Richard Dawkins has written a bunch of books focused on evolution. Carl Sagan wrote Cosmos, a book accompanying the original TV series with the same name. Do check them out, or watch the remake of Cosmos, which is also brilliant.
I would avoid Dawkins for learning about evolution. He is a rabid atheist and presents a controversial subject from a very single and narrow point of view. I believe in my earlier post I used the word indoctrinated, and this would be the perfect example. He sees evolution (his views on it) as the ONLY way the world could work. EO Wilson (a biologist who writes well) provides a gentler introduction in many of his well written books but my preference would be David Quammen (a writer who specializes in science) for an excellent introduction to many of the biological sciences.
You did catch that this is a learning science thread, right? If you want to debate science/religion vs. fundamentalism, then you are free to start your own thread on the subject. A lot of people do. You might even check whether or not somebody else already has.
Didn't mean to get open that can of worms. Just trying to recommend some useful authors to someone learning a bit about biology. I simply don't think Dawkins would be a good place to start, and I gave my reasons, which I think is appropriate if I am going to suggest not reading someone.
You don't need to learn science just to write a sci-fi novel. Sci-fi writers produce good novels, not because they are scientists, but because they are experienced writers. That being said, I believe, a good background in science may help a sci-fi writer improve his or her plot. If you really want to study science for its own sake, you may have to start from scratch. First off, mathematics is also a branch of science. Almost all hard sciences require high level mathematics, so you can't just pick a highly specialized scientific field that has no math. Yes, it may be true that specific branches of biology, those concerned with animal behavior, require simple statistical knowledge, but you won't be able to understand animal behavior by just observing their physical movements. You must also study the complex cellular structures that may have triggered a certain behavior. In conclusion, you may be able to study the basic branches of, say, zoology without the trouble of studying mathematics, but as you progress in the subject you will find the need for mathematics. If you have the time and interest to study math, then you will be prepared to study science.
It would be a horrible example to suggest that he is indoctrinated. He deals with science, not religion. And while there are things within the area of evolution up for debate, the fact that evolution is real is not. It's the way it is. Evolution by natural selection has not been controversial for a very long time. Evolution by natural selection is the backbone of modern biology, and indeed an excellent explanation on the origins of the species. Again, that is not up for debate. We're all free to our own opinions... but not our own facts.
I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, knowing a lot about science can make the book more accurate, and readers might enjoy it more as a result. On the other, I read science fiction primarily for the story and not so much for the science, though the science is certainly an important factor. For me, accuracy is not the most important thing. I'm not sure how many other readers feel this way, however.
I don't think many (there may be some) who expect all the science in an SF story to be highly technical. It need not be any better than what a generally well read layman would know. But if a scientific/technical point is part of the plot then it had better be accurate, or at least not wrong, or the author is going to be in for a lot of criticism. Consistency of application is important.
I agree. However, some of the most popular science fiction books have glaring errors, yet no one thinks any lesser of the books. As long as the book is internally consistent, I don't mind a few mistakes here and there.
Preferences vary amongst readers of course. But one of reasons that the most famous SF books have errors in science, is because they were written before something was discovered that rendered the author's speculation invalid. But I for one would not be happy with an author too lazy to verify existing scientific knowledge and the most common scientific and accepted opinions regarding cutting edge and just beyond before building a speculation.
That depends on the reader's knowledge, doesn't it? I'm not sure how many readers could point out mistakes even in older science fiction books.
Science fiction fans can be very knowledgeable and picky. Just take a look at the comments in SF reader forums.
I agree once again, but a lot of knowledgeable science fiction readers, including myself, are not as picky as you'd think.
And I say that a lot more *are* very picky, as supported by comments in numerous SF forums and SF conventions. Unless someone is willing to perform a peer reviewed study, we are at a stalemate.
I've been contemplating this issue for a long time, longer than the thread. There are fatal flaws in some novels that break a novel. Something terribly unrealistic just ruins the story for me. Yet other flaws equally implausible don't bother me, the reader, at all. I've yet to figure out what the qualitative difference is.
If you're anything like me, the story is more important than the science, assuming the science isn't too unrealistic. I'm willing to forgive small errors in the name of entertainment.
For me, it's when the plot turns on an absurdity. If the incidental science has been acceptable, but something scientifically absurd has to happen to make the plot work, then the story doesn't work for me. On the other hand, I don't mind the incidental science being absurd so long as it doesn't largely affect the plot. That said, there are certain things I will almost always accept in science fiction. Chief among these is faster-than-light travel. To me, a huge part of the genre cannot exist in the first place unless we allow FTL travel. I've never written science fiction about the method of FTL travel, so my plots have never been much affected by it. But it's in the background of all the sci-fi I've ever written, because dammit, the story can't happen unless my characters can get to the planet on which the story takes place. I need FTL travel, so it's there, and I have to ask the readers to just go with it.
Obviously you need to read science books to know a lot of scientific facts and theories, however, these books will not teach you or even just show you how a scientist thinks. And these are two different things. To learn science avoid preachers. First of all it means - avoid Dawkins and his gang. Secondly - avoid all the other preachers. Read books coming from respectable publishers, such as Oxford, Cambridge, Routledge etc., they have lots of ''Introductions'' and ''Companions'' to everything. Also there's the ''very short introduction'' series. Begin with things claiming to be introductions, don't jump right into serious things. You will not understand them and you will misunderstand them. Introductions will give you an overview and you'll have a better idea about what to read next. Check their bibliographies for further reading. Also - always take notes! If you want to know how scientists think, you will have to go from science shelves to philosophy shelves. Science has almost nothing to say about itself or it's practicioners, it's philosophy of science that concerns itself with these things. Where to get books - I already wrote.
Dover has some good books on science and math aimed at the general audience. They're also very cheap, usually under $15 new.
Dover is golden at this. I have many of their books. They publish even high-level textbooks at unbelievably low prices. Big love to them!
Yes, they do have good advanced textbooks. The only drawback is that they're outdated, but I can't complain given the price.
I'm not sure if it's appropriate to link to other sites here, but I recommend the Centauri Dreams blog as regular reading for any science fiction author. The blog covers issues of interest to the interstellar community: real life scientists and engineers who are thinking about what it would take to build actual star ships. The blog covers a wide range of topics including propulsion systems, the social and technical issues surrounding colony ships, the role of artificial intelligence, hibernation, and so on. The blog also looks at recent peer reviewed research in exo-planets, SETI, astrobiology, and many other relevant topics. Many of the comments are also very interesting and insightful. In short, Centauri Dreams is a gold mine of ideas for science fiction writers who are interested in creating realistic situations for their characters. The articles give you a feeling for which concepts are considered more plausible than others by people who, in fact, do actual calculations using real physics. Some of the ideas described are quite amazingly. Indeed, it is often true that fact is stranger than fiction.
Big thanks, @PeterC, for the link to Centauri Dreams! I just glanced at it and it looks like a great resource for sci-fi writers (and dreamers!) like me.
