The Canon: A Whirligig Tour of the Beautiful Basics of Science Reviews

• Worthy, but beware the swelling pleats!

  
  By A10G4BPT5MGBHY on 2007-05-20
  There's a lot to like about this book. A guide for the literate adult who's nonetheless scientifically challenged, it lays out the basics of science -- the scientific method, probability and measurement -- and then uses them to explain astronomy, biology, chemistry, geology and physics with an almost poetic style. It's packed with alarming facts (did you know a third of U.S. advanced science degrees go to foreign students?) and full of emotion, which, sadly, you don't often find anymore in scientific writing.
  
  Trouble is, author Natalie Angier is just too passionate for her own good. She obviously knows her stuff, but her prose is just too artful, too flowery, too straight from a creative writing class, never meeting a metaphor it doesn't saddle up and ride like the wind. Describing the beauty of a mountain range, she instructs her readers to "gaze out over the vast cashmere accordion of earthscape, the repeating pleats swelling and dipping silently in the far horizon without even deigning to disdain you."
  
  I think that means it's pretty.
  
  I don't claim to be a serious writer, but with science, a vital topic that America seems to have completely lost touch with, we need books that can easily engage their readers. This one is not quite there. Two better choices are the classics The Dragons of Eden: Speculations on the Evolution of Human Intelligence and The Flamingo's Smile: Reflections in Natural History.
  
  

• Science Written the Way All Science Should Be

  
  By AE61FFT0GUD2G on 2007-05-10
  Writing about science is difficult, but writing about science well is a gift; one that this author possesses. As a degreed scientist, even I have problems with certain areas of science that are outside my realm (which is environmental biology) and am always looking for more information that will help me understand. This book did a wonderful job of explaining the various areas where I have difficulties (which includes most of the areas outside biology).
  
  If you, like me, remember the talking head in science class that was speaking in tongues, you will appreciate this book. It will open up areas such as chemistry, geology, biology and others to a clearer understanding. And, understanding science is becoming more and more important in today's society as we become more technologically advanced and science oriented.
  
  I recommend this book for everyone, including, or maybe more importantly, to the scientifically challenged. It will change the way you understand the latest in scientific news, as well as give you an all important base knowledge. And, the writing is well done, easy without being condescending, and fun.
  
  
  

• Should be required reading

  
  By A20QETTR8VAVW1 on 2007-05-05
  As a working scientist and a citizen of the world, I cannot recommend Natalie Angier's, "The Canon: A Whirligig Tour of the Beautiful Basics of Science" highly enough for not only non-scientists and the scientifically illiterate, but also for those working in science who have forgotten the wonder and joy in their profession.
  
  From the biggest questions about the nature of the universe to more personal questions concerning humankind's origins and internal workings, Angier brings not only her journalistic experience and exuberant curiosity to her subjects, she also interviews experts in the field who bring their own authority and creativity in explaining both concepts that are fundamental to our understanding of the physical world and the latest advancements that challenge and further our current knowledge.
  
  An intelligent reader may now gain the scientific literacy necessary for life in the twenty-first century between the covers of one book, written in a playful, vivid, conversational style that nonetheless manages to impart important concepts without oversimplifying them. Natalie Angier has done the world a great service by bringing science in an accessible, entertaining form to a general audience. She has done her job, and now it is the public's turn to do theirs and fulfill its responsibility to educate and enlighten itself.
  
  

• Prose-poem of science

  
  By A2URXOFR8RJU8F on 2007-05-08
  What a great book! Every sentence is crafted as though it were to be read aloud ... and when you're done, almost as bonus, you realize that this was not just a joy to read. You realize that you suddenly GET chemistry. You really GET what's at the heart of geology. What fun to be able to appreciate the essentials of the major sciences, and not just in a surfacey way, but with real richness and depth, and to do it all in such a literary way. A wonderful read.
  
  

• informative, but incessantly cute

  
  By A2XB003LEN0EPY on 2007-06-19
  Natalie Angier covers a lot of ground in "The Canon," and presents her material in a logical and orderly fashion. After a couple of chapters on the conceptual underpinnings of the scientific mindset (the scientific method, designing controls in experiments, statistical analysis, and the like), Ms. Angier moves mostly from smallest to largest: a chapter devoted to Physics explores the atomic/sub-atomic realms; another is devoted to Chemistry and the molecular realm; a third and fourth are devoted to Evolutionary and Molecular Biology, taking us from the cellular level to multicelled organisms (including humans); a chapter devoted to Geology expands the circle of knowledge planet-wide; and a closing chapter devoted to Astronomy envelopes the rest of the known universe. For her presumed target audience, a relatively well-educated and well-read person with quite limited exposure to science, Ms. Angier's book could be a welcome primer, jogging repressed memories of high school science classes, vaguely recalled words of David Attenborough and Carl Sagan, and the odd assortment of Nova and Nature episodes.
  
