jean genie, 05 Oct 2008
Dawkins is excellent while he sticks to biology
however he may have lost the plot in the last chapter
as he has in thinking promoting science involves attacking
religion
If an evangalist is someone who does not leave people to work
it out for themselves but pushes his point of view Dawkins is one
Nutty Baptists and Dawkins looked similar on channel 4 for example
ie they both spin world events too far to promote a point of view

Imaginative guessing, 13 Sep 2008
I have attempted to read Dawkins's books on a few occasions but seldom get beyond the first 100 pages. I simply find his style of writing boring and his theories pure imaginative guesswork; I cannot take this author's ideas onboard yet biology fascinates me and especially that of epigenetics which seems to disprove all that this author advocates. I suspect that there is a snobbery value to those who support him. Irrespective of his academic standing I cannot avoid regarding the author as an imposter as I constantly want to wage war with his views. Admittedly, he comes across publicly as a very plausible academic but, that does not sway me.

Blind theorizing, 27 Jun 2008
Dawkins writes that "the argument of this book is that we, and all other animals, are machines created by our genes" (p.xxi) and that "We are survival machines - robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes" (p.xxi). Yet, according to him, this book "is not science fiction; it is science" (p.xxi)!

Dawkins contrives to overlook the twin discoveries that:
1. the observable traits of organisms are mostly conditioned by the interactions of many genes;
2. most genes have multiple effects on many of these traits.

Dawkins transfers characteristics with which he is familiar from human behaviour on the macro-level to the inanimate components, "genes", of which we are physically constructed. He then proceeds to argue that these impersonal entities, which he imagines to possess characteristically human traits, infallibly generate the same unpleasant traits in human behaviour on the macro-level. So he writes: "The gene is the basic unit of selfishness" (p.36).

The absurdity is evident in that genes or other nonconscious entities cannot be either selfish or unselfish. They cannot "compete" against anything or "choose" anything.

If Dawkins were right, what would be the point of declaring, as he does: "Let us try to *teach* generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish" (p.3)? For if we really were machines, as he believes, even these very concepts would be meaningless to us. And certainly his oratory could have no effect whatever on our actual behaviour.

In fact genes do not force us to behave in any particular way. Neither can they possess the ability to direct or to comprehend all that is required to adopt a course of either heartless selfishness or heartfelt, sacrificial compassion.

The arguments in this review have been challenged by the claim that Dawkins himself answers these charges. His claim is, in effect, that that "the evolution of behavioural reactions or patterns via natural selection" and "control by nonconscious mechanisms" are two vastly different ideas. Also it is said that Dawkins does not deny a freedom of choice as the very last lines in this book itself "celebrate the human ability to make choices that transcend genetic control and instinctive reactions." So it is said that Dawkins "repeatedly draws clear distinctions" to prevent his readers from jumping to the conclusions expressed above.

However, there is a vast difference between asserting that such distinctions exist and actually laying a solid theoretical foundation for such distinctions. To lay the kinds of foundations which Dawkins does and then to go on to insist that these foundations do not lead to their logical conclusion is nothing less than an act of faith on Dawkins' part. It certainly does not bestow any validity upon Dawkins alleged distinctions. The bottom line is that Dawkins' presuppositions simply do not lead logically to the sort of distinction which he asserts.

Essentially this debate is an argument not about data, but about underlying assumptions. Here is a example of what I mean:

ASSUMPTION: 1. "evolution is true";
DATUM: 2. "human beings have consciousness";
ASSUMPTION: 3. "therefore evolution is capable of generating consciousness".

Once again, it is a case of "garbage in, garbage out" (as Dawkins himself would say).



Scientifically sound but philosophically flawed, 29 May 2008
Darwin's theory of evolution is no doubt a successful scientific hypothesis, and Prof. Dawkins brings across this very clearly. However, I do have some doubts regarding his philosophical assertions.

Essentially Prof. Dawkins believes that:

1) Selfishness and competition is at the root of all biological phenomena - nature as "red in tooth and claw"
2) There is no basic "dis-continuity" between humanity and other animals - humans are not qualitatively different from other animals
3) There is however no ethical dilemma between this basic fact and the human desire for goodness - since descriptive and normative realities are intrinsically separate (what is and what should be are independent of each other)

Yet the basis for point 3) - the inherent seperation of "what is" and "what ought to be" is just a philosophical assertion. Prof. Dawkins is very correct in stating that the belief in God and all other religious assertions should be treated and critically analysed as scientific hypotheses. However, strictly speaking this should go beyond the subject of religion to include every other field of human intellectual activity, including of course philosophy itself. If we treat the assertion "'what is' is fundamentally separate from 'what ought to be'" as a strict scientific hypothesis in the same sense that "God exists" is treated as such a hypothesis, then it has to be said that it is no more than just a blank assertion without any kind of empirical justification.

In other words, Prof. Dawkins is mistaken in assuming that his particular view of evolution and Darwinism does not leave us with an ethical dilemma, because it evidently does. The only argument Prof. Dawkins has offered against this is the mere assertion that "what ought to be" must be seperate from "what is", yet this assertion, just like religious assertions regarding God, cannot be scientifically or empirically proven.

Still great after all these years, 24 Apr 2008
Despite being over 30 years old, this book is still a powerful and exciting account of how life, including humans, came to be. The examples and explanations (aphid & ant coexistence, fluke worms in snails) are breathtaking in their descriptions of the natural world, and could easily awaken an interest in zoology in the casual reader.

What on earth is Bill Bryson doing writing a book of popular science--A Short History of Almost Everything? Largely, it appears, because this inquisitive, much-travelled writer realised, while flying over the Pacific, that he was entirely ignorant of the processes that created, populated and continue to maintain the vast body of water beneath him.

In fact, it dawned on him that "I didn't know the first thing about the only planet I was ever going to live on". The questions multiplied: What is a quark? How can anybody know how much the Earth weighs? How can astrophysicists (or whoever) claim to describe what happened in the first gazillionth of a nanosecond after the Big Bang? Why can't earthquakes be predicted? What makes evolution more plausible than any other theory? In the end, all these boiled down to a single question--how do scientists do science? To this subject Bryson devoted three years of his life, reading books and journals and pestering the people who know (or at least argue about it); and we non-scientists should be pretty grateful to him for passing his findings on to us.

Broadly, his investigations deal with seven topics, all of enormous interest and significance: the origins of the universe; the gradual historical discovery of the size and age of the earth (and the beginnings of the awesome notion of deep time); relativity and quantum theory; the present and future threats to life and the planet; the origins and history of life (dinosaurs, mass extinctions and all); and the evolution of man. Within each of these, he looks at the history of the subject, its development into a modern discipline and the frameworks of theory that now support it. This is a pretty broad brief (life, the universe and everything, in fact), and it's a mark of Bryson's skill that he is able to carve a clear path through the thickets of theory and controversy that infest all these disciplines, all the while maintaining a cracking pace and a fairly judicious tone without obvious longueurs or signs of haste. Even readers fairly familiar with some or all of these areas o! f discourse are likely to learn from A Short History. If not, they will at least be amused--the tone throughout is agreeable, mingling genuine awe with a mild facetiousness that often rises to wit.

One compelling theme that appears again and again is the utter unpredictability of the universe, despite all that we think we know about it. Nervous page-turners may care to omit the sensational chapters on the possible ways in which it all might end in disaster--Bryson enumerates with cheerful relish the kind of event that makes you want to climb under the bedclothes: undetectable asteroid colliding with the earth; superheated magma chamber erupting in your back garden; ebola carrier getting off a plane in London or New York; the HIV virus mutating to prevent its destruction in the mosquito's digestive system. Indeed, the chief theme of this sprightly book is the miraculous unlikeliness, in a universe ruled by randomness, of stability and equilibrium--of which one result is ourselves and the complex, fragile planet we inhabit. --Robin Davidson

jean genie, 05 Oct 2008
Dawkins is excellent while he sticks to biology
however he may have lost the plot in the last chapter
as he has in thinking promoting science involves attacking
religion
If an evangalist is someone who does not leave people to work
it out for themselves but pushes his point of view Dawkins is one
Nutty Baptists and Dawkins looked similar on channel 4 for example
ie they both spin world events too far to promote a point of view

Imaginative guessing, 13 Sep 2008
I have attempted to read Dawkins's books on a few occasions but seldom get beyond the first 100 pages. I simply find his style of writing boring and his theories pure imaginative guesswork; I cannot take this author's ideas onboard yet biology fascinates me and especially that of epigenetics which seems to disprove all that this author advocates. I suspect that there is a snobbery value to those who support him. Irrespective of his academic standing I cannot avoid regarding the author as an imposter as I constantly want to wage war with his views. Admittedly, he comes across publicly as a very plausible academic but, that does not sway me.

