What are the greatest /sci/ books for laymen? Like pic-related.

>>8882786
that book is a piece of shit

Feynnman
/thread
He takes high level topics and makes them understandable to the layman. There is a reason he was called the great explainer. Just dont think you have a great and deep understanding of the topics unless you actually dive deeper into the mathematics behind them

File: Required Reading - easy mode.png (3MB, 1360x2765px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1360x2765px

>>8882786

>>8882808
>OP requests laymen reading
>shitlord posts image with textbooks
you fucking dumb m8?

>>8882808
>layman
>in depth mathematical proofs
What did he mean by this?

>>8882812

Do you want to learn something or just want to play make believe? Those books are accessible to the layman with just a high school education.

>>8882840
what country are you in where laymen read TEXTBOOKS in their free time? surely they wouldn't be laymen for long.

>>8882808
>he reposted the memelist

File: manga_12set.png (298KB, 650x644px) Image search: [Google]

298KB, 650x644px

>>8882846

4 (you)

>>8882853
let's be clear here. OP didn't request introductory textbooks written for the layman. he requested "the greatest" science related books for laymen, like daniel FUCKING kahneman's THINKING, FAST AND SLOW. i don't know if you've ever opened up that piece of shit book, but if you did you'd see it's VERY FUCKING DIFFERENT FROM ANY TEXTBOOK.

File: reading.png (42KB, 225x178px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 225x178px

>>8882859

I believe you're looking for >>>/lit/

>>8882862
i'm not the one looking for "the greatest" science books, that's OP. it's clear from his original post he wanted actual layman reading, not textbooks you fucking autist

>>8882859
It's a good book senpai.
I found it interesting

>>8882859
>falling for the meme

>>8882863

Is there some law against reading textbooks in your 3rd world communist hellhole?

>>8882794
can you recommend something more specific?

File: 1490225824127s.jpg (7KB, 250x208px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 250x208px

>>8882786

Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind

A Short History of Nearly Everything

Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything

The Signal and the Noise: Why So Many Predictions Fail - But Some Don't

The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks

Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid

Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!: Adventures of a Curious Character

infinite jest

>>8882812

Textbooks ARE for laymen dummy, you think professionals read textbooks? No, students do, and students are by definition laymen.

>>8882846

I read textbooks in my free time. I'm not even employed in a STEM field, it just interests me.

>>8882853

Are these actually any good?

File: marvin-minsky-the-society-of-mind_cropped.jpg (18KB, 366x280px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 366x280px

Marvin Minsky's "The Society of Mind" is a great read, and will totally change your perspective on how minds work.

>all the psychology ITT
Truly the simple man's science.

>>8883746

Yes.

can someone suggest a good book on dynamic systems?

>>8884628
>>8884631

Nonlinear Dynamics and Chaos: With Applications to Physics, Biology, Chemistry, and Engineering (Studies in Nonlinearity) by Steven H. Strogatz
Dynamical Systems (Dover Books on Mathematics) by Shlomo Sternberg (http://www.math.harvard.edu/library/sternberg/)

>>8884638
Thanks, I'm also looking for a book on cellular automata, if you know any. The one by Wolfram doesn't look too promising

The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind by Julian Jaynes

File: pretentious.png (2MB, 701x2001px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 701x2001px

>>8882859

I get you, you just want (cheap) impressive looking books to place on your bookshelf.

>>8882786
Sagan, dawkins, mathematics textbooks.

>>8885380
>dawkins

Kill yourself.

>>8885385
What's the problem with dawkins? The selfish gene was a fantastic argument for altruism in an indifferent universe and between sagan and dawkins I can't think of anyone else who's done more to make science accessible to the general public.
Anyway, why so pissy?

>>8885388
Dawkins claims that genes enslave us, but the only thing we really know about genes is that they code for proteins and that they have something to do with heredity. Also, claiming that genes are slavers makes Dawkins a modern vitalist.

>>8885398
How does that make him a vitalist? Organic systems are generally more complex than inorganic ones and their emergent properties and behaviors more intricate. Genes to have the ultimate say in what and who we are because they mapped the construction of our bodies and brains at the subcellular level. There's nothing vitalist about that.

>>8885398
It seems you're just hung up on his terminology and not his actual opinions, which are the opposite of vitalism. Or you're trolling, in which case, how can you feel good about being so indiscriminately worthless?

>>8885404
Yet he claims they enslave us, although we only know they code for proteins (DNA-RNA-protein) Genes are chemcals and living organisms are I'd say "higher level of existance". I am also reminded of quote trying to explain how organizms work by chemical analysis is like trying to understand how pc works. You learn what it id made of (silicon and so on) but you won't uncover your hidden stash of porn. Dawkins' claim that genes are everything is utterly fallacious.

>>8882808
nrsv is a good translation

File: 51Fi8hXVptL._SX324_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (34KB, 326x499px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 326x499px

I absolutely loved pic related. It goes into enough detail to be mathematically rigorous, but is accessible in its explanations of concepts such as probability and p-values

>>8885415
Again, these are just devices for the layman, not confessions of some theory of genes' autonomy and our separate "us"ness beng a victim to them. You're just harping on terminology. But for the sake of your ridiculous autism, let's say you're right. Regardless, he's still done more than almost if not anyone else to make science accessible to the layman, which is what OP asked for, and that you would jump straight to "kill yourself" at the mention of his name is just a display of what a buttfrustrated fucking loser you are.

>>8885427
Actually it wasn't because of his name (Ancestor's Tale was great), but because of the selfish gene. I'm just pissed how everyone accepts it without thinking about it for a second. Modern science is a belief system (think of Nye) for people who are done with religion.

>>8885433
My mention of that book was a response to you telling me to kill myself. Now you're just reframing the argument to try and pretend you aren't a butthurt dipshit. Modern science is not a belief system. Science is a method of inquiry. What you're referring to is loosely termed "scientism" by dipshits like you who love to play with the unfalsifiable and throw around "ism"s to compensate for an inability to contour your arguments to the specificities of the subject matter. Get back to /lit/.

>>8885437
>unfalsifiable

Popper wasn't even a scientist, stop it with that retarded meme.

>>8885437
Oh, sorry, that wasn't me. I don't think anyone should kill themselves. I'm relly just a person who dislikes a selfis gene theory.
Look at modern science. Guys don't want to inquire, mist of the scientists just want to be considered gods by ordinary people. For exemple it took mainstream scientists 10 years to just look at the possibility that kvasi crystals might really exist. Dean Hamer was just abused by media so some people bepieve there actiually is a gay gene. The speed of light was actually changing up to 70', when they changed definion so that when c changes the length of meters change with it. The big G changes throughout the day, it is not constant. As Terence McKenna used to say, if you believe the big bang theory then there isn't much you aren't willing to believe.

>>8885442
Yes, i've read rupert sheldrake and terence mckenna too. Like I said, you love to play with the unfalsifiable while calling science dogmatic, but without falsifiability you're just spouting masturbatory nonsense.

>>8885445
Have you checked the physical tables? I did, sheldrake is correct.

>>8885445
>but without falsifiability you're just spouting masturbatory nonsense

You clearly don't know shit about science. All of physics is based on ""unfalsifiable"" assumptions.

>>8885445
>>8885457
It was the same with Newtonian physics when Einstein came(xD) And now we know that Einstein was only partially correct

>>8885468

All physics is wrong from the beginning.

>>8885473
Partially true, but it is easier to just repair your good ol' fort than completely smashing It and staring anew