  Unfortunately, Ms. Angier's wealth of useful overviews into various disciplines is devalued considerably by her relentlessly cute, persistently pithy, and self-consciously "engaging" prose. Early on in the book, you might find yourself somewhat charmed by her witticisms. You may even excuse the groan-inducing puns that subtitle every chapter (i.e., "Molecular Biology: Cells and Whistles," "Geology: Imagining World Pieces"). I picture a sign posted on the wall above Ms. Angier's computer (just next to the "Keep It Simple, Stupid" admonition), saying "Keep It Fun, Stupid!" Added to her general flippancy is a decided and wearisome tendency to wax rhapsodic (as in her characterization of the diamond as "fossilized starlight . . . translucent, mesmeric, intransigent diamond, the hardest substance known, save for a human heart grown cold.") Awwwww! After a couple of chapters your patient forebearance may be stetching a bit thin, and by the halfway point you'll be ready to smack somebody upside the head. Maybe not the author, who is just too darn cute, but certainly some editor, somewhere along the line, is a deserving target for not reining her in a bit.
  
  A last couple of minor criticisms:
  
  1. a few well-chosen diagrams would have been a most welcome addition to this book. A visual representation of an atom, a molecule or two, a shifting tectonic plate diagram, etc., would have been worth more than a few thousand of Ms. Angier's words.
  
  2. The author's blatantly dismissive and often subtly derisive attitude towards religious belief may be a bit off-putting for many readers. For an author trying so very hard to engage her general public, and publishing in a market wherein a substantial majority claim belief in a Higher Power, this snidely secularist perspective seems a bit ill-advised.
  
  
• Witty Science
  By A912C7977MO6O on 2007-06-05
  "The Canon" is a book that tries to bring science into the grasp of the ordinary, science-ignorant reader. The author attempts to make science accessible through the use of witty prose, colorful analogies, and outrageous metaphors. Mostly she succeeds, although the scientifically literate may find this book too fluffy.
  
  I would skip the introduction and get right to the meat of the book. In successive chapters the author looks at scientific methods of measurement, probabilities, and calibration, then proceeds onward with a chapter each on physics, chemistry, evolutionary biology, molecular biology, geology, and astronomy. Along the way she comes out with a strong defense of Darwinism, a good history of the world, a less good history of the cosmos, and a pretty good account of DNA. In a book of this length and breadth much of importance is left out but, if you learn everything "the Canon" tells you, you will have reached a pretty high level of familiarity with several disciplines of science.
  
  Smallchief
  
  
  
• Priceless...with disclaimer
  By A1D9Z20TCUH6ZX on 2007-05-28
  In the United States nowadays, a person can graduate from college having taken only a couple of token soft science classes, and these may have been adjusted (dumbed down) for humanities majors. A surprising percentage (well over half?) of our US population doesn't believe in evolution. In the industrialized world, we rank dead last for this statistic, except for Turkey, which is caught up in the Muslim version of intelligent design. The vast majority of our state and federal legislators are not educated in the sciences, but in the humanities. No wonder they are so easily misled when it comes to making informed decisions about, for example, climate change.
  
  A decision to side with mainstream science is almost always the right decision, but it would be nice to know what mainstream science is saying (read "Discover" or other science magazines), why it is so valid, and how the scientific method works. Of course, it's not perfect - it's administered by people, with all their tendencies to delusion, misuse of data, and greed; but it's relentlessly self-correcting and it has consistently provided the most usable strategy to find out how things work.
  
  Natalie Angier has written a book that will help us with our scientific literacy. The first three chapters cover basics about the scientific method. The human default method of decision-making, gut instinct, worked well for hunter-gatherers, but today we can do better. Read these chapters if you don't read anything else (one chapter inspired me to order a book on probabilities). The next six chapters are about the specific fields of physics, chemistry, evolutionary biology, molecular biology, geology, or astronomy.
  
  How much physics can you learn in 34 pages? Well, you get a feel for how and why electrons can be harnessed to power our homes - or perhaps you'd like to know how the Houdini-like maneuver, "quantum leap" got its name. The chapter on chemistry gives an overview of chemical bonds - why DNA has hydrogen bonds, a weaker type (so they can easily unzip for reading by messenger RNA) and stronger types of bonds are on nitrogen (and why that makes them useful as explosives). In the evolution chapter, you learn why "nothing in biology makes any sense outside of evolution," with a strong outline on the basics. Despite what you may have heard, "Natural selection is about as nonrandom a force as you can imagine." - Richard Dawkins.
  