Blind theorizing, 27 Jun 2008
Dawkins writes that "the argument of this book is that we, and all other animals, are machines created by our genes" (p.xxi) and that "We are survival machines - robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes" (p.xxi). Yet, according to him, this book "is not science fiction; it is science" (p.xxi)!

Dawkins contrives to overlook the twin discoveries that:
1. the observable traits of organisms are mostly conditioned by the interactions of many genes;
2. most genes have multiple effects on many of these traits.

Dawkins transfers characteristics with which he is familiar from human behaviour on the macro-level to the inanimate components, "genes", of which we are physically constructed. He then proceeds to argue that these impersonal entities, which he imagines to possess characteristically human traits, infallibly generate the same unpleasant traits in human behaviour on the macro-level. So he writes: "The gene is the basic unit of selfishness" (p.36).

The absurdity is evident in that genes or other nonconscious entities cannot be either selfish or unselfish. They cannot "compete" against anything or "choose" anything.

If Dawkins were right, what would be the point of declaring, as he does: "Let us try to *teach* generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish" (p.3)? For if we really were machines, as he believes, even these very concepts would be meaningless to us. And certainly his oratory could have no effect whatever on our actual behaviour.

In fact genes do not force us to behave in any particular way. Neither can they possess the ability to direct or to comprehend all that is required to adopt a course of either heartless selfishness or heartfelt, sacrificial compassion.

The arguments in this review have been challenged by the claim that Dawkins himself answers these charges. His claim is, in effect, that that "the evolution of behavioural reactions or patterns via natural selection" and "control by nonconscious mechanisms" are two vastly different ideas. Also it is said that Dawkins does not deny a freedom of choice as the very last lines in this book itself "celebrate the human ability to make choices that transcend genetic control and instinctive reactions." So it is said that Dawkins "repeatedly draws clear distinctions" to prevent his readers from jumping to the conclusions expressed above.

However, there is a vast difference between asserting that such distinctions exist and actually laying a solid theoretical foundation for such distinctions. To lay the kinds of foundations which Dawkins does and then to go on to insist that these foundations do not lead to their logical conclusion is nothing less than an act of faith on Dawkins' part. It certainly does not bestow any validity upon Dawkins alleged distinctions. The bottom line is that Dawkins' presuppositions simply do not lead logically to the sort of distinction which he asserts.

Essentially this debate is an argument not about data, but about underlying assumptions. Here is a example of what I mean:

ASSUMPTION: 1. "evolution is true";
DATUM: 2. "human beings have consciousness";
ASSUMPTION: 3. "therefore evolution is capable of generating consciousness".

Once again, it is a case of "garbage in, garbage out" (as Dawkins himself would say).



Scientifically sound but philosophically flawed, 29 May 2008
Darwin's theory of evolution is no doubt a successful scientific hypothesis, and Prof. Dawkins brings across this very clearly. However, I do have some doubts regarding his philosophical assertions.

Essentially Prof. Dawkins believes that:

1) Selfishness and competition is at the root of all biological phenomena - nature as "red in tooth and claw"
2) There is no basic "dis-continuity" between humanity and other animals - humans are not qualitatively different from other animals
3) There is however no ethical dilemma between this basic fact and the human desire for goodness - since descriptive and normative realities are intrinsically separate (what is and what should be are independent of each other)

Yet the basis for point 3) - the inherent seperation of "what is" and "what ought to be" is just a philosophical assertion. Prof. Dawkins is very correct in stating that the belief in God and all other religious assertions should be treated and critically analysed as scientific hypotheses. However, strictly speaking this should go beyond the subject of religion to include every other field of human intellectual activity, including of course philosophy itself. If we treat the assertion "'what is' is fundamentally separate from 'what ought to be'" as a strict scientific hypothesis in the same sense that "God exists" is treated as such a hypothesis, then it has to be said that it is no more than just a blank assertion without any kind of empirical justification.

In other words, Prof. Dawkins is mistaken in assuming that his particular view of evolution and Darwinism does not leave us with an ethical dilemma, because it evidently does. The only argument Prof. Dawkins has offered against this is the mere assertion that "what ought to be" must be seperate from "what is", yet this assertion, just like religious assertions regarding God, cannot be scientifically or empirically proven.

Still great after all these years, 24 Apr 2008
Despite being over 30 years old, this book is still a powerful and exciting account of how life, including humans, came to be. The examples and explanations (aphid & ant coexistence, fluke worms in snails) are breathtaking in their descriptions of the natural world, and could easily awaken an interest in zoology in the casual reader.

A fascinating and exciting insight into our exsistence., 05 Oct 2008
Well I love a good Bill Bryson book and this is surely the best. As a travel writer he has kept me interested and amused with many an exciting journey but this rates as the best journey he has ever written. A journey that takes the layman on a travel experience spanning billions of years including an insight into all the sciences and ologies one can imagine. If only I had been able to read science at school like this...I might well have found an interest.

Overrated, 23 Sep 2008
I am skeptical of journalists or writers who think they can write a book about anything. Yeah sure they've a great gift for writing but that doesn't mean they have a great gift for understanding! All too often they think they understand something when they simply don't.

I really can't fathom that in a long book which is supposed to be a "all you need to know" about the science, the scientific method itself isn't even explained. This means the mechanism which establishes science as most objective and reliable paradigm we have for establishing objective truth about the universe is omitted. Now, there's a countless amount of facts, dates, figures and 'imagine this' type stuff all there with the assumed intent of making a reader go wow. All very well, some of it will fuse the imagination, but let's not forget that the scientific method is what defines science and differentiates between science and pseudo-science. Without it, we have no way of differentiating the reliability between the big bang theory and crystal healers.

Too many times, instead of explaining principles and concepts, Bryson opts for facts about dates. It really doesn't matter if it was 1915, 1916, or 1917 when Einstein published his theory on general relativity what matters is what it is saying, the concepts that underpin it and why we can be confident it's correct. In this regard, Byrson comes up well short. Someone like Simon Singh, Stephen Hawking, just about anyone with scientific training does a much better job.

He does make reasonable attempts at describing many of the Scientific theories, but there are times when his understanding is just way off.

For example, when he discusses the theory of evolution which is just as sound as the theory of gravity in terms of the scientific method. Both are testifiable, falsifiable, have huge amounts of evidence (one billion+ fossils and infinite amount of DNA evidence), been through the same peer reviewing processes etc. So, in scientific terms doubting evolution is like doubting gravity. It's just asinine. Perhaps Bryson should think about that the next time he gets on a plane.

His poor understanding insinutates that the lack of fossils found in human evolution may cast doubt on the theory. He sounds like a scientifically illiterate ignoramus who has just sifted their way through some intelligent design propaganda.

Why doesn't he point out the probability of fossilation is only about 1 / million and the probability of finding one about the same, which by simple mathematics make every fossil find of our ancestors species a miracle in statistical terms? Why doesn't he go through the simple mathematics in DNA which have confirmed evolution an infinite amount of times and provide even stronger evidence than fossils?

If you want a pop Science book so that you can understand science just skip this book. Science is a very area broad area now. Experts in Physics are not experts in Biology. Experts in Biology are not experts in Physics. A writer with no scientific expertise is certainly not an expert in anything scientific. If you really want to understand science, pick a branch of science and then pick the appropriate expert. Someone like Feymen for Physics, Dawkins for Biology or Hawking for the Universe.

Before you do any of that, make sure you understand the scientific method as described by Karl Popper. This is the framework that underpins all science and what makes science an exceptionally reliable paradigm. It's why planes fly and why we know the origins of all species on our planet.

If you couldn't give a monkeys about understanding and just want lots of scientific trivia; dates and names rather than any real understanding, yes sadly this book could be a runner.


Essential introduction to science!, 23 Sep 2008
This book is not only highy educational, but very entertaining, and Bryson's writting style makes it fun, and it keeps you craving for more.
If would be a good idea to make this read a compulsory High School one, to excite the curiosity and the thirst for knowledge of our students, considering the fact that the more we know, the more we love.
It is a nearly complete and thorough overview on the main principles of science. Wery well informed with plenty of historical anecdotes and curiosities. I have learned and laughed so much!!!
A genius's work.

Not for me, 25 Aug 2008
I started out with enthusiasm with this book but should have read the title a little more carefully. A short 'history'of nearly everything with the emphasis on HISTORY. This book goes into great detail on how and when each new bit of information was discovered with biographies of the scientists involved. This was not really what I wanted to read about as would prefer just to know the latest most up to date information and there are plenty much more interesting books on these topics, I have been browsing the Lonely Planet version on space and science which is illustrated and topical. Dont wish to offend fans of Bill Bryson, it is probably my mistake.

