Bill Bryson's "A Short History of Nearly Everything"34

The book title wasn't kidding, this book covers a lot of scientific topics.

I found the reason Bill Bryson wrote this book interesting. He wrote it because all the science books already written don't do anything to make science as interesting and fun as it should be. They have colorful pictures that would grab his attention and get him excited to learn about science, but when he began to read "It wasn't exciting at all. It wasn't actually altogether comprehensible. Above all, it didn't answer any of the questions that the illustration stirred up in a normal inquiring mind... " (pg5)

Bill Bryson had simillar experiences with future books, "There seemed to be a mystifying universal conspiracy among textbook authors to make certain the material they dealt with never strayed too near the realm of mildly interesting and was always at least a long-distance phone call from the frankly interesting" he joked

He went on to say that there are a bunch of science writers who write clear and interesting books, but none of them ever wrote any textbooks that he ever used. All of his were "written by men (it was always men) who held the interesting notion that everything became clear when expressed as a formula and the amusingly deluded belief that the children of America would appreciate having chapters end with a section of questions they could mull over in their own time."

All those quotes are written in a joking manner, but they're true, textbooks are nightmares to read when being forced to, and are at the bottom of the to read lists of...well pretty much everyone, I don't know anybody who actually enjoys reading textbooks. I know people who can tolerate it more than others, but nobody who would, given a choice, read a textbook in preferance to a different book on the same subject. Science is one of the worst subjects in this regard, as Bill Bryson has noted.

So in short, Bill Bryson wrote this book to present scientific knowledge in an understandable and interesting manner so that the common people can understand at least a little science. Kudos to you Bill

As for the content itself, well it's quite disturbing. There must have been at least 5 things that could wipe humanity off the planet, at least two of which would do so before we even knew we were about to go extinct. The good news is that one of those is going away, or at least evidence makes us hopeful that it is going away. Yellowstone park is a supervolcano that, if it were to erupt, would probably bring about another ice age and wipe out most, if not all, of the human race. Based on the patterns of it's eruptions, Yellowstone is due for another explosion. However, the amount of volcanic activity in the park actually puts scientists at ease. They say that since all the geysers and vents and the like are spewing out so much stuff it means pressure in the volcano itself is not increasing. In order for Yellowstone to erupt the pressure would have to build to extraordinary levels, it tkes a lot of pressure to blow up a few miles of solid rock. Evidence also shows that the lava chamber of the supervolcano seems to be cooling and crystalizing. If that happens then the volcano would become extinct, or at least dormant for a very long time.

One apocalypse scenario down, who knows how many others to go. Catastrophic meteors, evolving diseases, global warming, the list goes on. Cheery thoughts aren't they?

Other topics are covered as well, and something that caught my eye was a quote from someone that all scientific discoveries, when put through the scientific community, go through three stages. First people deny it is true, then they deny that it is important, and then they credit the wrong person.

Judging by historical evidence, I'd say that pretty much sums it up, if you want to win a Nobel Prize in a science field you should consider proving that what someone said before you is true and/or that it is important. If you make discoveries of your own somebody else will likely get the credit. It sounds wrong, but based on history that's the truth, take it or leave it. As for me, I think I'll leave it, someone else can go through the ordeal of getting their research accepted.

One last thing before I wrap up today, here's a subject we know incredibly little about. If you ever wondered what the coding of your DNA looks like, well in a sense it looks like this

dhfksdhjdhdflkadsjflkasdjflkasdjflakdjflkdjgljiwriovnxcnvheroiq

Does that make sense to you? If you can see how a jumble of random amino acids (or in this case letters) somehow makes a coherant blueprnt for a human being you should call a scientific institution immediately, they could use your help. With the amount fo research done on DNA you would think we would have begun to crack the code of the stuff that makes us tick, but no, we're still just about as clueless about it.

Well This blog post has been going on forever, and I have other work that is in need of doing, so I'm afraid it's time to end this post. Goodbye!