Academics Andre's Research Biocuriosities Books Graduate School History of Science Hot off the Press Igor's Research Interdisciplinarity Molecule of the Month Open Access Philip's Research Philosophy of Science Physics Physicsworld.com
Backreaction Ceclia's Blog at PHD Comics Cocktail Party Physics Cosmic Variance The Daily Transcript Easternblot Everyday Scientist The Evilutionary Biologist Freelancing Science The Futile Cycle Good Math, Bad Math iMechanica in singulo Incoherently Scattered Ponderings Juniorprof Klara Stefflova Life of a Lab Rat The Loom Metadatta Mixed States Morning Coffee Physics Not Even Wrong Notes from the biomass Notional Slurry OpenScience Project Pharyngula PLoS Blog Ponderings of a fool Recombinants The Sandwalk SciAm Observations ScienceBlogs Scientific Clearing House Shtetl-Optimized Three-toed Sloth Uncertain Principles What's New by Bob Park
To accompany the recent listing of the 25 top science books, John Horgan at his Discover blog lists the ten worst science books:
These books aren’t merely awful, of course, but harmful. Most have been bestsellers, or had some sort of significant impact, which often means—paradoxically—that they are rhetorical masterpieces.
Two of my least favourites that he included, and both on the top of the unordered list no less:
I’m particularly happy that Horgan called Drexler out, and all the reason you need is to follow a few threads in sci.nanotech. I haven’t kept track of the newsgroup recently, but a couple of years ago when I did it was filled with crazies touting molecular manufacturing was the saviour for all the world’s ills. As to why The Tao of Physics is on the list, well, one need not look any further than What the bleep?.
Click here to see the rest of the list. As always, add your own least favourites in the comments.
Biocurious is written by Andre Brown and Philip Johnson, since 2005. Content of the weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.