How to learn very little about quite a lot, 24 Aug 2008
Bill Bryson's book is an attempt to discuss the origins of life, the universe and everything contained therein. It's slightly tongue-in-cheek title indicates that this isn't going to be some heavyweight, academic discussion but more of a Now That's What I Call Science! After all, no book can seriously claim to be all-encompassing and completely comprehensive on any one subject, let alone "everything."

A Short History of Nearly Everything is clearly written to be a book that appeals to people who wouldn't normally want to read a whole book about gravity, molecular science, or paleontology; as a result, the book falls betwixt two stools: it skims superficially pretty much every subject it touches upon, so those only mildly interested won't learn much and those who have already read something on their specialised subject probably won't learn anything they didn't already know.

The first half of the book is the most interesting, containing some great anecdotes about the famous names of science (Newton, Darwin and so forth); this section shines and brings to life people whose names have become synonymous with their subject matter. However, as the various disciplines become more professionalised, the well of anecdotal material runs short, and the book loses much of its appeal.

One of the key themes of this work, which is not overtly stated but seems unmissable, is that the narrative of the history of science is quite different from how the mainstream media portrays science itself. Specifically, science is often presented as being the concept of a battle over evidence: how an idea is proposed, evidence is put forth in support, counterevidence is held up against it and ultimately, whichever theory fits most of the facts is deemed to be that which is most probable. This is not the case, according to Bryson's book. What is deemed to be scientifically true is determined just as much by factors of cultural acceptance as objective facts. Theories are put forth, ignored, then ridiculed, then, when the evidence becomes such that it can neither be marginalised nor mocked, the theory is embraced and history effectively rewritten so that science can be presented as being the onward march of progress and enlightenment. A reassuring but historically dubious narrative.

A Short History... is marketed around the "Bill Bryson" brand: his low-key charm, wit and self-effacing humour is meant to enliven the driest of subjects. Therefore, if you enjoy his style, then you will probably enjoy this book and indeed, the book was charmingly well written and certainly easy to consume. However, at best, A Short History of Nearly Everything is a shallow introduction to the key disciplines of the various sciences, animated by some fine anecdotal touches. Bryson's book will probably provide a drop-off point for those wishing to explore in greater breadth subjects of which their curiosity has been piqued.

jean genie, 05 Oct 2008
Dawkins is excellent while he sticks to biology
however he may have lost the plot in the last chapter
as he has in thinking promoting science involves attacking
religion
If an evangalist is someone who does not leave people to work
it out for themselves but pushes his point of view Dawkins is one
Nutty Baptists and Dawkins looked similar on channel 4 for example
ie they both spin world events too far to promote a point of view

Imaginative guessing, 13 Sep 2008
I have attempted to read Dawkins's books on a few occasions but seldom get beyond the first 100 pages. I simply find his style of writing boring and his theories pure imaginative guesswork; I cannot take this author's ideas onboard yet biology fascinates me and especially that of epigenetics which seems to disprove all that this author advocates. I suspect that there is a snobbery value to those who support him. Irrespective of his academic standing I cannot avoid regarding the author as an imposter as I constantly want to wage war with his views. Admittedly, he comes across publicly as a very plausible academic but, that does not sway me.

Blind theorizing, 27 Jun 2008
Dawkins writes that "the argument of this book is that we, and all other animals, are machines created by our genes" (p.xxi) and that "We are survival machines - robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes" (p.xxi). Yet, according to him, this book "is not science fiction; it is science" (p.xxi)!

Dawkins contrives to overlook the twin discoveries that:
1. the observable traits of organisms are mostly conditioned by the interactions of many genes;
2. most genes have multiple effects on many of these traits.

Dawkins transfers characteristics with which he is familiar from human behaviour on the macro-level to the inanimate components, "genes", of which we are physically constructed. He then proceeds to argue that these impersonal entities, which he imagines to possess characteristically human traits, infallibly generate the same unpleasant traits in human behaviour on the macro-level. So he writes: "The gene is the basic unit of selfishness" (p.36).

The absurdity is evident in that genes or other nonconscious entities cannot be either selfish or unselfish. They cannot "compete" against anything or "choose" anything.

If Dawkins were right, what would be the point of declaring, as he does: "Let us try to *teach* generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish" (p.3)? For if we really were machines, as he believes, even these very concepts would be meaningless to us. And certainly his oratory could have no effect whatever on our actual behaviour.

In fact genes do not force us to behave in any particular way. Neither can they possess the ability to direct or to comprehend all that is required to adopt a course of either heartless selfishness or heartfelt, sacrificial compassion.

The arguments in this review have been challenged by the claim that Dawkins himself answers these charges. His claim is, in effect, that that "the evolution of behavioural reactions or patterns via natural selection" and "control by nonconscious mechanisms" are two vastly different ideas. Also it is said that Dawkins does not deny a freedom of choice as the very last lines in this book itself "celebrate the human ability to make choices that transcend genetic control and instinctive reactions." So it is said that Dawkins "repeatedly draws clear distinctions" to prevent his readers from jumping to the conclusions expressed above.

However, there is a vast difference between asserting that such distinctions exist and actually laying a solid theoretical foundation for such distinctions. To lay the kinds of foundations which Dawkins does and then to go on to insist that these foundations do not lead to their logical conclusion is nothing less than an act of faith on Dawkins' part. It certainly does not bestow any validity upon Dawkins alleged distinctions. The bottom line is that Dawkins' presuppositions simply do not lead logically to the sort of distinction which he asserts.

Essentially this debate is an argument not about data, but about underlying assumptions. Here is a example of what I mean:

ASSUMPTION: 1. "evolution is true";
DATUM: 2. "human beings have consciousness";
ASSUMPTION: 3. "therefore evolution is capable of generating consciousness".

Once again, it is a case of "garbage in, garbage out" (as Dawkins himself would say).



Scientifically sound but philosophically flawed, 29 May 2008
Darwin's theory of evolution is no doubt a successful scientific hypothesis, and Prof. Dawkins brings across this very clearly. However, I do have some doubts regarding his philosophical assertions.

Essentially Prof. Dawkins believes that:

1) Selfishness and competition is at the root of all biological phenomena - nature as "red in tooth and claw"
2) There is no basic "dis-continuity" between humanity and other animals - humans are not qualitatively different from other animals
3) There is however no ethical dilemma between this basic fact and the human desire for goodness - since descriptive and normative realities are intrinsically separate (what is and what should be are independent of each other)

Yet the basis for point 3) - the inherent seperation of "what is" and "what ought to be" is just a philosophical assertion. Prof. Dawkins is very correct in stating that the belief in God and all other religious assertions should be treated and critically analysed as scientific hypotheses. However, strictly speaking this should go beyond the subject of religion to include every other field of human intellectual activity, including of course philosophy itself. If we treat the assertion "'what is' is fundamentally separate from 'what ought to be'" as a strict scientific hypothesis in the same sense that "God exists" is treated as such a hypothesis, then it has to be said that it is no more than just a blank assertion without any kind of empirical justification.

In other words, Prof. Dawkins is mistaken in assuming that his particular view of evolution and Darwinism does not leave us with an ethical dilemma, because it evidently does. The only argument Prof. Dawkins has offered against this is the mere assertion that "what ought to be" must be seperate from "what is", yet this assertion, just like religious assertions regarding God, cannot be scientifically or empirically proven.

Still great after all these years, 24 Apr 2008
Despite being over 30 years old, this book is still a powerful and exciting account of how life, including humans, came to be. The examples and explanations (aphid & ant coexistence, fluke worms in snails) are breathtaking in their descriptions of the natural world, and could easily awaken an interest in zoology in the casual reader.

A fascinating and exciting insight into our exsistence., 05 Oct 2008
Well I love a good Bill Bryson book and this is surely the best. As a travel writer he has kept me interested and amused with many an exciting journey but this rates as the best journey he has ever written. A journey that takes the layman on a travel experience spanning billions of years including an insight into all the sciences and ologies one can imagine. If only I had been able to read science at school like this...I might well have found an interest.

Overrated, 23 Sep 2008
I am skeptical of journalists or writers who think they can write a book about anything. Yeah sure they've a great gift for writing but that doesn't mean they have a great gift for understanding! All too often they think they understand something when they simply don't.

I really can't fathom that in a long book which is supposed to be a "all you need to know" about the science, the scientific method itself isn't even explained. This means the mechanism which establishes science as most objective and reliable paradigm we have for establishing objective truth about the universe is omitted. Now, there's a countless amount of facts, dates, figures and 'imagine this' type stuff all there with the assumed intent of making a reader go wow. All very well, some of it will fuse the imagination, but let's not forget that the scientific method is what defines science and differentiates between science and pseudo-science. Without it, we have no way of differentiating the reliability between the big bang theory and crystal healers.

Too many times, instead of explaining principles and concepts, Bryson opts for facts about dates. It really doesn't matter if it was 1915, 1916, or 1917 when Einstein published his theory on general relativity what matters is what it is saying, the concepts that underpin it and why we can be confident it's correct. In this regard, Byrson comes up well short. Someone like Simon Singh, Stephen Hawking, just about anyone with scientific training does a much better job.

