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

A great read but dont confuse it with the childrens version!, 03 Nov 2008
I read this book whilst on a round the world trip and it was a great companion, although it does take some reading!
I ordered a copy from Amazon for my father in law as a christmas present, but thought i would get the hardback version called 'a really short history of nearly everything'... a note of caution, this is the childrens much abridged and illustrated version and not the same as the paperback. i have decided to keep this however for my 10 yr old god son as this book is fascinating for all ages and it is great that the kids can read it too!


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 and explaining what it is they are writing about.

I really can't fathom that in a book which attempts to cover most of 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. Without it, we have no way of differentiating between science and psuedo-science, no way of differentiating the reliability of 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, or just about anyone with scientific training does a much better job.

Sometimes he's 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, since 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.

His misunderstanding insinutates that the lack of fossils found in human evolution may cast doubt on the theory. He fails to 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? He also fails to include that the DNA evidence is conclusive and all of it is consistent with evolution through natural selection. DNA vindicated Darwin.

If you want a pop Science book so that you can understand science just skip this book. Science is a very 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 trivial, dates and names, well then, 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.

A great read but dont confuse it with the childrens version!, 03 Nov 2008
I read this book whilst on a round the world trip and it was a great companion, although it does take some reading!
I ordered a copy from Amazon for my father in law as a christmas present, but thought i would get the hardback version called 'a really short history of nearly everything'... a note of caution, this is the childrens much abridged and illustrated version and not the same as the paperback. i have decided to keep this however for my 10 yr old god son as this book is fascinating for all ages and it is great that the kids can read it too!


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 and explaining what it is they are writing about.

I really can't fathom that in a book which attempts to cover most of 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. Without it, we have no way of differentiating between science and psuedo-science, no way of differentiating the reliability of 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, or just about anyone with scientific training does a much better job.

Sometimes he's 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, since 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.

His misunderstanding insinutates that the lack of fossils found in human evolution may cast doubt on the theory. He fails to 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? He also fails to include that the DNA evidence is conclusive and all of it is consistent with evolution through natural selection. DNA vindicated Darwin.

If you want a pop Science book so that you can understand science just skip this book. Science is a very 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 trivial, dates and names, well then, 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.

Turns life inside out, 28 Oct 2008
The author writes about living things as if the gene is the animal and the animal is simply a seed for the gene. He basically turns life inside out. It's a powerful mind tool to get a different perspective on life but don't get too carried away with the idea. The whole theory of evolution is valuable in understanding the world but like a lot of science it starts to become too difficult to use. So in conclusion I don't believe that the author has discovered the secret of life, he just has another way of looking at things that you may find useful. It should be one of the books you have read.

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.

A great read but dont confuse it with the childrens version!, 03 Nov 2008
I read this book whilst on a round the world trip and it was a great companion, although it does take some reading!
I ordered a copy from Amazon for my father in law as a christmas present, but thought i would get the hardback version called 'a really short history of nearly everything'... a note of caution, this is the childrens much abridged and illustrated version and not the same as the paperback. i have decided to keep this however for my 10 yr old god son as this book is fascinating for all ages and it is great that the kids can read it too!


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 and explaining what it is they are writing about.

I really can't fathom that in a book which attempts to cover most of 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. Without it, we have no way of differentiating between science and psuedo-science, no way of differentiating the reliability of 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, or just about anyone with scientific training does a much better job.

Sometimes he's 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, since 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.

His misunderstanding insinutates that the lack of fossils found in human evolution may cast doubt on the theory. He fails to 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? He also fails to include that the DNA evidence is conclusive and all of it is consistent with evolution through natural selection. DNA vindicated Darwin.

If you want a pop Science book so that you can understand science just skip this book. Science is a very 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 trivial, dates and names, well then, 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.

Turns life inside out, 28 Oct 2008
The author writes about living things as if the gene is the animal and the animal is simply a seed for the gene. He basically turns life inside out. It's a powerful mind tool to get a different perspective on life but don't get too carried away with the idea. The whole theory of evolution is valuable in understanding the world but like a lot of science it starts to become too difficult to use. So in conclusion I don't believe that the author has discovered the secret of life, he just has another way of looking at things that you may find useful. It should be one of the books you have read.

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.

Delightful book, 07 Sep 2008
This more than just a description of a museum. This is also a journey into the history of the natural sciences and a part biography as well. Well illustarted, Richard Fortey describes an institution that is trying hard (and succeeding if the new Darwin Centre is any guide)to move with the times, make science accesible to the public, yet has more going on behind the scenes than we could ever give credit.

Anyone who lives in or visits London should pay more than one visit to this marvelous place, and thanks to this book they will be well briefed as to what goes and has gone on there.

Marvellous stuff., 18 Mar 2008
Dry Store Room No.1 is a wonderful book that allows the reader an insight into the fascinating world of the Natural History Museum, London. In this book Mr Fortey tells us; not only about the exhibits, but also about the work behind them and the men and women who carried out this work. We learn about all sorts of things from the ghastly stenches of the pit where Whale carcasses are stripped of flesh to the curator who obsessively categorized everything including "string too short for further use".

