I assume your title is deliberately puckish, trying to draw in readers and commenters. However, I have to disagree. Besides the several really great science writers you mention in your essay as exceptions, there are so SO many excellent ones out there!
* Medicine: Atul Gawande, Siddhartha Mukherjee, Oliver Sacks, and so many others have been able to bring a literary aesthetic and philosophical musings to both the art of medicine and the science of cell biology
* Psychology: The Body Keeps the Score by Bessel van der Kolk is *THE* authority on the neurobiology of trauma and therapeutic approaches to it. It is solidly grounded in research, but lyrical and moving as well
* Economics: "Thinking Fast, and Slow" by Daniel Kahneman is the bible of behavioral economics and applied statistics, and genuinely a page turner. I think about it often
* Physics: Brian Greene is able to write about quantum physics as an actual expert without bullshitting (like some of his astrophysics colleagues, cough, cough) and he's able to make it understandable and INTERESTING to non-physicists through excellent metaphors and yes, witty jokes
* Statistics: Nate Silver may be a polarizing figure for his Twitter presence and checkered prediction record, but his book "The Signal and The Noise" is a surprisingly digestible and entertaining look at statistics using examples from poker, gambling, to power laws in terrorism and natural disasters
* Multi-genre: Mary Roach is a terrific science writer who can make even the story of dead bodies ("stiff") interesting!
I could go on and on and think of more examples, but I think I've proved my point. You might quibble with some of these authors, but I found them enjoyable reads that left me knowing more than I did before. As with most things, I think science writing is very much a "your mileage may vary" thing that comes down to individual taste preferences. And as always, there's no shortage of bad writers! But this applies just as easily to fiction, biographies, and history as it does to science writing. Frankly, given the much smaller pool of titles, I'd say the genre punches above its weight in quality
All great counterexamples! I think Erik would argue (and we would agree to some extent) that the gems are hidden by the mountains of books that are "15 pages of well-worn restatement of old ideas followed by 185 pages of anecdotes, each progressively less relevant. It’s hard to get past page 30!" like Wael commented above.
What is a good or bad book is sometimes subjective. But I'd be careful. Julian Jaynes book, according to scientific research, has stood the test of time. It's more well supported now than when it was published. The Julian Jaynes Society has collected that evidence for anyone to examine. It's a growing field of scholarship.
Hi Erik, great post and very timely for me as I’m also in the process of writing an engaging, lively popular science book about advances in ageing and longevity.
Over the past couple of years I’ve read over 20 books in this field ostensibly aimed at the lay public. They divide roughly:
- 50% by scientists, some leading professors. These are usually very uneven in tone, mixing highly technical material and ‘populist’ anecdotes and you can almost read the publisher’s blandishments and editorial input between each paragraph.
Some of them, especially from the US, are unashamedly advocating the professor’s own pet theories and innovations.
Some of them are ghosted or coauthored with journalists and writers, with mixed results.
- 20% by doctors/clinical experts - these are often couched in emotive anecdotes about their own and patients medical histories, and how the profession is struggling with a tsunami of chronic illnesses, etc.
- 20% by journalists or professional authors- tend to be easier and more interesting to read though can be bland and superficial
- 10% by longevity advocates or eccentric loners - definitely not bland or superficial but possibly crazy
When my book comes out you can judge which category it falls into. Hint, I’m a dilettante so maybe there’s hope!
It takes guts to criticize yourself, sacred cows, and even the people you’re ostensibly praising, all in the same piece.
I like “Sapiens” a lot, and as much as I’m always proselytizing on behalf of the scientific method, if a bunch of peers came along and reviewed that book and said he was all wet, it would be a struggle for me to accept their criticism.
Pop sci isn't written for you the scientist. It's written for people like me with pretensions that we are smart enough to understand. I believe that most papers are garbage and the only reason they're not retracted is that nobody could be bothered to contest them.
If your book's as thought-provoking as this, it might not suck!
I'm not sure I'll be smart enough to understand, though. Is this a not-too-wrong understanding of what you wrote:
Pop-sci often sucks because the scientists who write these books are mostly rehashing what's already known or extending one little extension of knowledge across a whole book.
Un-sucky pop-sci often comes from quacky amateurs who concoct theories that are well outside the realm of what scientists are looking at. These theories are often wrong, but they can still be interesting.
I assume your title is deliberately puckish, trying to draw in readers and commenters. However, I have to disagree. Besides the several really great science writers you mention in your essay as exceptions, there are so SO many excellent ones out there!
