JoshuaZ comments on Book Recommendations - Less Wrong

25 Post author: NancyLebovitz 09 August 2010 08:03PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (143)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: JoshuaZ 09 August 2010 08:57:05PM *  3 points [-]

Kuhn's "The Copernican Revolution" and "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" are both excellent. The first is a very good history of astronomy, the second is a mix of history and Kuhn's views on the philosophy of science. Kuhn, is, as far as I can tell, deeply wrong about the nature of science, but he makes good points and where he is wrong he's wrong for interesting reasons. The Copernican Revolution does a very good job helping one understand just how complicated the history of astronomy is and how often subtle premises can impact scientific investigation even when (or possibly especially when) the premises are not explicitly stated. Alan Hirschfeld's "Parallax:The Race to Measure the Cosmos" is also an excellent book within similar lines.

Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" is still very readable and shows an example of really good thinking even under incomplete data.

I'm trying to get through Priestley's "The History and Present State of Electricity" which is fascinating and gives good thoughts about how to approach thinking (it has gotten I think multiple quotes in the rationality quotes threads here), but the archaic style and grammar makes it sometimes difficult to read.

"Proofs and Refutations" by Lakatos is an excellent and enjoyable look at both the psychology and philosophy behind discovering mathematical proofs.

Comment author: JoshuaZ 10 August 2010 03:28:07AM 1 point [-]

Replying to myself to keep further recommendations well-organized:

Richard Wiseman's "59 Seconds" is an examination of many pop-psych claims and what research actually says. It also includes a lot of helpful tricks and techniques that can be performed in less than a minute (hence the title). Hmm, it might make sense to also mention this in the thread on short rationality techniques...

Comment author: wedrifid 10 August 2010 11:05:13AM 0 points [-]

Thankyou, I'll take a look at that one.