Scientific American Science Desk Reference

Who knew that a neutron star is so condensed that a piece the size of a sugar cube would weigh as much as all of the people on planet earth combined? Besides the facts and figures in science which at times can be dry, the Scientific American Science Desk Reference also has interesting facts like the above scattered throughout the book. If one wants to create a reference library, this is the book to get related to all things science. Scientific American is one of the few publishers which can relate complex scientific issues in both a thorough, and at the same time concise, manner. Not to mention the fact that they are probably the most trusted name in Science publications. Scientific American's Science Desk Reference not only gives useful charts from chemistry, to physics, to mathematics, to astronomy, to biology, to the earth sciences......it does so in a relatively small book. Very nicely done! Admittedly, the one downside which could be mentioned is probably the fact that the technology section will become outdated in a very short time, as this was last updated in 1999. But that is a minor detail, and also one which will apply to any and all scientific reference books when discussing the ever changing field of technology. Oxford has a Companion book on science and technology for three times the price, but when I was looking for a desk reference, the Scientific American name outweighed Oxford in this particular field. 5 Stars.

While this is a highly useful desk reference I was disappointed in some ways. There's lots of useful information here, but it's laid out in a rather drab and uninteresting format. And some of it seems a bit dated: some of the computer science information read like something out of a TIME-LIFE "Understanding Computers" book from the late 1980s.On the positive side, the book is a great single-volume reference that makes looking for basic facts relatively easy and serves as a good way to refresh one's memory of things studied years ago. And even if you've not studied the topics formally the articles remain accessible for most people, particularly the kind of people who would buy such a book. Looking for dates of discovery? Important terms? Basic concepts? Charts of different measures? It's all here, and a whole lot more.One of the things I find myself enjoying is that there is a lot of information on important scientists who made crucial discoveries. Want to know the big names in chemistry, physics, and astronomy? You can find them here. Beyond explaining science in its contemporary findings the book does a respectable job of putting science into a historical context.The layout is quite drab. In looking at the colorful cover of this book, considering its substantial price, and combining that with my long experience of reading Scientific American, I was expecting some high-quality illustrations. All you get in this book is rather bland line-art. I wasn't expecting a "Golden Book of Science with Pictures" but high-quality illustrations of things like cells, plants, animals, and celestial bodies would have been a nice addition. Stylistically, this book is rather boring. But if you're of the school of thought that "boring=serious=good" (a highly dubious notion, but some cling to it) you may like this. All in all, this is a useful book. It's the type of book journalists who cover science related news should have readily available. It would be a useful addition to any library. And with the proliferation of scientific discoveries in the news these days it's a useful reference that belongs in the homes of curious people who just want to understand a little more about what's going on in the world. There's a lot of useful information here and the binding is of very high-quality.

This book, the "Scientific American Science Desk Reference" is a fine book about most of the major aspects of science. It is similar in approach and form to Isaac Asimov's New Guide to Science. But, Asimov hasn't gotten around to updating his book, most probably due to his death. This book is probably a little more accessible to the average reader. I especially like this books coverage of all the major topics, mathematics, chemistry, physics, astronomy, biology, geology, meteorology, human and animal physiology, and technology. The thing I like most about this book is its reliance on relevant history of the topic to teach it. There are charts and tables of the various time lines of when and who made discoveries in the various fields. The fine editors also included short biographies of the major people in each of the subjects, from the ancient Greek and Roman philosophers and writers, to some of the latest Nobel Prize winners. My only quibbles would be the use of some terminology that seems loose to me. For example, it's use of the phrase "Earth Science" instead of geology. It does this to be open and accessible to the uninitiated, which is an admirable goal, but it is my belief that it can lead to fuzzy thinking in the long run. After all, "Earth Science" can apply to planets other than Earth as well. My other major quibble is its inclusion of the Computer Sciences and Technology as a major topic, on par with, for example, Physics or Biology. As a computer geek professional this is something that I, on the one hand, like as it shows respect for my chosen field of endeavor, but that on the other hand, see as a very much useless to the average person. Much of the discussion of computers and technology will be out of date in a few short years. I really don't think the average person needs to know the formal difference between a mainframe, minicomputer, and microcomputer or the right and proper definition of an operating system. And the stuff about the Internet went out of the date about five seconds after it was written, let alone published. Again though, our editor's kind hearts were in the right place. Staying with my quibbles of their computer section of a minute, I also want to point out that they are missing a few very important names from the field. They have Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, and even have two of our fields fine Internet pioneers listed with Marc Andreessen and Tim Berners-Lee, but Steve Wozniak and Doug Engelbart are not mentioned at all in the mini biographies section. Woz is as important as Steve Jobs, and Doug Engelbart was probably the single most important person in the field during the last 40 years. To quote Alan Kay, "I don't know what Silicon Valley will do when it runs out of Doug's ideas". Only now is the field stopping to recognize what Engelbart envisioned in what is now called "the Mother of all Demos", or "the 1968 Demo". Hypertext, networking, the Mouse, e-mail, online help, a Windowing environm

So you're not a physicist or a bio-chemist, or even a high school math teacher ... you still need this book. Perhaps you love quiz shows, or maybe just want to explain to your children how certain things in the world work. This is the book that can provide a great many answers about how things in this (and other) worlds work - and why.I can't tell you how many times some technical subject was mentioned on TV or in a movie or the paper, and then a day later I picked up this book, thumbed to the appropriate page and found meaningful answers. A great reference tool to have around the house, in your dorm room or in the classroom. And generally speaking, you don't need to be a professor (of anything) to understand the explanations given in the book (though basic math skills help in some areas).

The Editor as usual has given an outstanding review of the book, and I would like to add a few thoughts. Scientific American, the journal, is probably the greatest source of scientific inspiration for the general public except popular science books. What the public may not know is that scientists also get considerable inspiration from Scientific American, although they usually do not cite it in their scientific articles because it is not monitored by their particular departmental bureaucracies and appeals to the general public rather than only specialists. An example of an article that most scientists would not find except through the Scientific American is the article "Quantum Teleportation" by Anton Zeilinger of the University of Vienna in the April 2000 issue of Scientific American. The ability and interest of Scientific American in communicating difficult and specialized science to the public and translating it and summarizing it for the public is nothing less than Creative Genius, and in my opinion Creative Genius (as opposed to Ingenious Followers or Follower Genius) usually goes together with interest in communicating with and translating to the public.