  In the chapter on molecular biology, you learn how a cell bristles with proteins, looking (if you could lift the lid and look inside) like a beehive or ant-bed of activity, but at fast-forward speed. This beautifully written chapter reminded me of Lewis Thomas's classic, "Lives of a Cell" from 1974. Geologists immediately descend onto the site when a new tunnel is blasted through a hillside. We live on a planet that records its own history and each stone is a potential Rosetta stone. Astronomy is among the most popular of sciences, "chaster than other sciences, purer of heart and freer of impurities, mutagens, teratogens, and animal testing." It answers the eternal questions: Who are we? Where do we come from?
  
  Each chapter covers enough basics to be able to provide a strong finish. For the scientifically challenged, for the reader who needs a science booster, or for the confirmed science nut like me, don't let this book get away. It is even available in audio so you can buff up your education the easy way.
  
  Now for the disclaimer: The 5 stars is for the subject matter. Her deliver is "too cute" to the point of distraction. The last book I recall of this type was Bill Bryson's - "A Short History of Nearly Everything." His book doesn't suffer from maladies of this sort and is superior.
  
  
  
• Dreadful
  By A23JCK7PHH3287 on 2007-05-28
  This book is dreadful. It is very frustrating. It is a prime example of diarrhea of the keyboard. The auther is so enchanted with all her similies, puns comparisons, and over-elaborate prose that one yearns for a useful fact. I found it difficul to read and I wish I hadn't bought it. She could have told the story in half as many pages.
  
  
• Superfluous persiflage
  By A5DHLFENUYQ1X on 2007-06-22
  This was a great 150 page book that the author blew up to 250+ pages with her incessant substitution of three-and four syllable words where smaller words would have sufficed. I had always considered myself a reasonably erudite person, but I guess I'm just a dumb retired fire investigator from flyover country.
  
  Compounding the felony was her constant efforts to show how absolutely WITTY she is, driving this reader to distraction. Don't get me wrong, the subject matter and her knowledge were excellent, but more than once, I almost put it down permanently because of her "I am the Queen of cocktail party chatter" witticisms.
  
  I don't know who her target audience was, but if anyone asks me what to read, I'll suggest "A Short History of Nearly Everything."
  
  
• Restoring wonder to science
  By A37FBE5YEG5IIM on 2007-05-25
  The lucid prose in Natalie Angier's "The Canon" demystifies science without taking away any of its wonder. She makes the rarified accessible, but never in a "sound bite" kind of way. She relates crazy-big concepts to the more modest stuff the average reader will understand (she explained the space between an atom's nucleus and its electrons in terms of cherry pits and football fields). Her message is that science isn't just the province of wild-haired old gentlemen in lab coats-- it's humanity's inheritance, and we all have a right to it. Besides, it's just *neat.* Science isn't boring. In fact, it's delightful. If you never felt that way before, you will after reading this book.
  Something else you'll come away with is a logical toolset. The chapters on probability and scale are particularly useful. Take notes as you read them.
  Finally, Angier is really witty. You'll probably find yourself giggling at least once every chapter. Amusement and elucidation? Sold!
  Oh-her one folly is alliteration. The woman can get drunk of strings of repeated consonants. This isn't a big enough gripe to subtract a star, though.
  
  
• I wish I had read this in high school
  By AEVRE0AQV5D3N on 2007-06-19
  This is a great book. I haven't read any of Angier's writing in the New York Times, but I now intend to watch for it. The Canon is one of the best non-fiction books I have ever read (and I read a lot of non-fiction). It ought to be required reading for every high school student. Anything that can inspire a 51-year-old law professor like me to want to know more about the physics of electricity must be a darn good book. The writing is captivating--readable without being simplistic. And I love Angier's sense of humor. Finally, her even-handedness is striking. I was happy to see that she skewered both the right wingers (on evolution) and the left wingers (on DDT).
  
  
  
  If, like me, you had lousy science teachers who turned you off of science, you should read this book. This is how science ought to be taught.
  
  
• Sorry Ms. Angier, but I would not recommend this
  By A3MQ1KBDC09H01 on 2007-06-26
  I grabbed this book because on the front flap it mentioned that the book covered stem cell research, and I had just seen a news article on it. I am a chemist, and I thought I should know a bit more about these stem cells. Anyway, I couldn't even make it to the molecular biology section.
  
  I thought her writing was terrible for the science community, her explanations were not very good. And I found her witty comments terribly distracting and misplaced.
  
  I found a few mistakes like her explanation of the metric system. The unit of time, the second, is based on fundamental atomic properties. It is based on the number of cycles a Cesium atom undergoes upon absorbing light.[...]. I also think she screwed up her closed system example about the girl going down a slide.
  