* Medicine: Atul Gawande, Siddhartha Mukherjee, Oliver Sacks, and so many others have been able to bring a literary aesthetic and philosophical musings to both the art of medicine and the science of cell biology
* Psychology: The Body Keeps the Score by Bessel van der Kolk is *THE* authority on the neurobiology of trauma and therapeutic approaches to it. It is solidly grounded in research, but lyrical and moving as well
* Economics: "Thinking Fast, and Slow" by Daniel Kahneman is the bible of behavioral economics and applied statistics, and genuinely a page turner. I think about it often
* Physics: Brian Greene is able to write about quantum physics as an actual expert without bullshitting (like some of his astrophysics colleagues, cough, cough) and he's able to make it understandable and INTERESTING to non-physicists through excellent metaphors and yes, witty jokes
* Statistics: Nate Silver may be a polarizing figure for his Twitter presence and checkered prediction record, but his book "The Signal and The Noise" is a surprisingly digestible and entertaining look at statistics using examples from poker, gambling, to power laws in terrorism and natural disasters
* Multi-genre: Mary Roach is a terrific science writer who can make even the story of dead bodies ("stiff") interesting!
I could go on and on and think of more examples, but I think I've proved my point. You might quibble with some of these authors, but I found them enjoyable reads that left me knowing more than I did before. As with most things, I think science writing is very much a "your mileage may vary" thing that comes down to individual taste preferences. And as always, there's no shortage of bad writers! But this applies just as easily to fiction, biographies, and history as it does to science writing. Frankly, given the much smaller pool of titles, I'd say the genre punches above its weight in quality
All great counterexamples! I think Erik would argue (and we would agree to some extent) that the gems are hidden by the mountains of books that are "15 pages of well-worn restatement of old ideas followed by 185 pages of anecdotes, each progressively less relevant. It’s hard to get past page 30!" like Wael commented above.
If readers are curious whether Erik Hoel's book escaped the traps of popular science writing, check out my review: https://stetson.substack.com/p/intrinsic-primacy-consciousness-the
What is a good or bad book is sometimes subjective. But I'd be careful. Julian Jaynes book, according to scientific research, has stood the test of time. It's more well supported now than when it was published. The Julian Jaynes Society has collected that evidence for anyone to examine. It's a growing field of scholarship.
https://www.julianjaynes.org/about/about-jaynes-theory/summary-of-evidence/
https://www.julianjaynes.org/resources/supporting-evidence/
https://www.julianjaynes.org/about/about-jaynes-theory/critiques-and-responses/
Hi Erik, great post and very timely for me as I’m also in the process of writing an engaging, lively popular science book about advances in ageing and longevity.
Over the past couple of years I’ve read over 20 books in this field ostensibly aimed at the lay public. They divide roughly:
- 50% by scientists, some leading professors. These are usually very uneven in tone, mixing highly technical material and ‘populist’ anecdotes and you can almost read the publisher’s blandishments and editorial input between each paragraph.
Some of them, especially from the US, are unashamedly advocating the professor’s own pet theories and innovations.
Some of them are ghosted or coauthored with journalists and writers, with mixed results.
- 20% by doctors/clinical experts - these are often couched in emotive anecdotes about their own and patients medical histories, and how the profession is struggling with a tsunami of chronic illnesses, etc.
- 20% by journalists or professional authors- tend to be easier and more interesting to read though can be bland and superficial
- 10% by longevity advocates or eccentric loners - definitely not bland or superficial but possibly crazy
When my book comes out you can judge which category it falls into. Hint, I’m a dilettante so maybe there’s hope!
It takes guts to criticize yourself, sacred cows, and even the people you’re ostensibly praising, all in the same piece.
I like “Sapiens” a lot, and as much as I’m always proselytizing on behalf of the scientific method, if a bunch of peers came along and reviewed that book and said he was all wet, it would be a struggle for me to accept their criticism.
I’m hoping that doesn’t happen!
Great piece. Definitely had stuff like range, atomic habits, and even freakonomics coming to mind while reading.
Pop sci isn't written for you the scientist. It's written for people like me with pretensions that we are smart enough to understand. I believe that most papers are garbage and the only reason they're not retracted is that nobody could be bothered to contest them.
If your book's as thought-provoking as this, it might not suck!
I'm not sure I'll be smart enough to understand, though. Is this a not-too-wrong understanding of what you wrote:
Pop-sci often sucks because the scientists who write these books are mostly rehashing what's already known or extending one little extension of knowledge across a whole book.
Un-sucky pop-sci often comes from quacky amateurs who concoct theories that are well outside the realm of what scientists are looking at. These theories are often wrong, but they can still be interesting.