He does make reasonable attempts at describing many of the Scientific theories, but there are times when his understanding is just way off.

For example, when he discusses the theory of evolution which is just as sound as the theory of gravity in terms of the scientific method. Both are testifiable, falsifiable, have huge amounts of evidence (one billion+ fossils and infinite amount of DNA evidence), been through the same peer reviewing processes etc. So, in scientific terms doubting evolution is like doubting gravity. It's just asinine. Perhaps Bryson should think about that the next time he gets on a plane.

His poor understanding insinutates that the lack of fossils found in human evolution may cast doubt on the theory. He sounds like a scientifically illiterate ignoramus who has just sifted their way through some intelligent design propaganda.

Why doesn't he point out the probability of fossilation is only about 1 / million and the probability of finding one about the same, which by simple mathematics make every fossil find of our ancestors species a miracle in statistical terms? Why doesn't he go through the simple mathematics in DNA which have confirmed evolution an infinite amount of times and provide even stronger evidence than fossils?

If you want a pop Science book so that you can understand science just skip this book. Science is a very area broad area now. Experts in Physics are not experts in Biology. Experts in Biology are not experts in Physics. A writer with no scientific expertise is certainly not an expert in anything scientific. If you really want to understand science, pick a branch of science and then pick the appropriate expert. Someone like Feymen for Physics, Dawkins for Biology or Hawking for the Universe.

Before you do any of that, make sure you understand the scientific method as described by Karl Popper. This is the framework that underpins all science and what makes science an exceptionally reliable paradigm. It's why planes fly and why we know the origins of all species on our planet.

If you couldn't give a monkeys about understanding and just want lots of scientific trivia; dates and names rather than any real understanding, yes sadly this book could be a runner.


Essential introduction to science!, 23 Sep 2008
This book is not only highy educational, but very entertaining, and Bryson's writting style makes it fun, and it keeps you craving for more.
If would be a good idea to make this read a compulsory High School one, to excite the curiosity and the thirst for knowledge of our students, considering the fact that the more we know, the more we love.
It is a nearly complete and thorough overview on the main principles of science. Wery well informed with plenty of historical anecdotes and curiosities. I have learned and laughed so much!!!
A genius's work.

Not for me, 25 Aug 2008
I started out with enthusiasm with this book but should have read the title a little more carefully. A short 'history'of nearly everything with the emphasis on HISTORY. This book goes into great detail on how and when each new bit of information was discovered with biographies of the scientists involved. This was not really what I wanted to read about as would prefer just to know the latest most up to date information and there are plenty much more interesting books on these topics, I have been browsing the Lonely Planet version on space and science which is illustrated and topical. Dont wish to offend fans of Bill Bryson, it is probably my mistake.

How to learn very little about quite a lot, 24 Aug 2008
Bill Bryson's book is an attempt to discuss the origins of life, the universe and everything contained therein. It's slightly tongue-in-cheek title indicates that this isn't going to be some heavyweight, academic discussion but more of a Now That's What I Call Science! After all, no book can seriously claim to be all-encompassing and completely comprehensive on any one subject, let alone "everything."

A Short History of Nearly Everything is clearly written to be a book that appeals to people who wouldn't normally want to read a whole book about gravity, molecular science, or paleontology; as a result, the book falls betwixt two stools: it skims superficially pretty much every subject it touches upon, so those only mildly interested won't learn much and those who have already read something on their specialised subject probably won't learn anything they didn't already know.

The first half of the book is the most interesting, containing some great anecdotes about the famous names of science (Newton, Darwin and so forth); this section shines and brings to life people whose names have become synonymous with their subject matter. However, as the various disciplines become more professionalised, the well of anecdotal material runs short, and the book loses much of its appeal.

One of the key themes of this work, which is not overtly stated but seems unmissable, is that the narrative of the history of science is quite different from how the mainstream media portrays science itself. Specifically, science is often presented as being the concept of a battle over evidence: how an idea is proposed, evidence is put forth in support, counterevidence is held up against it and ultimately, whichever theory fits most of the facts is deemed to be that which is most probable. This is not the case, according to Bryson's book. What is deemed to be scientifically true is determined just as much by factors of cultural acceptance as objective facts. Theories are put forth, ignored, then ridiculed, then, when the evidence becomes such that it can neither be marginalised nor mocked, the theory is embraced and history effectively rewritten so that science can be presented as being the onward march of progress and enlightenment. A reassuring but historically dubious narrative.

A Short History... is marketed around the "Bill Bryson" brand: his low-key charm, wit and self-effacing humour is meant to enliven the driest of subjects. Therefore, if you enjoy his style, then you will probably enjoy this book and indeed, the book was charmingly well written and certainly easy to consume. However, at best, A Short History of Nearly Everything is a shallow introduction to the key disciplines of the various sciences, animated by some fine anecdotal touches. Bryson's book will probably provide a drop-off point for those wishing to explore in greater breadth subjects of which their curiosity has been piqued.

Brings the Tudors to life, 11 Oct 2008
After watching the TV series the Tudors. I was interested in finding out more about the real events. This book is fantastic I couldn't put it down and will be buying more books by Alison Weir.

Excellent, 12 Aug 2008
An extremely readable book. The author gives a wonderfully real picture of the wives and the King and why the various relationships ultimately ended. History comes alive in this book and I can't pay a higher compliment than that.

very enlightning very hard to put down, 18 Jul 2008
I was very impressed by this book, after reading 'The other Boleyn girl' my appetite for reading up on my history was wettened. This book is a real eye opener for how England used to be and what the people of court were required to do in their day to day lives and what they grew to fear. It shows us what an insecure man Henry was and how the people who he surrounded himself with influenced and manipulated him turning him from a man who was seemingly nice to a feared man, however it shows us that even then he was much loved by most. It explores how Henry could be ruthless in pursuing what he wanted and in a cruel way but then he was easily distracted and if things did not please him he was quick to and with no conscience to rid himself of the things that stood in his way with no back glance. It shows us how Henrys wives modelled the king and what each of them offered him. A true insight to years lived long ago.

Informative & intriguing, 28 Apr 2008
I must admit I didn't know it would be a biography-style book when I bought it, but it also had aspects of a story in it which made it a good read.

I liked the way the book progressed from one wife to another and particularly liked the way the book was divided into parts and chapters which seemed to produce a sound organisation and clear, easy navigation of the book not only as a fictional read but also as a reference book.

Alison Weir is clearly a very dedicated historian writer. Facts and fiction carefully fused together and arguments sorted out (paintings and portrait descriptions were argued very well). I liked the way she sometimes brings the 21st century into her writing, explaining for example, what remains today of the palaces and houses of Henry VIII and the burial sites of the monarchs. Very interesting stuff.

All in all, i enjoyed reading it although in future may stick to Alison's fiction.

An Absolute Joy to Read, 21 Sep 2007

Alison Weir has written many non fiction books on the British monarchy. Her research is always meticulous and her books are written in such a way that they can be read with enjoyment by anyone. By that I mean they are not written in the same way that historical text books were written when I attended school. They are written in a way that not only provides accurate information on the subject but also to give pleasure to the reader. I enjoyed the book enormously.

Henry VIII was one of the most intelligent and also most difficult of men. A fine athlete in his youth, a scholar and at times the most likeable of men. But as his life progressed he became more and more unpredictable and could turn on people at the drop of a hat, sometimes with fatal consequences.

For any woman to be married to such a complex character must have been a daunting experience. Probably tantamount to walking on egg shells. When the man they are married to is also the King of England there position would be virtually untenable and in a number of his marriages this proved to be the case. However the marriage started out, it soon became apparent that no woman could keep Henry happy for long.

jean genie, 05 Oct 2008
Dawkins is excellent while he sticks to biology
however he may have lost the plot in the last chapter
as he has in thinking promoting science involves attacking
religion
If an evangalist is someone who does not leave people to work
it out for themselves but pushes his point of view Dawkins is one
Nutty Baptists and Dawkins looked similar on channel 4 for example
ie they both spin world events too far to promote a point of view

Imaginative guessing, 13 Sep 2008
I have attempted to read Dawkins's books on a few occasions but seldom get beyond the first 100 pages. I simply find his style of writing boring and his theories pure imaginative guesswork; I cannot take this author's ideas onboard yet biology fascinates me and especially that of epigenetics which seems to disprove all that this author advocates. I suspect that there is a snobbery value to those who support him. Irrespective of his academic standing I cannot avoid regarding the author as an imposter as I constantly want to wage war with his views. Admittedly, he comes across publicly as a very plausible academic but, that does not sway me.