  Now I realize these aren't major errors, and there is some good information in the book. However, overall I was too distracted by her witty comments and fluff style writing that I am putting the book down and moving on to something else. Perhaps later, I'll revisit this book, and only read the molecular biology part so I can learn about stem cells.
  
  
• There is not much science in it
  By A2APX95Q04SSW on 2007-05-18
  I bought this books based on Amazon reviews. I read first two chapters last night. This is one of boring books I have read recently on science. Based on the reviews I expected this to be better readable book than Bill Bryson's or Simon Singh's books. So far it is lot of rumblings about why kids are loosing interest in science. I thought I will recommend this to my teenage daughter's summer reading list. Based on what I read so far this is the kind of book that makes science boring. She is no Brian Green. Some times I do wonder weather Amazon.com is cooking up its top 100 books list
  
  
• Awkward title -- even more awkward book
  By A25YA4A2RDDROX on 2007-07-07
  Why was this book written? The purpose of this book seems to be for Ms Angier to be able to say: "Here's everything that I know ... what the @*%! do you know?" There's way too much material to be covered meaningfully and successfully in less than 300 pages.
  
  Ms Angier's writing style is far too glib for her own good or that of her readers. It comes across as science elitist. Wading through the dense, overly clever, and distracting sentence constructions was extremely cumbersome; her numerous oblique allusions and entendres are tedious.
  
  Bill Bryson wrote basically the same book with his 'A Short History of Everything' back in 2005, but his book was magnitudes more interesting and much better written. Ms Angier needs to read Mr Bryson's book to learn about writing interestingly about science.
  
  In my opinion Ms Angier's book will do absolutely NOTHING to advance the cause of science or science education, which is science's loss. It's unrelenting onslaught of obtuse details will only confuse, bore, and be set aside.
  
  Ms Angier's publisher also did her a disservice by packing her material into dense chapters without sufficient white (aka "reader breathing") space. Breaking up each chapter into small sections with their own mini-titles would have helped immeasurably. Houghton Mifflin editors please wake up! [What could they have been thinking?]
  
  
• Retorts?
  By A33N5YHZAR6HK7 on 2007-07-13
  I was shocked to read most of the previous reviews. I found this book to be so interesting that I could not wait to get back to it, and also to go back and read it again and again. The wit and humor interspersed, I think, added a lightness to it that is so often missing in the study of the sciences and engineering. I have a BSE in EE and Computer Science, so the Physics, Chemistry, Statistics, and Probability were good personal qualitative reviews for me, as I have never really used any of those subjects since graduation; and the chapters on Biology, Geology, and Astronomy were positively enlightening and fascinating to boot. As one previous reviewer said: I think it would be a good idea for HS students and {even college students} to read this book in order to get a macro appreciation of science in general, as the education process often gets one very narrowed down into the equations and diagrams which sometimes causes the basic fascination and appeal to be lost. I think this book could be used as the source document for a PBS-like series along the lines of Jacob Bronowski's THE ASCENT OF MAN in the 70s or Carl Sagan's COSMOS in the 80s. What that show would do for the advancement of interest in science would be, well, Awesome!
  
  
  
• Too whimsical, overly playful
  By A27WDMGG29MLFP on 2008-05-06
  Admirable as Ms. Angier's book is in its attempts to lay out the basics of science, she is far too continually sarcastic in her delivery for anything truly lasting to come from this book. I fear that when you finish 'The Canon,' you will come away with some anecdotes and nothing much else.
  
  Here's an example of an author much too concerned with being funny, and not at all trusting to her subject matter:
  
  "A top of the line radar can pinpoint the whereabouts of a housefly two kilometers away, although clearly this is a radar with far too much time on its hands."
  
  "Fine. They are all light. They are all electromagnetic radiation. They are all - what?"
  
  "The universe, though, doesn't only like to cut things short, it also opts for the sagging saga approach, dictating thick volumes of time that are nearly as unfathomable as Finnegan's Wake."
  
  "Where might Ebola weigh in? And how many of any could dance on a pin?"
  
  "Contrary to myth, time doesn't fly particularly fast when you're dead."
  
  "Hold your Miss Havensham's, huffed the progressive-spirited Darrell."
  
  After several hundred pages, these trite quips (appearing as they do ten a page) grow tiresome and even somewhat alarming. Ms. Angier does not trust her reader to surrender to the facination of her subject or her research and, like an annoying friend in a museum, continues to make jokes upon viewing each painting ('I mean, I guess you can paint with one ear, am I right?')
  