The science parts can occasionally be a bit hard to understand but like another reviewer I see that as my lack of understanding not Mr Fortey's lack of clarity and besides what would life be if we didn't stretch ourselves once in a while.

I thoroughly recommend this for the sort of person who likes a behind the scenes look at life.

dry store room no.1, 17 Mar 2008
Richard Fortey writes as always with elegance, passion and lucidity that is a plesure to read. if I haave to re-read some of the 'science' it is because I am not a scientist not his lack of clarity. all his books are informative and enlarge our view of the world.


A boring book with an interesting title, 08 Mar 2008
A very boring and tedious book that should have been left on the shelves with the other unseen exhibits.

A joy to read, 08 Mar 2008
Once again, another good book from Fortey. His writing style is completely addictive and difficult to put down - if only he would write more!

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 of 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

A great read but dont confuse it with the childrens version!, 03 Nov 2008
I read this book whilst on a round the world trip and it was a great companion, although it does take some reading!
I ordered a copy from Amazon for my father in law as a christmas present, but thought i would get the hardback version called 'a really short history of nearly everything'... a note of caution, this is the childrens much abridged and illustrated version and not the same as the paperback. i have decided to keep this however for my 10 yr old god son as this book is fascinating for all ages and it is great that the kids can read it too!


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 and explaining what it is they are writing about.

I really can't fathom that in a book which attempts to cover most of 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. Without it, we have no way of differentiating between science and psuedo-science, no way of differentiating the reliability of 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, or just about anyone with scientific training does a much better job.

Sometimes he's 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, since 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.

His misunderstanding insinutates that the lack of fossils found in human evolution may cast doubt on the theory. He fails to 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? He also fails to include that the DNA evidence is conclusive and all of it is consistent with evolution through natural selection. DNA vindicated Darwin.

If you want a pop Science book so that you can understand science just skip this book. Science is a very 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 trivial, dates and names, well then, 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.

Turns life inside out, 28 Oct 2008
The author writes about living things as if the gene is the animal and the animal is simply a seed for the gene. He basically turns life inside out. It's a powerful mind tool to get a different perspective on life but don't get too carried away with the idea. The whole theory of evolution is valuable in understanding the world but like a lot of science it starts to become too difficult to use. So in conclusion I don't believe that the author has discovered the secret of life, he just has another way of looking at things that you may find useful. It should be one of the books you have read.

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.

Delightful book, 07 Sep 2008
This more than just a description of a museum. This is also a journey into the history of the natural sciences and a part biography as well. Well illustarted, Richard Fortey describes an institution that is trying hard (and succeeding if the new Darwin Centre is any guide)to move with the times, make science accesible to the public, yet has more going on behind the scenes than we could ever give credit.

Anyone who lives in or visits London should pay more than one visit to this marvelous place, and thanks to this book they will be well briefed as to what goes and has gone on there.

Marvellous stuff., 18 Mar 2008
Dry Store Room No.1 is a wonderful book that allows the reader an insight into the fascinating world of the Natural History Museum, London. In this book Mr Fortey tells us; not only about the exhibits, but also about the work behind them and the men and women who carried out this work. We learn about all sorts of things from the ghastly stenches of the pit where Whale carcasses are stripped of flesh to the curator who obsessively categorized everything including "string too short for further use".

The science parts can occasionally be a bit hard to understand but like another reviewer I see that as my lack of understanding not Mr Fortey's lack of clarity and besides what would life be if we didn't stretch ourselves once in a while.

I thoroughly recommend this for the sort of person who likes a behind the scenes look at life.

dry store room no.1, 17 Mar 2008
Richard Fortey writes as always with elegance, passion and lucidity that is a plesure to read. if I haave to re-read some of the 'science' it is because I am not a scientist not his lack of clarity. all his books are informative and enlarge our view of the world.


A boring book with an interesting title, 08 Mar 2008
A very boring and tedious book that should have been left on the shelves with the other unseen exhibits.

A joy to read, 08 Mar 2008
Once again, another good book from Fortey. His writing style is completely addictive and difficult to put down - if only he would write more!

A great read but dont confuse it with the childrens version!, 03 Nov 2008
I read this book whilst on a round the world trip and it was a great companion, although it does take some reading!
I ordered a copy from Amazon for my father in law as a christmas present, but thought i would get the hardback version called 'a really short history of nearly everything'... a note of caution, this is the childrens much abridged and illustrated version and not the same as the paperback. i have decided to keep this however for my 10 yr old god son as this book is fascinating for all ages and it is great that the kids can read it too!


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 and explaining what it is they are writing about.

I really can't fathom that in a book which attempts to cover most of 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. Without it, we have no way of differentiating between science and psuedo-science, no way of differentiating the reliability of 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, or just about anyone with scientific training does a much better job.

Sometimes he's 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, since 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.

His misunderstanding insinutates that the lack of fossils found in human evolution may cast doubt on the theory. He fails to 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? He also fails to include that the DNA evidence is conclusive and all of it is consistent with evolution through natural selection. DNA vindicated Darwin.

