How to Speak Science: Gravity, relativity and other ideas that were crazy until proven brilliant

by Bruce Benamran

What is static electricity? How do magnets work? Is light made of waves or particles? What, really, is the theory of relativity all about? And who were all those great scientists from Ptolemy, Archimedes, and Copernicus to Descartes, Hume, and Newton, and many, many more? Why do we still hear their names today?

In Stop and Think, scientist and YouTube personality Bruce Benamran reminds us that, in this age of smartphones, artificial intelligence, supercolliders, supercomputers, and other cutting-edge technology, we ve lost touch with many of the most basic science concepts on which our information age is based. And in simple, math-free explanations and just-the-good-parts historical recaps, he shows us that the landmark science and history s greatest scientists and discoveries don t have to remain beyond our grasp."

Genres: Science, History, Nonfiction, Audiobook, Technology, Popular Science, Physics

337 pages, Kindle Edition

Published September 6, 2018

Reviews

[Brian Clegg · Rating 3 out of 5]

I can't remember a book where my mental picture of what the star rating would be has varied so much. At first glance, it looked like a solid 4 star title. It looks fun (despite the odd title - it sounds like it's a book on public speaking for geeks) and a flick through showed that it covers a huge amount of science topics, mostly physics - so it was promising as a beginner's overview. There is one small issue to be got out of the way on the coverage side. There's a whole lot of physics, with a gaping hole that is quantum theory. More on that later.

After reading a few pages, I had to downgrade that score to 3 stars because of the writing style. It oozes smugness. All became clear when I read the words 'For those of you who aren't familiar with my YouTube channel.' How to Speak Science reads like a transcript of a YouTube rant. The reason I love reading books and can hardly ever be bothered to watch videos is to get away from this kind of thing. However, I accept there is a whole generation for whom videos are more accessible than books - maybe it will appeal to them. But I suspect even YouTube fans might tire of the repeated use of 'people - the species not the magazine.' (There's a magazine?)

A good example of the feel is Bruce Benamran's treatment of Aristotle. We've all done a little Aristotle bashing in our time. It's hard not to when, for example, he decided women had fewer teeth than men without ever checking. But to repeatedly go on about it in an over-the-top fashion misses both that Aristotle was not a scientist, he was a philosopher, and that sometimes he did get things right - particularly in natural history, but he even prefigured Newton's first law of motion (admittedly to disprove the existence of the void).

So, when Benamran starts off by saying 'On one side we had Aristotelians; on the other side we had ... intelligent people,' and spends several pages knocking Aristotle it feels more like bluster than information. It doesn't help that the initial comment was about Aristotle's approach to matter when compared to the atomists. Yet at the time, Aristotle's model was arguably the more scientific - you could make predictions from it. The atomists' ideas were very different from modern atomic theory and fairly useless as science.

Still, I was prepared to accept a style that wasn't for me if the content was good. Unfortunately, in the first section this too has some real problems that dragged that mental indicator down to 2 stars or lower. The first part of the book is almost entirely history of science - and there are a considerable number of errors. Every writer makes a few mistakes. And I don't really worry if a book, say, gives Giordarno Bruno more credit than he deserves. (Interestingly, Benamran, who is clearly a Bruno fanboy, fails to list all Bruno's wildly unscientific concepts, a very different treatment to that he gives to Aristotle.) But some of the mistakes were way off the mark. To list a few:

* We are told that after the loss of the library at Alexandria ‘the Western world lost all trace of the great thinkers of ancient times until rediscovering them in 1453.’ So when, for example, Roger Bacon made hundreds of references to Aristotle and other ancient Greeks' work in his Opus Majus from 1267, he was just making it up?
* The 'plums' in the plum pudding model, we are told, were prunes. No - a plum pudding is a Christmas pudding, so we're talking sultanas and raisins.
* We are told that until the Renaissance pretty much no one wondered why they couldn’t see at night, given the prevailing idea that light was emitted by the eyes. Obviously, even when this idea was dominant they did wonder and came up with explanations - and theories of light were already far more sophisticated than ancient Greek ideas by the 1200s.
* We are told of second century Greek astronomer Ptolemy ‘to whom we owe the geocentric model’ - really?
* Apparently 'Galileo was definitely the first person to use a telescope to look at the sky and make scientific observations.' Unfortunately, Thomas Harriot made astronomical observations several months earlier, and it's entirely likely some of the other early telescope makers also beat Galileo to it.

