Bad title for the list. The books by Feynman, Weinberg, Sagan, Steinbeck, McPhee, and Levi didn't shape science. At best they are good descriptions of what happened in the century.
cduzz 29 minutes ago [-]
Which books did Feynman write?
Lot's of people have written books and said they're "stories told by Feynman" but that's not really the same thing as "Feynman dictated this story and reviewed it with the editors..."
WillAdams 4 hours ago [-]
The inclusion of Vonnegut's _Cat's Cradle_ is bizarre --- it posits an impossible substance, with bizarre properties, and examines society in a way I have trouble relating to, and its commentary on science such as it is, is if anything, discouraging.
_Dune_ for its role in inspiring the study of ecology would seem more fitting.
It's unfortunate that a didactic text such as H. Beam Piper's novella "Omnilingual" couldn't be considered instead.
teachrdan 2 hours ago [-]
Prions behave a bit like a biological version of ice-nine. It's a novel shape of protein that "teaches" other protein to be shaped like it. Obviously its scope is far more limited than all the world's water, but it's still sobering to think that this risk even exists.
jhbadger 4 hours ago [-]
While I agree that the book presents a fairly negative view of science and scientists (it reminds me strongly of Margaret Atwood's more recent Oryx and Crake), the idea of a substance with the properties of ice-9 isn't that ridiculous -- it was actually suggested by Irving Langmuir (Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1932) to H.G. Wells as an idea (although Wells never ended up using it)
JKCalhoun 2 hours ago [-]
I see nothing wrong with calling out the dangers of science in the service of the military. I wouldn't assume the list should include only science cheerleading books.
(And probably the Pynchon inclusion in the list dovetails with Kurt Vonnegut's.)
cduzz 27 minutes ago [-]
In Cat's Cradle, "Ice 9" is an idea that sweeps across the world destroying it. It's an allegory.
Deracemization in near equilibrium crystallization system
Materials of single chirality can also be achieved by deracemization of a racemic mixture to pure enantiomers in a near-equilibrium system. Deracemization processes aim to transform the undesired enantiomer into the desired enantiomer with a high yield of 100%
qntty 59 minutes ago [-]
This just made me realize that we're 10 years past the 100th anniversary of Einstein publishing about general relativity. Which made me realize that we're a quarter of the way through the 21th century...
Also, I think a list made today would have to include some of the early work on deep learning that happened in the 20th century. Which goes to show that sometimes you don't know what's important until much later on.
julienchastang 4 hours ago [-]
It looks like an excellent resource. Unfortunately, at present, all the links are broken within the document.
FuriouslyAdrift 3 hours ago [-]
Surprised Gödel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid isn't in there somewhere...
tshaddox 1 hours ago [-]
For what it's worth, "The Mind's I" is on the list, which was edited by Douglas Hofstadter and Daniel Dennett.
sitkack 59 minutes ago [-]
Mind's I is a much better book, GEB is one of those books that everyone has that no one has read. Read the Cliff's Notes for GEB and spend your time on Mind's I.
I haven't read The Mind's I, but I rather enjoyed GEB when I read it in college. I didn't realize it was considered a book "no one actually reads." My sense has been quite the opposite!
FuriouslyAdrift 24 minutes ago [-]
I Am a Strange Loop is also good...
mfragin 1 hours ago [-]
Wolfram's "A New Kind of Science" is not on the list.
Jtsummers 38 minutes ago [-]
> November-December 1999
A New Kind of Science was published in 2002. Unless the author of this list had access to the future, it would have been hard to include it.
the__alchemist 2 hours ago [-]
In line with some other comments: The list is finite, and curated, so I will add some not included: GEB (As FuriouslyAdrift said), and The Eighth Day of Creation. The latter is a collection of first-hand interviews with the biologists who shaped the rapid expansion of the field in the 20th century.
sega_sai 3 hours ago [-]
A bit of a strange list. I.e. I'm not sure that "The Hubble atlas of galaxies" by Allan Sandage is that influential really.
Also I went there to check if the Jaynes's Probability Theory book was there or not, but it is not.