  New Yorker readers (I am one) who are not much interested in science might find a friend in Ms. Angier as she presents 'boring' material with a wink and a nudge-nudge. But to those with curious minds who purchase a book like this to actually learn a few things, move along.
  
  
• A good idea, mostly spoiled
  By A3CD3EY3K4JLUM on 2007-07-03
  Natalie Angier, a writer for the New York Times, wrote this book for adult nonscientists who want to understand the basics of science. As a 43 year old accountant whose education includes a graduate degree but only the minimum of science, I'm certainly in the right demographic. There is something to learn from this book, but the author's relentless desire to be clever creates some awful, exasperating prose.
  
  I would guess a journalist feels a sense of liberation when getting to write outside a newspaper's staid style guide. And an occasional flourish with language can make a book more interesting, just as a sprinkling of pepper makes a pork chop taste better. But Angier raids the literary spice rack with complete abandon. Almost every paragraph includes a pun, an alliteration, or some goofy metaphor. I wanted a quick read about the basics of science, but I had to pause repeatedly to translate into plain English phrases like, "that solar toady of a planet named after the Roman god with feathers on his shoes." Dammit, just say "Mercury."
  
  I read with special interest the chapter on evolution, since that's the one area where there is outright disbelief of the scientific consensus. I think Angier badly misunderstands the opposition to evolution, at least the opposition I'm aware of as a member of a Methodist church. (Angier erroneously refers to the Book of Revelation as a "gospel," which suggests that she's not very knowledgeable about Christianity.) She names her chapter "Evolutionary Biology" and focuses narrowly on evolution as an account of the history of life and an explanation for the physical features of life forms. She doesn't mention Social Darwinism or the phrase "survival of the fittest." She makes only a brief and neutral reference to evolutionary psychology, which combines evolution-made-me-do-it excuses for reprehensible behavior, like a man leaving his wife for a younger woman, with cynical explanations for altruistic actions.
  
  Most Christians I know would make peace with evolution focused only on biology. But they bitterly, and properly, resist evolution as the authority for defining normal and expected human behavior. Angier would have been better off dealing forthrightly with the noxious philosophical movements that have coupled their cars to the evolutionary train, instead of thinking that one more recitation of the fossil record would make evolutionists of us all.
  
  
  
• Science for...
  By A3MJG170M1UGB0 on 2007-06-14
  I would call this book a science lesson for liberal arts majors. Angier has not written a "dumbed-down" science lesson. She alludes to literature, mythology, and music to help the more verbally-inclined reader understand. The language is also sophisticated, making use of puns and other verbal gymnastics as well. The book covers the big basics of science including biology, chemistry, physics, and astronomy in a brief and entertaining way. In all, it is a science book designed to hold the interest of the non-scientist reader.
  Now to the downside. The scope of the book is limited. Of course, it has to be limited in order to reach a wide audience. I am suspicious, though, of the topics chosen. Sometimes I felt that Angier was proselytizing rather than teaching. She often made light of opinions that did not match the prevailing beliefs of science. This was especially strange considering the fact that she took quite a bit of time in the beginning of the book to explain the fallability of science.
  
  
  
• Please, Natalie, edit thyself!
  By A1LBVG3VS9CI4 on 2007-06-29
  Clearly, Ms Angier, you know what you are talking about, and you have chosen knowledgeable scientists to help fill in the blanks. Your premise, of talking to scientists to find out what essential information they think the public should know in their disciplines, is the ideal way to approach this wide variety of topics. You use helpful metaphors and examples so that readers can possibly understand the incredibly tiny or unbelievably vast distances talked about, but your cutesy, tacked-on throwaway lines do grow old rather quickly. Every time I saw a list, I knew the last item would be one of those cute phrases that show a quick wit and intelligence, but which do grow old time after time.
  Please, Ms Angier, continue writing on science, as this is one of the most informative books I've read in ages, but please, too, edit yourself, limiting yourself to perhaps half or one third of the lighthearted touches. Thank you so much for your contribution to the effort to improve the sad state of public knowledge of the basics of science.
  Sincerely,
  DM
  
  
• Nancy, please have your thyroid checked.
  By A1EIFDTG0A0DB0 on 2007-07-07
  I got about one-third through this book before I had to put it down. I seriously thought I might develop diabetes and/or an inferiority complex if I read any further, the prose was so surgery and self-satisfied. My suggestions to Nancy and her publisher would be get to work on a 2nd edition ASAP, and carve away all the nonsense verbage. This way, you will have ample space to expound and expand the diaglogue. Otherwise, the book is nearly unreadable, as the nobility of the idea is sabotaged by the extreme bombast. And I so wanted to like it.
  