I'm sure there was no intention to mislead, but this section needs an overhaul. Thankfully, after the first 40 or 50 pages, the content settles down to have a lot more science and a lot less history, and there Benamran does better, bringing us back up to 3 stars. He covers a huge amount of material, often in an accessible fashion. The main criticism I'd have here is that he sometimes takes the formal approach you'd get in a physics lecture, rather than moving away from the way it was first presented to give a clearer picture - this is very obvious, for example, in his rather opaque exploration of special relativity.

Much of the rest of the book is accurate, though there is still a slight sloppiness to the content. We're told, for example, that 'Venus is the second brightest celestial body in the sky, after the sun and moon.' Doesn't that make it the third? We're told Clyde Tombaugh named his discovery Pluto, when, much more interestingly, it was named by eleven-year-old Venetia Burney. And Irish readers might be mildly horrified to be told that George FitzGerald attended Trinity College, Cambridge as opposed to his alma mater of Trinity College, Dublin.

Again, this is mostly history of science, though the biggest slip-up in later parts comes in a piece of physics: the photoelectric effect. The description simply doesn't make sense. What worries me is this book is labelled an 'International Bestseller'. I find it hard to believe that hundreds of thousands of people have read this incomprehensible text without being confused by it and asking for it to be corrected. The interesting bit of the photoelectric effect is that it's the frequency of the light that determines whether electricity is produced, not its intensity. So it's baffling to read: 'The effect occurred only above a certain intensity of light and not at all below that level.' The whole point is it's frequency, not intensity that matters. And later we get 'a low intensity light wave above a certain frequency did produce light.' That would be did produce electricity.

One last moan. Apart from a single chapter on life, almost all of this book is physics - yet as we've seen, there's hardly any quantum mechanics. We get a teaser for it. Benamran writes 'Some folks are probably surprised that I haven't yet discussed the Bohr model [of the atom]... please bolster your patience and we'll return to the subject when we talk about quantum mechanics.' It's puzzling, then to get to the last page without this happening. It's only here we discover that actually we'll have to wait for the next book to get onto quantum mechanics. I do not want cliff hangers in a popular science book. It's as if I flagged up this bit of the review at the top (as I did) and then right at the end said you'd find it in another review. It would have been far better to have left biology to another book and replaced the chapter on life with one on quantum physics.

So, my natural inclination because of the errors and style is to condemn the book - yet the fact remains, it's the kind of book that hopefully will get some people who wouldn't otherwise be interested in science. So I can't say 'Avoid it.' I hope it will inspire lots of people to read wider in the subject. It's a bit like most science on TV these days. I can't be enthusiastic about it, because it trivialises and over-simplifies. But if it gets some people interested enough to delve further, it's doing a useful job.

[Giselle · Rating 2 out of 5]

DNF'd 15% I couldn't stand another minute of jokes about "People" magazine. There were 4 in the first 15% of the book. Along with a lot of other terrible jokes. I don't feel like I was learning anything new from this book. Not because there wasn't new to me information but because all of the jokes, especially the repetitive ones, were just jerking me out of the narrative. I was really struggling looking past them to the information that was trying to come across. It's not that "serious" and "scientific" books can't be funny! They totally can but the funniness has to natural and not just shoehorned in wherever they sort of fit. It's so distracting! This author could really learn something by reading Caitlin Doughty or Lynne Murphy who both manage to be funny in a way that ads something to the subject that they're writing about.

[Randal White · Rating 4 out of 5]

The best way to describe this book is to declare it as fun. The author makes the subject enjoyable and easy to read and digest. This would be an excellent book to engage students into the study of science.

