.

    Of course there are exceptions to every rule. I think the first 1/3 of Euclid's Elements is still something that everyone interested in mathematics should read.

  • Euclid's Elements (Score:4, Informative)

    by Bueller_007 (535588) on Tuesday May 05 2009, @12:20PM (#27833511)

    For the love of God, Euclid's Elements. Available for free here:
    http://aleph0.clarku.edu/~djoyce/java/elements/elements.html [clarku.edu]

  • here are some (Score:3, Insightful)

    by portscan (140282) on Tuesday May 05 2009, @01:04PM (#27834283)

    euler - introductio in analysisin infinitorum -- brilliant work of euler from 1748 containing many striking results. english translation available.

    bernhard riemann - on the number of primes less than a given magnitude -- riemann's one paper (~15 pages) on number theory, which introduced his famous zeta function (english version available in riemann's zeta function by edwards, a book dedicated to the very rich subtext of this terse paper)

    shannon - a mathematical theory of communication [att.com] -- seminal paper founding information theory

    schrodinger -- find yourself a decent exposition of the analysis of the hydrogen atom using schrodinger wave mechanics. learn where all that junk they taught you in high school chemistry actually comes from!

    Feynman Lectures on Physics -- comprehensive account from the man who knew physics as well as anyone.

    ahlfors - complex analysis -- best text i know of on this subject in mathematics that shows up in the most surprising places in the sciences.

    landau & lifschitz - course on theoretical physics -- 10 volumes on modern physics from classical mechanics to electrodynamics, relativity, quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, fluids, etc. from nobel prize winner lev landau.

    Fourier Analysis - t w korner -- intro to fourier analysis with many applications (after all, applications are the whole point of fourier analysis) from your basic heat equation stuff to calculating the age of the earth and other interesting things.

    i think that in compiling this list, you will find two things to be true:
    1. increasingly (in the last century, for example), important work is not (initially) published in books, but in papers.
    2. trying to read the original works is fun for about 5 minutes. if you really want to learn, modern expositions in textbooks tend to be far better than the originals.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Bryson is a swell writer -- informative and funny -- but his grip on the science he writes about is marginal. His politics are moderate-left, which biasses his writing somewhat.
      • by Gotung (571984) on Tuesday May 05 2009, @11:08AM (#27832179)
        Facts do have a liberal bias after all.
      • Writing biased to the Left? How? Unless you are talking about the places where he points out that it took 80 years to get the production of a harmful poluttant outlawed etc., which comes up a couple times, but that could hardly be called left leaning. He's just reporting the facts.
        • Re:Future Classic (Score:4, Informative)

          by ChrisMaple (607946) on Tuesday May 05 2009, @04:43PM (#27838209)

          Due to your post, I went back and quickly reread about a third of the book, and I have to admit that I was wrong as far as I can tell. I can't find any bias, and the science was better than I remembered.

          I did find two errors. On page 157 and onward, Bryson claims that airborne lead is forever. Actually, airborne lead has fallen dramatically in recent decades, probably by more than 90% in cities. On page 217, he repeats the claim that glass flows at room temperature.

          My apologies to you and Mr. Bryson.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Well there's the fact that EVERY SINGLE MOTHERFUCKING STORY on biology gets tagged "whatcouldpossiblygowrong." It got old real, real fast.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith

      That, of course, assumes that economics deserves to be treated as science.