  
• The Canon: Natalie's Self-indulgent Tour
  By A1FP7KY1G1OCRZ on 2008-01-01
  I started this book fully interested and enthusiastic about Angier's approach to science. I finished it irritated that I had wasted my money by buying it. It is tedious in its predictability and annoying in its superfluity. After awhile, I found that I automatically skipped the ends of most of her sentences, where she predictably tacked on a cute and sometimes clever but typically distracting little joke. The book needs serious editing; if reduced to the ten-page pamphlet that it ought to be, it might be worth reading. As is, this book is little more than a self-indulgent display of the author's formidable vocabulary and ability to create entertaining tropes.
  
  
• The errors are too much
  By A2N723WOQIIS7X on 2008-06-23
  It's amazing that in a book which contains an entire chapter on Thinking Scientifically, Ms. Angiers commits one of the ultimate sins in science writing: the dissemination of information without bothering to check if it is actually correct. The discipline of referencing every "fact" presented in science writing (something this book fails to do) is important because, aside from allowing the reader to discover the evidence that a particular "fact" is based on, it forces the author to make sure that what they are presenting is actually CORRECT. The number of errors in the later chapters of this book (chapters 5-9) are far too many for a book aimed at non-scientists.
  
  Some of the errors are minor and show only a slight misunderstanding on the author's part, but her explanation of why planets don't twinkle (they do twinkle, by the way) is wince inducing. And I'm sure it would be a surprise to many botanists that plants, in general, don't respire during the day time. This is the sort of laziness that I would expect from a tired middle school student writing a science report late at night the day before it's due, not what I would expect from a prize winning science writer in a book that had actually been EDITED.
  
  I'll let others harp on the unhelpful language throughout the later chapters and the cheerleading mess of her chapter on evolution but would rather leave potential readers with this: Do not take anything you read in "The Canon" for granted until you confirm it in a trusted second source. This should go for anything you read but goes doubly so for this book.
  
  
• Pixilated author
  By A1WKNCXUR7BG13 on 2007-06-25
  On June 24, 2007, during a speech covered by Book TV (CPAN 2), the author asserted that U.S. Government operatives had been systematically erasing data from science websites. She did not cite any evidence that supported this fantastic claim. It is very unusal for a science writer to make such a claim, especially one from the New York Times who has won a Pulitizer Prize. If the Bush administration is as inept as she claims, how could it accomplish such a complex task? Apparently Ms. Angier, like Longfellow Deeds (Gary Cooper), is "pixilated". In any event, her claim impeaches her credibility about "the beautiful basics of science".
  
  
• Informative, but wearying
  By AJDYDG7YZY9QL on 2007-07-23
  As with the human DNA she so effectively extols, Angier's book has a portion of useful material, but a great deal of useless "junk". An accomplished writer, she spends more ink in demonstrating those skills than in imparting the information she hopes her readers will respect. Her own declared intention of presenting the "Basics of Science" isn't fulfilled. Nor does she explicitly explain what "The Canon" is. Instead, she portrays what science has achieved. The "Canon" is the understanding that science is a dynamic, incessant process. "Final answers" aren't to be found, nor expected. That's an admirable approach, and when she actually depicts what science has done, Angier presents it clearly. It's the dross between these points which weary the interested reader. Her frequent quips and laboured analogies add little or nothing to understanding the point. It's an open question whether the "average" reader will endure her flowery prose, sifting it out for the data so camouflaged.
  
  After addressing the question of how science has fallen into disrepute in her country, Angier embarks on a quest to explain its value. She explains that "Thinking Scientifically" requires mental outreach, avoiding acceptance of status quo. "Mysteries" can be explained, which does not, as some hold, diminish either their beauty or value. Opinion has its place, but the reality of science is its reality. Moving through a description of "probabilities" and the scales of Nature, she addresses the "hard sciences" of chemistry and physics. Through them all, she attempts to "lighten the mood" with pithy comments and sometimes bizarre, sometimes arcane, illusions. Whoever is "Brian 'String Bean' Greene" when he's at home? What is the "Vin Diesel line of lawn tools"? That's not counting all the "New Yorkisms" peppering the narrative.
  
  The chapters on evolutionary biology and cell mechanism are easily the best. In fact, they nearly redeem the book from her surfeit of puns and pithy asides. The biological topics are of great interest to her, and are the ones most needed by her audience. After all, it's not Edwin Hubble or Kip Thorne that US "creationists" attack, but Charles Darwin and the host of researchers supporting his "theory". Her discource on the difference between a "theory" and a "hypothesis" should be read in every schoolroom and from every pulpit in the US. That every cell in our bodies, except the mature red blood cells, all contain an exact copy of DNA that launched our lives, will come as a surprise to many. Angier carefully explains that DNA doesn't change, but some parts of it will do one task while other segments have different roles.
  