[Ernesto Lopez · Rating 4 out of 5]

Muy muy muy entretenido, y divertido.

Es una breve y agradable historia de la ciencia a través de los años donde toca biografías de grandes mentes, sus inventos y algunas historias curiosas alrededor de descubrimientos que cambiaron la forma de ver la ciencia. Lo único que no me encantó fue que a veces sentía que el autor quedaba muy por encima de los temas y forzaba algunas bromas de más, pero no llegó a ser molesto.

Recomendado si quieres leer algo entretenido y recordar tus clases de física, química e historia.

[Ary · Rating 1 out of 5]

Is it possible for an author to be both infuriatingly glib and frustratingly pedantic simultaneously? Apparently so, provided the right frame of reference! Without a doubt, ”How to Speak Science…” is of the worst books I have read in the last five years.

Based on the title, I hoped for a book about how to communicate science humorously and effectively. I was quickly disabused of that notion! But this book isn’t even a tour of the big ideas of science. Benamran pays lip service to the notion that no branch of science is “above” any other, but it’s clear that physics is his primary interest. The book is basically a whirlwind history of physics without quantum, plus the periodic table, with a creamy dollop of pop neuroscience in the middle.

I understand that the author has a successful series of YouTube videos in English and his native French. I imagine he is trying to capture the irreverent tone of a YouTube clip in writing. It does not work. In fact, it is insufferable.

As other readers have pointed out, the running gag about “people (the species, not the magazine)” is tired the first time it’s used, and it gets repeated over, and over, and over, and over again, with no payoff. Other attempts at humor are dated, like the multiple invocations of “it’s a science macarena,” or frustrating, like the bewildering array of US presidents involved in explaining general relativity (seriously! You only need two observers in different reference frames to illustrate the relativity of simultaneity and the distortion of spacetime as you approach the speed of light; you do not need to involve at least 8—I stopped counting—former presidents in the thought experiment).

Now, I’m no physicist, so I can’t really say if Benamran’s descriptions of, say, classical mechanics, are oversimplified to the point of inaccuracy. Certainly, they resonate with my vague memories of college coursework. I am, however, a molecular biologist, and I can say unequivocally that some of Benamran’s explanations of biology are comically bad, and his choice of subjects puzzling for a book ostensibly about “big ideas.”

For example, in describing the cold-sensing calcium channel TRPM8, Benamran says it is activated by “binding calcium”; in fact, TRPM8 allows calcium to flow across the cell membrane, depolarizing the cell. Also, menthol does not “activate calcium ions,” whatever the hell that means; it binds to TRPM8 and opens the channel, allowing for calcium flux through TRPM8 the same way low temperature does.

In the chapters that deal with ”life”, shoehorned inexplicably between angular momentum and thermodynamics, I would hardly say he engages with any “ideas that were crazy until proven brilliant.” Where is the discussion of Darwin’s big idea, common descent with modification and natural selection? That’s arguably the biggest and craziest idea of the last 3 millenia. Or Mendel’s peas and the concept of the gene? Or the Central Dogma and information flow in living systems? The germ theory of disease? Now those were some crazy ideas… at first…

Instead, we get chapters on metabolism, popular misconceptions about cognitive capacity, and mirror neurons, among other miscellany. (I’ve personally never understood the breathless fascination with mirror neurons; we know that humans experience empathy, and unless you are a cartesian dualist, any mental state must have a physical basis, so it should come as no surprise that we have a neural system for empathy.) Much of what is discussed is certainly interesting, but if it’s supposed to give the casual reader a flavor of the big ideas in the life sciences, it fails miserably. He also largely discards the habit of naming the scientists involved in making the discoveries he writes about, after spending most of the book scrupulously crediting a bevy of physicists, chemists, and mathematicians.

If you need a refresher on very general physics and astronomy, and hate good writing, consider reading this book. Otherwise, read literally anything else.