Blind theorizing, 27 Jun 2008
Dawkins writes that "the argument of this book is that we, and all other animals, are machines created by our genes" (p.xxi) and that "We are survival machines - robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes" (p.xxi). Yet, according to him, this book "is not science fiction; it is science" (p.xxi)!

Dawkins contrives to overlook the twin discoveries that:
1. the observable traits of organisms are mostly conditioned by the interactions of many genes;
2. most genes have multiple effects on many of these traits.

Dawkins transfers characteristics with which he is familiar from human behaviour on the macro-level to the inanimate components, "genes", of which we are physically constructed. He then proceeds to argue that these impersonal entities, which he imagines to possess characteristically human traits, infallibly generate the same unpleasant traits in human behaviour on the macro-level. So he writes: "The gene is the basic unit of selfishness" (p.36).

The absurdity is evident in that genes or other nonconscious entities cannot be either selfish or unselfish. They cannot "compete" against anything or "choose" anything.

If Dawkins were right, what would be the point of declaring, as he does: "Let us try to *teach* generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish" (p.3)? For if we really were machines, as he believes, even these very concepts would be meaningless to us. And certainly his oratory could have no effect whatever on our actual behaviour.

In fact genes do not force us to behave in any particular way. Neither can they possess the ability to direct or to comprehend all that is required to adopt a course of either heartless selfishness or heartfelt, sacrificial compassion.

The arguments in this review have been challenged by the claim that Dawkins himself answers these charges. His claim is, in effect, that that "the evolution of behavioural reactions or patterns via natural selection" and "control by nonconscious mechanisms" are two vastly different ideas. Also it is said that Dawkins does not deny a freedom of choice as the very last lines in this book itself "celebrate the human ability to make choices that transcend genetic control and instinctive reactions." So it is said that Dawkins "repeatedly draws clear distinctions" to prevent his readers from jumping to the conclusions expressed above.

However, there is a vast difference between asserting that such distinctions exist and actually laying a solid theoretical foundation for such distinctions. To lay the kinds of foundations which Dawkins does and then to go on to insist that these foundations do not lead to their logical conclusion is nothing less than an act of faith on Dawkins' part. It certainly does not bestow any validity upon Dawkins alleged distinctions. The bottom line is that Dawkins' presuppositions simply do not lead logically to the sort of distinction which he asserts.

Essentially this debate is an argument not about data, but about underlying assumptions. Here is a example of what I mean:

ASSUMPTION: 1. "evolution is true";
DATUM: 2. "human beings have consciousness";
ASSUMPTION: 3. "therefore evolution is capable of generating consciousness".

Once again, it is a case of "garbage in, garbage out" (as Dawkins himself would say).



Scientifically sound but philosophically flawed, 29 May 2008
Darwin's theory of evolution is no doubt a successful scientific hypothesis, and Prof. Dawkins brings across this very clearly. However, I do have some doubts regarding his philosophical assertions.

Essentially Prof. Dawkins believes that:

1) Selfishness and competition is at the root of all biological phenomena - nature as "red in tooth and claw"
2) There is no basic "dis-continuity" between humanity and other animals - humans are not qualitatively different from other animals
3) There is however no ethical dilemma between this basic fact and the human desire for goodness - since descriptive and normative realities are intrinsically separate (what is and what should be are independent of each other)

Yet the basis for point 3) - the inherent seperation of "what is" and "what ought to be" is just a philosophical assertion. Prof. Dawkins is very correct in stating that the belief in God and all other religious assertions should be treated and critically analysed as scientific hypotheses. However, strictly speaking this should go beyond the subject of religion to include every other field of human intellectual activity, including of course philosophy itself. If we treat the assertion "'what is' is fundamentally separate from 'what ought to be'" as a strict scientific hypothesis in the same sense that "God exists" is treated as such a hypothesis, then it has to be said that it is no more than just a blank assertion without any kind of empirical justification.

In other words, Prof. Dawkins is mistaken in assuming that his particular view of evolution and Darwinism does not leave us with an ethical dilemma, because it evidently does. The only argument Prof. Dawkins has offered against this is the mere assertion that "what ought to be" must be seperate from "what is", yet this assertion, just like religious assertions regarding God, cannot be scientifically or empirically proven.

Still great after all these years, 24 Apr 2008
Despite being over 30 years old, this book is still a powerful and exciting account of how life, including humans, came to be. The examples and explanations (aphid & ant coexistence, fluke worms in snails) are breathtaking in their descriptions of the natural world, and could easily awaken an interest in zoology in the casual reader.

A fascinating and exciting insight into our exsistence., 05 Oct 2008
Well I love a good Bill Bryson book and this is surely the best. As a travel writer he has kept me interested and amused with many an exciting journey but this rates as the best journey he has ever written. A journey that takes the layman on a travel experience spanning billions of years including an insight into all the sciences and ologies one can imagine. If only I had been able to read science at school like this...I might well have found an interest.

Overrated, 23 Sep 2008
I am skeptical of journalists or writers who think they can write a book about anything. Yeah sure they've a great gift for writing but that doesn't mean they have a great gift for understanding! All too often they think they understand something when they simply don't.

I really can't fathom that in a long book which is supposed to be a "all you need to know" about the science, the scientific method itself isn't even explained. This means the mechanism which establishes science as most objective and reliable paradigm we have for establishing objective truth about the universe is omitted. Now, there's a countless amount of facts, dates, figures and 'imagine this' type stuff all there with the assumed intent of making a reader go wow. All very well, some of it will fuse the imagination, but let's not forget that the scientific method is what defines science and differentiates between science and pseudo-science. Without it, we have no way of differentiating the reliability between the big bang theory and crystal healers.

Too many times, instead of explaining principles and concepts, Bryson opts for facts about dates. It really doesn't matter if it was 1915, 1916, or 1917 when Einstein published his theory on general relativity what matters is what it is saying, the concepts that underpin it and why we can be confident it's correct. In this regard, Byrson comes up well short. Someone like Simon Singh, Stephen Hawking, just about anyone with scientific training does a much better job.

He does make reasonable attempts at describing many of the Scientific theories, but there are times when his understanding is just way off.

For example, when he discusses the theory of evolution which is just as sound as the theory of gravity in terms of the scientific method. Both are testifiable, falsifiable, have huge amounts of evidence (one billion+ fossils and infinite amount of DNA evidence), been through the same peer reviewing processes etc. So, in scientific terms doubting evolution is like doubting gravity. It's just asinine. Perhaps Bryson should think about that the next time he gets on a plane.

His poor understanding insinutates that the lack of fossils found in human evolution may cast doubt on the theory. He sounds like a scientifically illiterate ignoramus who has just sifted their way through some intelligent design propaganda.

Why doesn't he point out the probability of fossilation is only about 1 / million and the probability of finding one about the same, which by simple mathematics make every fossil find of our ancestors species a miracle in statistical terms? Why doesn't he go through the simple mathematics in DNA which have confirmed evolution an infinite amount of times and provide even stronger evidence than fossils?

If you want a pop Science book so that you can understand science just skip this book. Science is a very area broad area now. Experts in Physics are not experts in Biology. Experts in Biology are not experts in Physics. A writer with no scientific expertise is certainly not an expert in anything scientific. If you really want to understand science, pick a branch of science and then pick the appropriate expert. Someone like Feymen for Physics, Dawkins for Biology or Hawking for the Universe.

Before you do any of that, make sure you understand the scientific method as described by Karl Popper. This is the framework that underpins all science and what makes science an exceptionally reliable paradigm. It's why planes fly and why we know the origins of all species on our planet.

If you couldn't give a monkeys about understanding and just want lots of scientific trivia; dates and names rather than any real understanding, yes sadly this book could be a runner.


Essential introduction to science!, 23 Sep 2008
This book is not only highy educational, but very entertaining, and Bryson's writting style makes it fun, and it keeps you craving for more.
If would be a good idea to make this read a compulsory High School one, to excite the curiosity and the thirst for knowledge of our students, considering the fact that the more we know, the more we love.
It is a nearly complete and thorough overview on the main principles of science. Wery well informed with plenty of historical anecdotes and curiosities. I have learned and laughed so much!!!
A genius's work.

Not for me, 25 Aug 2008
I started out with enthusiasm with this book but should have read the title a little more carefully. A short 'history'of nearly everything with the emphasis on HISTORY. This book goes into great detail on how and when each new bit of information was discovered with biographies of the scientists involved. This was not really what I wanted to read about as would prefer just to know the latest most up to date information and there are plenty much more interesting books on these topics, I have been browsing the Lonely Planet version on space and science which is illustrated and topical. Dont wish to offend fans of Bill Bryson, it is probably my mistake.

How to learn very little about quite a lot, 24 Aug 2008
Bill Bryson's book is an attempt to discuss the origins of life, the universe and everything contained therein. It's slightly tongue-in-cheek title indicates that this isn't going to be some heavyweight, academic discussion but more of a Now That's What I Call Science! After all, no book can seriously claim to be all-encompassing and completely comprehensive on any one subject, let alone "everything."