  While she's adept at presenting what science has found in Nature, she skips entirely the process of how things are revealed. Although she wants her readers to understand why science is important and hopes to see more young people enter the various fields, nowhere does she suggest the amount of dedicated work involved. Geologists, she notes, are the most interdisciplinary, enjoying perilous climbs and pottering about in labs doing analytical chemical or radiometric work. Yet, how much work it takes to understand what the results mean remains obscured. Fossils are explained, but palaeontology as a discipline is not. Instead we are deluged with references to candy, cartoon characters and sitcoms. Even those are limited to US sources, leaving the book an empty promise to those outside that nation.
  
  The book contains not a single illustration, whether of examples of scale, cell structure or geophysical diagram. It might be said that some topics might be more amenable to diagram than others, but that hardly justifies the exclusion of all. The entire book is words, a good many of them made up or transferred bodily and only mildly appropriately, from other places. It also avoids any reference to the cognitive sciences and evolutionary psychology. She was wise in that omission - a good many harsh comments from the past would return to haunt her. That science, however, has as many implications for society as does the making of new proteins or how far we can see into the cosmos. Although a good book promoting recognition of science's value is needed, particularly in the US, this one hasn't quite done the job. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]
  
  
• Good but frustrating
  By AXJS5OJ63643F on 2007-07-13
  As a non-scientist who loves science, I was very excited to find out about this book. In terms of content, it lives up to my expectations. Very informative, interesting, and well-chosen topics.
  
  Unfortunately, however, the prose is almost unreadable. Angier seems to be spewing out every "creative writing" effort she can muster. Are the editors at the NY Times that hard on her that she must vent it all out here? A few witty remarks or clever analogies are great. But I don't need 'em in every sentence. Sadly, this made the book much less enjoyable, rather than more.
  
  
• Great book idea, but too many errors.
  By A2SYMCC1A6GQ4X on 2007-10-09
  A great outline: an Introduction showing science can be comprehended and can be fun; a chapter on what science is; another on probabilities in ordinary life and statistics with no math; another on the very large and very small with the reader introduced to decimal notation or exponents; then separate chapters on the hard sciences: Physics, Chemistry, Biology (2), Geology and Astronomy. Good index, many citations, but not numbered in the text. I prefer the style of Isaac Asimov, but the chocolate mousse with whipped cream and stevia style of Angier may capture and hold attention. The writing, by writer's standards, gets 5 stars.
  
  The total lack of math, even the simplest of equations, any chemical structures (even water), any graphs, any tables, any photos, or any spectra was carried to an extreme. At least having some appendices with simple examples could carry along anyone who developed interest in some aspect of science.
  
  In the chapter "Thinking Scientifically" many aspects were well done. Science was said to be a mode of thought used to answer questions, not a dogmatic body of data. The necessity of having hard evidence, not opinion, is there. The careful reporting of factual evidence as opposed to the looser interpretation of it, both in a journal paper, was there. The violent verbal criticism scientists of any originality must endure is there. But one of the greatest habits of scholars in any field was missing: numbered citations relating any previously known fact to a specific publication; these are conspicuous by their absence in this book, which should have set an example. Also missing (and I apologize in advance if I missed this or others) is the value of peer review, which always improved my chemistry and medical papers, but has its corruption. But peer review is supposed to distinguish a journal from a magazine. Also missing was the importance of results being duplicated by a remote researcher. Also missing was a clean distinction between science and technology, so frequently confused by reporters, since gadgets are photogenic, and ideas are not. So "Scientific Literacy and the Myth of the Scientific Method" (1992) and other books by Henry H. Bauer are better in content if not in their lack of floral essence in style.
  
  As Natalie Angier points out several times, an early input to a young mind can be very hard to overcome. I had direct experience with this in years of teaching General Chemistry at the University of the Sciences in Philadelphia. Most students took Chemistry in High School. Some had been taught nonfacts so strongly that the students were stressed by having to unlearn before relearning that some High School teachers did not know the difference between an ionic (has charges plus and minus) or covalent structure, even for simple compounds such as salt. Because of this, it is extremely important that a book such as The Canon be accurate, and it was not.
  