Luc 13 minutes ago [-]
I don't take the title very seriously like some commenters do.
I posted the link because I thought it was a nice list to browse through and find perhaps one or two books to read next. It seems to contain a lot of books I enjoyed so that increases the chances of the rest also being worth a look.
Insanity 4 hours ago [-]
The field of science is too broad to capture in just 100 books without feeling like something is missing. E.g, one of the most important scientific achievements in my biased view would relate to computing (/ telecommunications) - but I do not immediately spot books related to this.
Edit: I missed one on technology that is listed. Still feels meager in comparison to others. But again I am biased :)
captn3m0 4 hours ago [-]
It also lists "The art of computer programming (1968) by Donald Knuth"
WillAdams 4 hours ago [-]
Seems very light on math also, with just three texts on it. As much as I respect Bertrand Russell, I'm not sure if _Principia Mathematica_ is the last word on mathematics for the century.
Ironically, Knuth has stated that his idea of _Literate Programming_ is more important than TAoCP.
dkarl 49 minutes ago [-]
> As much as I respect Bertrand Russell, I'm not sure if _Principia Mathematica_ is the last word on mathematics for the century.
I feel like they picked it because not much original mathematics is published in book form. Most of the work that shaped the century in mathematics was published as papers.
They might also have picked it because Russell published books that are readable by laypeople, so in the unlikely event that someone tried to read Principia Mathematica because of this list, they could put it down and pick something else by Russell to read instead.
tcshit 2 hours ago [-]
So few of the greatest books that shaped a Century of Science...
searine 4 hours ago [-]
I'm not a physicist but "The Making of the Atomic Bomb" was life-changing. A sweeping view of the baton-passing of ideas over decades that lead to a climatic event.
Both personal, and highly detailed, it is an absolute masterpiece and a must read for anyone pursuing a scientific career.
JKCalhoun 2 hours ago [-]
A long read, but I enjoyed it as well.
mellosouls 3 hours ago [-]
(1999)
drawkward 2 hours ago [-]
I can point to 15 days that are going to shape a century of anti-science...at least here in the USA.
daniel5uie3 5 hours ago [-]
[dead]
daniel5uie3 5 hours ago [-]
[dead]
abhimanyu81026 3 hours ago [-]
ping
Rendered at 20:06:07 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Vercel.
Lot's of people have written books and said they're "stories told by Feynman" but that's not really the same thing as "Feynman dictated this story and reviewed it with the editors..."
_Dune_ for its role in inspiring the study of ecology would seem more fitting.
It's unfortunate that a didactic text such as H. Beam Piper's novella "Omnilingual" couldn't be considered instead.
(And probably the Pynchon inclusion in the list dovetails with Kurt Vonnegut's.)
Deracemization in near equilibrium crystallization system Materials of single chirality can also be achieved by deracemization of a racemic mixture to pure enantiomers in a near-equilibrium system. Deracemization processes aim to transform the undesired enantiomer into the desired enantiomer with a high yield of 100%
Also, I think a list made today would have to include some of the early work on deep learning that happened in the 20th century. Which goes to show that sometimes you don't know what's important until much later on.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mind%27s_I
A New Kind of Science was published in 2002. Unless the author of this list had access to the future, it would have been hard to include it.
I posted the link because I thought it was a nice list to browse through and find perhaps one or two books to read next. It seems to contain a lot of books I enjoyed so that increases the chances of the rest also being worth a look.
Edit: I missed one on technology that is listed. Still feels meager in comparison to others. But again I am biased :)
Ironically, Knuth has stated that his idea of _Literate Programming_ is more important than TAoCP.
I feel like they picked it because not much original mathematics is published in book form. Most of the work that shaped the century in mathematics was published as papers.
They might also have picked it because Russell published books that are readable by laypeople, so in the unlikely event that someone tried to read Principia Mathematica because of this list, they could put it down and pick something else by Russell to read instead.
Both personal, and highly detailed, it is an absolute masterpiece and a must read for anyone pursuing a scientific career.