[Yzabel Ginsberg · Rating 3 out of 5]

Definitely interesting, although the abysmal attempts at humour were terribly distracting, because they weren't funny at all. My Kindle counted 15 occurrences of the "People magazine" joke (which I'm calling joke for want of another word), but they felt like 50. And I kept waiting for a punchline that just never came, which made me wonder: 1) where did that 'joke' even come from, what prompted it? And 2) considering this book was originally published in French, was that even included in it, since it makes even less sense whatsoever in French?

To be honest, it's my interest for hard science that kept me reading, certainly not the tone.

[Kathy · Rating 2 out of 5]

2.5 Stars. There's a lot of material covered in this book so it's probably best consumed in small bits the better to absorb it all. Unfortunately, for me, the "cutesy" jokes were too much of a distraction so I kept putting it down then had to finish it in one big read before it was due back to the library. While I appreciate the author's attempt to give some basic, yet complicated, science info in an entertaining fashion, it may just be that I'm not that much into "hard" science so this wasn't compelling reading for me.

[Michelle Mallette · Rating 4 out of 5]

See my full review at https://mmbookshelf.wordpress.com/201...
About once or twice a year I find myself poking through a book to try and fill some of the many gaps in my knowledge of science, and this one caught my eye with an appealing cover and great subtitle: “Gravity, Relativity, and Other Ideas that Were Crazy Until Proven Brilliant.” The book’s intent is to help you understand science by understanding a bit of the history of great ideas, both right and wrong, that have propelled scientists seeking to find answers to questions, from the time of Aristotle to current day. Originally written in French, it's brilliantly translated by Stephanie Delozier Strobel. Nine sections cover topics from matter to the solar system, with the final sections on Special Relativity and General Relativity. My favourite section is the one on light – not only did I learn why the sky is blue, but also how eyes work, and a lovely discussion on the mind-bending idea that at the atomic level, two different atoms must repel each other (Coulomb’s law) so contact between your body and the floor isn’t possible. Occasionally challenging, it's generally an accessible and fun book that will up the cocktail party game for any Arts major. Lots of appeal for young would-be scientists too. My thanks to The Experiment Publishing for the advance reading copy provided digitally through NetGalley in exchange for my honest review.

[Elentarri · Rating 2 out of 5]

Benamran has written a book that broadly (extremely broadly) covers most of the important discoveries in science, in what is supposed to be a fun and entertaining manner. Personally, the attempts at humour didn't really appeal to me. Each chapter is a mish-mash of history and science, with some chapters being more historical or biographical and others being more science-y. The chapters each deal with a particular topic and are incredibly brief, and by default, simplistic and shallow in terms of covering that particular topic. I am, however, unsure how much of these simplified explanations make sense to anyone not at least vaguely familiar with the concepts. This is an easy to read, introductory book to the subject that might appeal to teenagers that know nothing about science.

[Steve · Rating 5 out of 5]

Terrific look at science, with lots of humor

I loved this book. Bruce Benamran uses his great sense of humor (including sarcasm and puns) to explain physics and some biology. Even many of the footnotes are funny. On the way, he also covers the history of science quite well. Benamran uses a very conversational tone and explains everything clearly, until relativity where his explanations became more complex. I must congratulate Stephanie Delozier Strobel for a great translation. I strongly recommend this book.
Disclosure: I received a complimentary copy of this book via Netgalley for review purposes.

[Binal Bruno · Rating 3 out of 5]

Bruce Benamran explains a lot of things in layman terms. But there are lots of problems with this book.
1. Nothing is in standard units. In a science book it should give the values in SI units. atleast in the footnotes. No matter which demographic it is meant for.
2. Errors
3. No quantum mechanics
4. The first 20% of the book is great. But the last parts seems just desperate to finish it off.
5. Misguiding title. Should remove 'How to speak science' part

[Sanaa · Rating 3 out of 5]

كتاب يعرض بعض المواضيع العلمية بشكل مبسط لغير المتخصصين والتي تشمل المادة- الضوء-الكهرومغناطيسية -النظام الشمسي-الميكانيكا الكلاسيكية -
الحياة البيولوجية-الديناميكا الحرارية-النسبية الخاصة والعام