If you want a pop Science book so that you can understand science just skip this book. Science is a very 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 trivial, dates and names, well then, 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.

When Cambridge mathematician Andrew Wiles announced a solution for Fermat's last theorem in 1993, it electrified the world of mathematics. After a flaw was discovered in the proof, Wiles had to work for another year--he had already laboured in solitude for seven years--to establish that he had solved the 350-year-old problem. Simon Singh's book is a lively, comprehensible explanation of Wiles's work and of the colourful history that has build up around Fermat's last theorem over the years. The book contains some problems that offer a taste for the maths, but it also includes limericks to give a feeling for the quirkier side of mathematicians.

A great read but dont confuse it with the childrens version!, 03 Nov 2008
I read this book whilst on a round the world trip and it was a great companion, although it does take some reading!
I ordered a copy from Amazon for my father in law as a christmas present, but thought i would get the hardback version called 'a really short history of nearly everything'... a note of caution, this is the childrens much abridged and illustrated version and not the same as the paperback. i have decided to keep this however for my 10 yr old god son as this book is fascinating for all ages and it is great that the kids can read it too!


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 and explaining what it is they are writing about.

I really can't fathom that in a book which attempts to cover most of 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. Without it, we have no way of differentiating between science and psuedo-science, no way of differentiating the reliability of 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, or just about anyone with scientific training does a much better job.

Sometimes he's 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, since 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.

His misunderstanding insinutates that the lack of fossils found in human evolution may cast doubt on the theory. He fails to 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? He also fails to include that the DNA evidence is conclusive and all of it is consistent with evolution through natural selection. DNA vindicated Darwin.

If you want a pop Science book so that you can understand science just skip this book. Science is a very 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 trivial, dates and names, well then, 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.

Turns life inside out, 28 Oct 2008
The author writes about living things as if the gene is the animal and the animal is simply a seed for the gene. He basically turns life inside out. It's a powerful mind tool to get a different perspective on life but don't get too carried away with the idea. The whole theory of evolution is valuable in understanding the world but like a lot of science it starts to become too difficult to use. So in conclusion I don't believe that the author has discovered the secret of life, he just has another way of looking at things that you may find useful. It should be one of the books you have read.

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.

Delightful book, 07 Sep 2008
This more than just a description of a museum. This is also a journey into the history of the natural sciences and a part biography as well. Well illustarted, Richard Fortey describes an institution that is trying hard (and succeeding if the new Darwin Centre is any guide)to move with the times, make science accesible to the public, yet has more going on behind the scenes than we could ever give credit.

Anyone who lives in or visits London should pay more than one visit to this marvelous place, and thanks to this book they will be well briefed as to what goes and has gone on there.

Marvellous stuff., 18 Mar 2008
Dry Store Room No.1 is a wonderful book that allows the reader an insight into the fascinating world of the Natural History Museum, London. In this book Mr Fortey tells us; not only about the exhibits, but also about the work behind them and the men and women who carried out this work. We learn about all sorts of things from the ghastly stenches of the pit where Whale carcasses are stripped of flesh to the curator who obsessively categorized everything including "string too short for further use".

The science parts can occasionally be a bit hard to understand but like another reviewer I see that as my lack of understanding not Mr Fortey's lack of clarity and besides what would life be if we didn't stretch ourselves once in a while.

I thoroughly recommend this for the sort of person who likes a behind the scenes look at life.

dry store room no.1, 17 Mar 2008
Richard Fortey writes as always with elegance, passion and lucidity that is a plesure to read. if I haave to re-read some of the 'science' it is because I am not a scientist not his lack of clarity. all his books are informative and enlarge our view of the world.


A boring book with an interesting title, 08 Mar 2008
A very boring and tedious book that should have been left on the shelves with the other unseen exhibits.

A joy to read, 08 Mar 2008
Once again, another good book from Fortey. His writing style is completely addictive and difficult to put down - if only he would write more!

A great read but dont confuse it with the childrens version!, 03 Nov 2008
I read this book whilst on a round the world trip and it was a great companion, although it does take some reading!
I ordered a copy from Amazon for my father in law as a christmas present, but thought i would get the hardback version called 'a really short history of nearly everything'... a note of caution, this is the childrens much abridged and illustrated version and not the same as the paperback. i have decided to keep this however for my 10 yr old god son as this book is fascinating for all ages and it is great that the kids can read it too!


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 and explaining what it is they are writing about.

I really can't fathom that in a book which attempts to cover most of 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. Without it, we have no way of differentiating between science and psuedo-science, no way of differentiating the reliability of 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, or just about anyone with scientific training does a much better job.

Sometimes he's 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, since 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.

His misunderstanding insinutates that the lack of fossils found in human evolution may cast doubt on the theory. He fails to 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? He also fails to include that the DNA evidence is conclusive and all of it is consistent with evolution through natural selection. DNA vindicated Darwin.

If you want a pop Science book so that you can understand science just skip this book. Science is a very 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 trivial, dates and names, well then, 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, whe