A Short History of Nearly Everything is clearly written to be a book that appeals to people who wouldn't normally want to read a whole book about gravity, molecular science, or paleontology; as a result, the book falls betwixt two stools: it skims superficially pretty much every subject it touches upon, so those only mildly interested won't learn much and those who have already read something on their specialised subject probably won't learn anything they didn't already know.

The first half of the book is the most interesting, containing some great anecdotes about the famous names of science (Newton, Darwin and so forth); this section shines and brings to life people whose names have become synonymous with their subject matter. However, as the various disciplines become more professionalised, the well of anecdotal material runs short, and the book loses much of its appeal.

One of the key themes of this work, which is not overtly stated but seems unmissable, is that the narrative of the history of science is quite different from how the mainstream media portrays science itself. Specifically, science is often presented as being the concept of a battle over evidence: how an idea is proposed, evidence is put forth in support, counterevidence is held up against it and ultimately, whichever theory fits most of the facts is deemed to be that which is most probable. This is not the case, according to Bryson's book. What is deemed to be scientifically true is determined just as much by factors of cultural acceptance as objective facts. Theories are put forth, ignored, then ridiculed, then, when the evidence becomes such that it can neither be marginalised nor mocked, the theory is embraced and history effectively rewritten so that science can be presented as being the onward march of progress and enlightenment. A reassuring but historically dubious narrative.

A Short History... is marketed around the "Bill Bryson" brand: his low-key charm, wit and self-effacing humour is meant to enliven the driest of subjects. Therefore, if you enjoy his style, then you will probably enjoy this book and indeed, the book was charmingly well written and certainly easy to consume. However, at best, A Short History of Nearly Everything is a shallow introduction to the key disciplines of the various sciences, animated by some fine anecdotal touches. Bryson's book will probably provide a drop-off point for those wishing to explore in greater breadth subjects of which their curiosity has been piqued.

Brings the Tudors to life, 11 Oct 2008
After watching the TV series the Tudors. I was interested in finding out more about the real events. This book is fantastic I couldn't put it down and will be buying more books by Alison Weir.

Excellent, 12 Aug 2008
An extremely readable book. The author gives a wonderfully real picture of the wives and the King and why the various relationships ultimately ended. History comes alive in this book and I can't pay a higher compliment than that.

very enlightning very hard to put down, 18 Jul 2008
I was very impressed by this book, after reading 'The other Boleyn girl' my appetite for reading up on my history was wettened. This book is a real eye opener for how England used to be and what the people of court were required to do in their day to day lives and what they grew to fear. It shows us what an insecure man Henry was and how the people who he surrounded himself with influenced and manipulated him turning him from a man who was seemingly nice to a feared man, however it shows us that even then he was much loved by most. It explores how Henry could be ruthless in pursuing what he wanted and in a cruel way but then he was easily distracted and if things did not please him he was quick to and with no conscience to rid himself of the things that stood in his way with no back glance. It shows us how Henrys wives modelled the king and what each of them offered him. A true insight to years lived long ago.

Informative & intriguing, 28 Apr 2008
I must admit I didn't know it would be a biography-style book when I bought it, but it also had aspects of a story in it which made it a good read.

I liked the way the book progressed from one wife to another and particularly liked the way the book was divided into parts and chapters which seemed to produce a sound organisation and clear, easy navigation of the book not only as a fictional read but also as a reference book.

Alison Weir is clearly a very dedicated historian writer. Facts and fiction carefully fused together and arguments sorted out (paintings and portrait descriptions were argued very well). I liked the way she sometimes brings the 21st century into her writing, explaining for example, what remains today of the palaces and houses of Henry VIII and the burial sites of the monarchs. Very interesting stuff.

All in all, i enjoyed reading it although in future may stick to Alison's fiction.

An Absolute Joy to Read, 21 Sep 2007

Alison Weir has written many non fiction books on the British monarchy. Her research is always meticulous and her books are written in such a way that they can be read with enjoyment by anyone. By that I mean they are not written in the same way that historical text books were written when I attended school. They are written in a way that not only provides accurate information on the subject but also to give pleasure to the reader. I enjoyed the book enormously.

Henry VIII was one of the most intelligent and also most difficult of men. A fine athlete in his youth, a scholar and at times the most likeable of men. But as his life progressed he became more and more unpredictable and could turn on people at the drop of a hat, sometimes with fatal consequences.

For any woman to be married to such a complex character must have been a daunting experience. Probably tantamount to walking on egg shells. When the man they are married to is also the King of England there position would be virtually untenable and in a number of his marriages this proved to be the case. However the marriage started out, it soon became apparent that no woman could keep Henry happy for long.

Sadly disappointed, 30 Sep 2008
History is my favorite subject and this author came highly recommended.
This is the first book I have read by her and was extremely disappointed.
It lacked a true atmosphere of the time,that this was set in.
I really could not picture any exacutioner, living during Mary's reign, thinking the thoughts that this author had written.
The terminology was all wrong, the dialogue sounded 1970's.
The characters all appeared wishy washy.
It is far more a type of Barbara Cartland for the history lover, than any serious attempt to understand or explain how these events really played out.
It is an easy light read, ideal for train travel or just before going to sleep.
The Tudor/War of the Roses have been far better written as stories by Rosemay Hawley Jarman, amoungest others, who REALLY make you smell the candle wax and hear the rustle of cloth of gold.
This book is not, in my opinion, true history at all. Just another story book.

Suspenseful even with a well-known ending, 11 Aug 2008
Alison Weir is a respected historian who is often recommended as an antidote to inaccurate representations in historical fiction as written by other authors. This is her first novel, and what a novel it is. I was entranced from the first line, and even though I knew how it was going to end, I still hoped that there would be a change at some point near the end. That's the sign of a good writer - someone who can write so compellingly and with such suspense that you hope they can even change historical facts for you.

Lady Jane Grey was a pawn in the ambition of her parents and of the Duke of Northumberland, almost from the moment she was born. Never forgiven for the cardinal sin of being born female, she was beaten and tortured into becoming a "lady" suitable for marriage to a monarch. When that ceased to be an option she was beaten into a marriage and a reign she never wanted, protesting even as the crown was being put on her head. These are facts that are known by most who have even read cursory information about this young lady. What is amazing is the way Alison Weir makes it seem like new information. The chorus of different voices in the telling of Jane's tale is exemplary and clever. I kept turning pages wanting to see what spin the next narrator would put on the story.

This novel did what historical fiction should do - it made me want to seek out the non-fiction bases for the story and do more reading. Anything that inspires further study can only be praised.

An Excellent Book into a Intresting Woman, 23 Jun 2008
Having known very little about the main character this book is based on, Lady Jane Grey, it was a refreshing and intresting read. I've been a fan of Philippa Gregory's book's but this surpasses them by leaps and bounds.

The characters are very much three dimension each with flaws. A previous reviewer had made the comment that Jane was too perfect, which I didn't find. To me she was flawed in the fact that she was too dogmatic in her views on religion, but this in itself was, at least to me, a form of rebelion against her parents. It was their disappointment in Jane and their ambition for power that ultimately led to her downfall.

The author has obviously done her homework and research and by intertwining known facts with certain key points in history that Jane 'Could' have witnessed, it brings it live.

I also began to fell for Queen Mary I, who even though knew that in order to give the country security of her marriage to Philip of Spain, and therefor give a heir to the throne, Jane had to die, Mary gave Jane many chances to live. First by trying to get her to convert and then to see if she was with child.

By the time that Jane's execution was drawing close, I found I could no longer read this book at bed time. I found myself getting very emotional at the scene.

All in all, an excellent book and I can't wait for the next one, which is sitting in my to-read pile.

good but nothing special, 11 Jun 2008
Ok so I really liked the whole concept of this story, as soon as I got the book I thought it was some thing special. I enjoyed the layout of being able to see the events taking place from various perspectives. But I feel the book and the protagonist is weak. I felt that at points Jane was too perfect and that it seemed like Alison weir had forgotten she was just a girl of 16 who would have had other hopes beyond religion and studies although I have not researched Jane so I would not know but I simply could not see her as a human. I did however enjoy her mother who seemed like a much more interesting and well developed character. I also disliked Jane's "wedding night" I felt the whole scene was unnecessary and very depressing, at points it became unbearable to read which really put me off finishing the rest of the book. I feel the problem with this book is that Jane lacked faults, she did not seem to me to be a real person who did actually live, she seemed more like a saint and I felt I simply could not relate to this character. I also felt some chapters were rather boring and I found myself skipping a few pages.