ورغم أن المواضيع شيقة والكاتب متمكن جدا من مواضيعه لكن أسلوبه-اذا قدرت ان تتخطى نكاته السامجة-ولأنه بالاصل يوتيوبر فالكتاب كأنه نص لفيديو لليوتيوب
وانا أعي ان الكتاب موجه للمبتدئين لكن هذا الاسلوب ادى لتسطيح المعلومات لا تبسيطها

[Ron Joniak · Rating 4 out of 5]

A walk through the history of physics (and some chemistry + biology sprinkled in for fun) with a twist of comedy throughout the book. This was an excellent book to read through due to the mix of comedic relief and scientific interest. The sections are rather short which makes it very easy to read 'on-the-go'.

[Siddhesh Zantye · Rating 3 out of 5]

A pretty fun and interesting read. I think this book would be best for someone new to physics its very oversimplified and general. It was very broad and went over many things pretty ok. It also barely contained any math or equations (which I would have loved) but I think it fits for this book, as it seems to be aimed more for beginners. This book also doesn't cover many topics outside Physics, so maybe "How to speak Physics" would have been a more appropriate title.

I did find the humor in this book very unfunny at times. Especially the extremely repetitive People's magazine one, like it was NOT funny the first time why did the author feel the need to repeat it like 10 times? I also found the Life and special relativity chapters pretty hard to follow. I guess I would best describe a lot of the humor as obnoxious and distracting.

[Paul · Rating 4 out of 5]

I liked this book as a good, post high school/college review of key science topics. Been a while since I've thought about heat, temperature, the planets, light, etc, thus good to refresh my knowledge. Possibly a book I should re-read every couple years.

[Libby · Rating 5 out of 5]

very funny, though it was a little disappointing that the author never mentioned People (the magazine) just to pull the reader's leg one last time; it made the running gag a bit more annoying but otherwise... this was a fun one

[Andrew Alkema · Rating 3 out of 5]

I learned a lot reading this, but it had a strange tone. I was really hoping the "People" joke would pay off with a "People - the magazine, not the species", but it did not.

[Andrea Klear · Rating 5 out of 5]

Breaks down science into categories such as solar system, light, matter, spatial relativity and then subtopics from there. Easy enough that a middle schooler could read it

[Armin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Content was excellent and well-presented. But I could have dinner without the attempts at humor (most of which were only attempts, having fallen completely flat).

[Josiah Lybbert · Rating 4 out of 5]

I don’t know how many books I’ll have to read before I understand general relativity, but this book was good.

[PacMan · Rating 3 out of 5]

The relativity sections were touch and go, but otherwise a good retelling of the history.

[Michael Knolla · Rating 4 out of 5]

Upfront acknowledgment I took this book’s title at its word and started it in a direct attempt to find ways to better communicate scientific concepts to others (a skill whose value is only increasing). This is NOT the book for that.

Rather it serves best as a general history of science with an emphasis on how what are now considered distinct subject areas are interconnected. In this it is a very enjoyable work.

[Aleksej · Rating 4 out of 5]

The book makes you feel smart, and may actually make you smarter.
Even though author's humor sense is fine on the videos he makes, sometimes I wanted it would not have been in the book.

[Janice Lombardo · Rating 4 out of 5]

Hmmmm… Lots of information here. As a post graduate student I could have used this as background material.'
Additionally,this is super for lesson supplements. My students (at all levels) would have benefitted from this wealth of information. As a sit down and read? Fine, in smaller doses. All in all, good book for teaching for both science and non-science educators !


Many Thanks to the publisher,The Experiment, and Netgalley for an interesting and informative source book.

[Jo-anne Atkinson · Rating 3 out of 5]

A whistle stop tour through the word of Science, Benraman's book packs a lot of science into one volume. The learning is great and the knowledge shown fantastic but the tone... Written in a voice I can only describe as more 'Bill and Ted' than Hawking, this is so irritating (dude). I really liked the accessible approach to complex science (rad) but that is where is stops (bummer)!