  For example, on p141, evaporating Dry Ice is said to emit smoke. Smoke is a fine dust in a gas. The same mistake is repeated endlessly on TV when smoke or pollution is mentioned when a cooling tower is shown forming mist from water vapor, same as the Dry Ice does. On p140, butter is said to consist of 80% fat and 20 % protein, sugars, etc. My figures from General Foods say butter is 76% fat and 24% water. On p126, "...determining whether the carbohydrate is complex and nutritious or sugary and suspicious" follows a common dogma. The facts are that the simplest of sugars provide 3.7 kcal/gram, table sugar (sucrose) 3.9, and typical starches 4.2. More important, the common starches raise blood sugar (glucose, to which they are converted fast) even faster than some sugars. This is a very serious error with practical implications for dieters best explained in "The Modern Nutritional Diseases", 2001, by Alice & Fred Ottoboni. A more complete list of errors, about 30, will be put into the Comment below, or e-mailed on request from kauffman@bee.net. But after reading the introductory chapters and the Chemistry chapter, I would not take a chance on Physics, Biology (2), Geology and Astronomy, in which someone more knowledgeable than I would probably find many more errors.
  
  These are the reasons for a 2-star rating. With its errors and omissions corrected, a sudden second edition of The Canon would be very welcome.
  
  
• Fruitful Marriage of Science and Literature
  By A281VGQ19P6530 on 2007-06-05
  An eminently readable tour through the major scientific disciplines. The author has somehow managed to convey sometimes difficult and complex topics in a coherent and enjoyable fashion - and it is through the interest sparked by the pleasure of reading that much of this seemingly daunting material seems very approachable and even fun. Although good writing and good science rarely go hand in hand, Ms. Angier has somehow found the `key' to applying a literate style that is nonetheless engaging. Ideas are simply but not simplistically represented. Natalie Angier has indeed succeeded in smashing the imaginary "wall" between science and literature - proving that a well-crafted document can function as both; simultaneously, and equally.
  
  
• It's the smugness what got me
  By A2YBVNMZMQ1HFV on 2007-11-26
  The wordiness of The Canon is just as the other one star reviewers say. At times it is embarrassing. But it was the smugness that got me. This is really to the fore in the audio version which is read by a woman with a voice shrill enough to make your bones ache. Yet, she the fits Angier's writing perfectly; one gets the impression throughout that Angier is just dying to write, "I'm clever and know stuff, and you don't."
  
  But we are warned. The book is called "The Canon" for a reason. I get the impression that Angier truly believes that what she has put down in her tedious book is what all right thinking people should believe. And just to ram the point home she makes snide comments about the Bush Administration and Creationists and -- by extension -- all of us who don't buy into the whole "science is the way, the truth and the light" thing.
  
  As a result the opening sections on scientific methodology and probability theory are critical to what Ms. Angier seems to be trying to achieve. And boy are those sections l-o-n-g. They also have a sort of frantic air about them as Ms. Angier dances back and forwards trying to explain why scientists are so often wrong, but why we should believe everything that the latest scientific consensus says anyway.
  
  Although the title is accurate in the sense outlined above, a better title would surely be "The Politically Correct Guide to Science." For example,if this was the only book that one had ever read on science, one might be forgiven for believing that almost all American scientists were women, since that is mostly who Angier interviews.
  
  In the past few years there seems to have been an extreme outburst of insecurity among parts of the scientific community. We are told that if we do not do/think as we commanded by the scientific elites on matters of public policy, philosophy and religion, the world will come crashing down on us. None of the advocates of this point of view have ever said what makes them expert on anything outside their field of science. This should make us all very comfortable in rejecting what we hear from scientists, whether it is their adolescent atheism or the perverse ludditism that many of them see as the only reasonable response to global warming. (Or is it Global Warming these days.)
  
  But if scientists are really worried about the state of the world, The Canon is there to give them some comfort. No doubt people of a certain kind will lap it all up as if. . . well as if it was really canon law.
  
  
  
  
• Please, Natalie, no more jokes!
  By A3AD56G64F653P on 2007-12-26
  Basically coherent and fairly readable book about science for non-scientists like me. But Angier tells the corniest jokes on almost every page of this book. Very distracting. I laughed three times and groaned repeatedly. The woman who read this book on audio cd seemed to relish the corniness of the whole thing, doubling my agony. A good friend of Angier needs to tell her she just isn't funny.
  
  
• Avoid this. It's horribly overwritten and bloated.
  By A3J8RGL8MN5V32 on 2008-01-08
  Big fan of her science clips in popular mags but there she is likely confined to a word quota. This is too bloated with personal information (I didnt buy the book to hear her life story), badly overwritten sound bites and its even annoyingly subtly politicized in many spots. Not a very scientific book and not the delightful writing Im accustomed to from her. A big loser. I wish I could get a refund.
  
  

• Woman: An Intimate Geography
• God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything
• Plato and a Platypus Walk into a Bar . . .: Understanding Philosophy Through Jokes
• What Is Your Dangerous Idea?: Today's Leading Thinkers on the Unthinkable
• Evolution for Everyone: How Darwin's Theory Can Change the Way We Think About Our Lives