First Class Historical Fiction, 12 May 2008
Alison Weir is a much read and much respected historian with a string of non fiction books to her name. She is widely known for her biographical books about British Royalty. She lives in Surrey with her two children, John and Kate.

Innocent Traitor is the first novel that Alison Weir has written and I am not sure whether it was a conscious effort on her part or a brave move to write about one of the lesser known characters of English history. Whatever the reason the author has brilliantly captured the feel of the Tudor period. A time when the country was in turmoil following the death of Henry VIII.

Lady Jane Grey was the victim of scheming and dominant parents who used her like a pawn in a game of chess. Although of royal blood Lady Jane was used by many of the powerful men of the time who were solely interested in feathering their own nests. The throne of England was there to be taken by those who dared to chance their arm on installing a young girl whose claim to the English throne fell far behind that of the rightful heirs. A young girl who was to pay the ultimate price allowing herself to be manipulated, albeit against her better judgment. For some of the most powerful men in the kingdom, virtually anything was preferable to Mary, with her strict catholic religion that would bring the country close to open civil war.

jean genie, 05 Oct 2008
Dawkins is excellent while he sticks to biology
however he may have lost the plot in the last chapter
as he has in thinking promoting science involves attacking
religion
If an evangalist is someone who does not leave people to work
it out for themselves but pushes his point of view Dawkins is one
Nutty Baptists and Dawkins looked similar on channel 4 for example
ie they both spin world events too far to promote a point of view

Imaginative guessing, 13 Sep 2008
I have attempted to read Dawkins's books on a few occasions but seldom get beyond the first 100 pages. I simply find his style of writing boring and his theories pure imaginative guesswork; I cannot take this author's ideas onboard yet biology fascinates me and especially that of epigenetics which seems to disprove all that this author advocates. I suspect that there is a snobbery value to those who support him. Irrespective of his academic standing I cannot avoid regarding the author as an imposter as I constantly want to wage war with his views. Admittedly, he comes across publicly as a very plausible academic but, that does not sway me.

Blind theorizing, 27 Jun 2008
Dawkins writes that "the argument of this book is that we, and all other animals, are machines created by our genes" (p.xxi) and that "We are survival machines - robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes" (p.xxi). Yet, according to him, this book "is not science fiction; it is science" (p.xxi)!

Dawkins contrives to overlook the twin discoveries that:
1. the observable traits of organisms are mostly conditioned by the interactions of many genes;
2. most genes have multiple effects on many of these traits.

Dawkins transfers characteristics with which he is familiar from human behaviour on the macro-level to the inanimate components, "genes", of which we are physically constructed. He then proceeds to argue that these impersonal entities, which he imagines to possess characteristically human traits, infallibly generate the same unpleasant traits in human behaviour on the macro-level. So he writes: "The gene is the basic unit of selfishness" (p.36).

The absurdity is evident in that genes or other nonconscious entities cannot be either selfish or unselfish. They cannot "compete" against anything or "choose" anything.

If Dawkins were right, what would be the point of declaring, as he does: "Let us try to *teach* generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish" (p.3)? For if we really were machines, as he believes, even these very concepts would be meaningless to us. And certainly his oratory could have no effect whatever on our actual behaviour.

In fact genes do not force us to behave in any particular way. Neither can they possess the ability to direct or to comprehend all that is required to adopt a course of either heartless selfishness or heartfelt, sacrificial compassion.

The arguments in this review have been challenged by the claim that Dawkins himself answers these charges. His claim is, in effect, that that "the evolution of behavioural reactions or patterns via natural selection" and "control by nonconscious mechanisms" are two vastly different ideas. Also it is said that Dawkins does not deny a freedom of choice as the very last lines in this book itself "celebrate the human ability to make choices that transcend genetic control and instinctive reactions." So it is said that Dawkins "repeatedly draws clear distinctions" to prevent his readers from jumping to the conclusions expressed above.

However, there is a vast difference between asserting that such distinctions exist and actually laying a solid theoretical foundation for such distinctions. To lay the kinds of foundations which Dawkins does and then to go on to insist that these foundations do not lead to their logical conclusion is nothing less than an act of faith on Dawkins' part. It certainly does not bestow any validity upon Dawkins alleged distinctions. The bottom line is that Dawkins' presuppositions simply do not lead logically to the sort of distinction which he asserts.

Essentially this debate is an argument not about data, but about underlying assumptions. Here is a example of what I mean:

ASSUMPTION: 1. "evolution is true";
DATUM: 2. "human beings have consciousness";
ASSUMPTION: 3. "therefore evolution is capable of generating consciousness".

Once again, it is a case of "garbage in, garbage out" (as Dawkins himself would say).



Scientifically sound but philosophically flawed, 29 May 2008
Darwin's theory of evolution is no doubt a successful scientific hypothesis, and Prof. Dawkins brings across this very clearly. However, I do have some doubts regarding his philosophical assertions.

Essentially Prof. Dawkins believes that:

1) Selfishness and competition is at the root of all biological phenomena - nature as "red in tooth and claw"
2) There is no basic "dis-continuity" between humanity and other animals - humans are not qualitatively different from other animals
3) There is however no ethical dilemma between this basic fact and the human desire for goodness - since descriptive and normative realities are intrinsically separate (what is and what should be are independent of each other)

Yet the basis for point 3) - the inherent seperation of "what is" and "what ought to be" is just a philosophical assertion. Prof. Dawkins is very correct in stating that the belief in God and all other religious assertions should be treated and critically analysed as scientific hypotheses. However, strictly speaking this should go beyond the subject of religion to include every other field of human intellectual activity, including of course philosophy itself. If we treat the assertion "'what is' is fundamentally separate from 'what ought to be'" as a strict scientific hypothesis in the same sense that "God exists" is treated as such a hypothesis, then it has to be said that it is no more than just a blank assertion without any kind of empirical justification.

In other words, Prof. Dawkins is mistaken in assuming that his particular view of evolution and Darwinism does not leave us with an ethical dilemma, because it evidently does. The only argument Prof. Dawkins has offered against this is the mere assertion that "what ought to be" must be seperate from "what is", yet this assertion, just like religious assertions regarding God, cannot be scientifically or empirically proven.

Still great after all these years, 24 Apr 2008
Despite being over 30 years old, this book is still a powerful and exciting account of how life, including humans, came to be. The examples and explanations (aphid & ant coexistence, fluke worms in snails) are breathtaking in their descriptions of the natural world, and could easily awaken an interest in zoology in the casual reader.

A fascinating and exciting insight into our exsistence., 05 Oct 2008
Well I love a good Bill Bryson book and this is surely the best. As a travel writer he has kept me interested and amused with many an exciting journey but this rates as the best journey he has ever written. A journey that takes the layman on a travel experience spanning billions of years including an insight into all the sciences and ologies one can imagine. If only I had been able to read science at school like this...I might well have found an interest.

Overrated, 23 Sep 2008
I am skeptical of journalists or writers who think they can write a book about anything. Yeah sure they've a great gift for writing but that doesn't mean they have a great gift for understanding! All too often they think they understand something when they simply don't.

I really can't fathom that in a long book which is supposed to be a "all you need to know" about the science, the scientific method itself isn't even explained. This means the mechanism which establishes science as most objective and reliable paradigm we have for establishing objective truth about the universe is omitted. Now, there's a countless amount of facts, dates, figures and 'imagine this' type stuff all there with the assumed intent of making a reader go wow. All very well, some of it will fuse the imagination, but let's not forget that the scientific method is what defines science and differentiates between science and pseudo-science. Without it, we have no way of differentiating the reliability between the big bang theory and crystal healers.

Too many times, instead of explaining principles and concepts, Bryson opts for facts about dates. It really doesn't matter if it was 1915, 1916, or 1917 when Einstein published his theory on general relativity what matters is what it is saying, the concepts that underpin it and why we can be confident it's correct. In this regard, Byrson comes up well short. Someone like Simon Singh, Stephen Hawking, just about anyone with scientific training does a much better job.

He does make reasonable attempts at describing many of the Scientific theories, but there are times when his understanding is just way off.

For example, when he discusses the theory of evolution which is just as sound as the theory of gravity in terms of the scientific method. Both are testifiable, falsifiable, have huge amounts of evidence (one billion+ fossils and infinite amount of DNA evidence), been through the same peer reviewing processes etc. So, in scientific terms doubting evolution is like doubting gravity. It's just asinine. Perhaps Bryson should think about that the next time he gets on a plane.

His poor understanding insinutates that the lack of fossils found in human evolution may cast doubt on the theory. He sounds like a scientifically illiterate ignoramus who has just sifted their way through some intelligent design propaganda.

Why doesn't he point out the probability of fossilation is only about 1 / million and the probability of finding one about the same, which by simple mathematics make every fossil find of our ancestors species a miracle in statistical terms? Why doesn't he go through the simple mathematics in DNA which have confirmed evolution an infinite amount of times and provide even stronger evidence than fossils?

If you want a pop Science book so that you can understand science just skip this book. Science is a very area broad area now. Experts in Physics are not experts in Biology. Experts in Biology are not experts in Physics. A writer with no scientific expertise is certainly not an expert in anything scientific. If you really want to understand science, pick a branch of science and then pick the appropriate expert. Someone like Feymen for Physics, Dawkins for Biology or Hawking for the Universe.

Before you do any of that, make sure you understand the scientific method as described by Karl Popper. This is the framework that underpins all science and what makes science an exceptionally reliable paradigm. It's why planes fly and why we know the origins of all species on our planet.

If you couldn't give a monkeys about understanding and just want lots of scientific trivia; dates and names rather than any real understanding, yes sadly this book could be a runner.


Essential introduction to science!, 23 Sep 2008
This book is not only highy educational, but very entertaining, and Bryson's writting style makes it fun, and it keeps you craving for more.
If would be a good idea to make this read a compulsory High School one, to excite the curiosity and the thirst for knowledge of our students, considering the fact that the more we know, the more we love.
It is a nearly complete and thorough overview on the main principles of science. Wery well informed with plenty of historical anecdotes and curiosities. I have learned and laughed so much!!!
A genius's work.

Not for me, 25 Aug 2008
I started out with enthusiasm with this book but should have read the title a little more carefully. A short 'history'of nearly everything with the emphasis on HISTORY. This book goes into great detail on how and when each new bit of information was discovered with biographies of the scientists involved. This was not really what I wanted to read about as would prefer just to know the latest most up to date information and there are plenty much more interesting books on these topics, I have been browsing the Lonely Planet version on space and science which is illustrated and topical. Dont wish to offend fans of Bill Bryson, it is probably my mistake.

How to learn very little about quite a lot, 24 Aug 2008
Bill Bryson's book is an attempt to discuss the origins of life, the universe and everything contained therein. It's slightly tongue-in-cheek title indicates that this isn't going to be some heavyweight, academic discussion but more of a Now That's What I Call Science! After all, no book can seriously claim to be all-encompassing and completely comprehensive on any one subject, let alone "everything."

A Short History of Nearly Everything is clearly written to be a book that appeals to people who wouldn't normally want to read a whole book about gravity, molecular science, or paleontology; as a result, the book falls betwixt two stools: it skims superficially pretty much every subject it touches upon, so those only mildly interested won't learn much and those who have already read something on their specialised subject probably won't learn anything they didn't already know.

The first half of the book is the most interesting, containing some great anecdotes about the famous names of science (Newton, Darwin and so forth); this section shines and brings to life people whose names have become synonymous with their subject matter. However, as the various disciplines become more professionalised, the well of anecdotal material runs short, and the book loses much of its appeal.

One of the key themes of this work, which is not overtly stated but seems unmissable, is that the narrative of the history of science is quite different from how the mainstream media portrays science itself. Specifically, science is often presented as being the concept of a battle over evidence: how an idea is proposed, evidence is put forth in support, counterevidence is held up against it and ultimately, whichever theory fits most of the facts is deemed to be that which is most probable. This is not the case, according to Bryson's book. What is deemed to be scientifically true is determined just as much by factors of cultural acceptance as objective facts. Theories are put forth, ignored, then ridiculed, then, when the evidence becomes such that it can neither be marginalised nor mocked, the theory is embraced and history effectively rewritten so that science can be presented as being the onward march of progress and enlightenment. A reassuring but historically dubious narrative.

A Short History... is marketed around the "Bill Bryson" brand: his low-key charm, wit and self-effacing humour is meant to enliven the driest of subjects. Therefore, if you enjoy his style, then you will probably enjoy this book and indeed, the book was charmingly well written and certainly easy to consume. However, at best, A Short History of Nearly Everything is a shallow introduction to the key disciplines of the various sciences, animated by some fine anecdotal touches. Bryson's book will probably provide a drop-off point for those wishing to explore in greater breadth subjects of which their curiosity has been piqued.

Brings the Tudors to life, 11 Oct 2008
After watching the TV series the Tudors. I was interested in finding out more about the real events. This book is fantastic I couldn't put it down and will be buying more books by Alison Weir.

Excellent, 12 Aug 2008
An extremely readable book. The author gives a wonderfully real picture of the wives and the King and why the various relationships ultimately ended. History comes alive in this book and I can't pay a higher compliment than that.

very enlightning very hard to put down, 18 Jul 2008
I was very impressed by this book, after reading 'The other Boleyn girl' my appetite for reading up on my history was wettened. This book is a real eye opener for how England used to be and what the people of court were required to do in their day to day lives and what they grew to fear. It shows us what an insecure man Henry was and how the people who he surrounded himself with influenced and manipulated him turning him from a man who was seemingly nice to a feared man, however it shows us that even then he was much loved by most. It explores how Henry could be ruthless in pursuing what he wanted and in a cruel way but then he was easily distracted and if things did not please him he was quick to and with no conscience to rid himself of the things that stood in his way with no back glance. It shows us how Henrys wives modelled the king and what each of them offered him. A true insight to years lived long ago.

Informative & intriguing, 28 Apr 2008
I must admit I didn't know it would be a biography-style book when I bought it, but it also had aspects of a story in it which made it a good read.

I liked the way the book progressed from one wife to another and particularly liked the way the book was divided into parts and chapters which seemed to produce a sound organisation and clear, easy navigation of the book not only as a fictional read but also as a reference book.

Alison Weir is clearly a very dedicated historian writer. Facts and fiction carefully fused together and arguments sorted out (paintings and portrait descriptions were argued very well). I liked the way she sometimes brings the 21st century into her writing, explaining for example, what remains today of the palaces and houses of Henry VIII and the burial sites of the monarchs. Very interesting stuff.

All in all, i enjoyed reading it although in future may stick to Alison's fiction.

An Absolute Joy to Read, 21 Sep 2007

Alison Weir has written many non fiction books on the British monarchy. Her research is always meticulous and her books are written in such a way that they can be read with enjoyment by anyone. By that I mean they are not written in the same way that historical text books were written when I attended school. They are written in a way that not only provides accurate information on the subject but also to give pleasure to the reader. I enjoyed the book enormously.

Henry VIII was one of the most intelligent and also most difficult of men. A fine athlete in his youth, a scholar and at times the most likeable of men. But as his life progressed he became more and more unpredictable and could turn on people at the drop of a hat, sometimes with fatal consequences.

For any woman to be married to such a complex character must have been a daunting experience. Probably tantamount to walking on egg shells. When the man they are married to is also the King of England there position would be virtually untenable and in a number of his marriages this proved to be the case. However the marriage started out, it soon became apparent that no woman could keep Henry happy for long.

Sadly disappointed, 30 Sep 2008
History is my favorite subject and this author came highly recommended.
This is the first book I have read by her and was extremely disappointed.
It lacked a true atmosphere of the time,that this was set in.
I really could not picture any exacutioner, living during Mary's reign, thinking the thoughts that this author had written.
The terminology was all wrong, the dialogue sounded 1970's.
The characters all appeared wishy washy.
It is far more a type of Barbara Cartland for the history lover, than any serious attempt to understand or explain how these events really played out.
It is an easy light read, ideal for train travel or just before going to sleep.
The Tudor/War of the Roses have been far better written as stories by Rosemay Hawley Jarman, amoungest others, who REALLY make you smell the candle wax and hear the rustle of cloth of gold.
This book is not, in my opinion, true history at all. Just another story book.

Suspenseful even with a well-known ending, 11 Aug 2008
Alison Weir is a respected historian who is often recommended as an antidote to inaccurate representations in historical fiction as written by other authors. This is her first novel, and what a novel it is. I was entranced from the first line, and even though I knew how it was going to end, I still hoped that there would be a change at some point near the end. That's the sign of a good writer - someone who can write so compellingly and with such suspense that you hope they can even change historical facts for you.

Lady Jane Grey was a pawn in the ambition of her parents and of the Duke of Northumberland, almost from the moment she was born. Never forgiven for the cardinal sin of being born female, she was beaten and tortured into becoming a "lady" suitable for marriage to a monarch. When that ceased to be an option she was beaten into a marriage and a reign she never wanted, protesting even as the crown was being put on her head. These are facts that are known by most who have even read cursory information about this young lady. What is amazing is the way Alison Weir makes it seem like new information. The chorus of different voices in the telling of Jane's tale is exemplary and clever. I kept turning pages wanting to see what spin the next narrator would put on the story.

This novel did what historical fiction should do - it made me want to seek out the non-fiction bases for the story and do more reading. Anything that inspires further study can only be praised.

An Excellent Book into a Intresting Woman, 23 Jun 2008
Having known very little about the main character this book is based on, Lady Jane Grey, it was a refreshing and intresting read. I'v