Science and Inquiry discussion

Please post a comment below to nominate a book for the group to read for September 2017.

Please use the "add book/author" link just above the comment box to insert a link to the Goodreads book page for the book you are nominating, so other members can more easily assess it.

You may nominate a book which has been suggested previously and did not win. You may nominate more than one book, but we might not include all of your nominations in the voting.

Please do not nominate a book which is unlikely to be available to all members, such as one which was just published within the last three months or which is only available on Kindle.

Nominations will close on July 20 or when we have about 10 good nominations, whichever occurs first.

Are We Smart Enough to Know How Smart Animals Are?

Undeniable: Evolution and the Science of Creation by Bill Nye

Diabetes: The Biography

The Making of the Atomic Bomb by Richard Rhodes

Are We Smart Enough to Know How Smart Animals Are?

Nazima wrote: "Diabetes: The Biography"

It appears that this book is not widely available. It's available in hardback (a few) and e-book from Amazon and Barnes & Noble, but not paperback and not audiobook. This likely means it's not available in stores. It's also not available in my well-stocked library.

Therese wrote: "Are We Smart Enough to Know How Smart Animals Are?"

This was already nominated this month (see msg. 2). Nominating it again does not increase it's chance of being chosen. Would you like to nominate something else?

Betsy wrote: "It appears that this book is not widely available...."

Do we have a criteria for what is considered a "widely available" book? I find that each month, there are usually several really obscure or newly released books that are either hard-to-find, or are so obscure, there isn't much information about them out there.

I don't know if this is the right place for this, but can I propose that we try to keep nominations to books with a certain minimum number of ratings/reviews here on Goodreads? I usually find that books with fewer than, oh, 1,000 ratings or so tend to be obscure enough that my library won't have them, and you can't really trust the rating they get.

I'm not saying that this has to be a strictly enforced rule, but maybe a guideline that people should keep in mind when nominating books.

Thanks, Joel. That might be a useful guideline, but it should be just that, not a rule. I haven't in the past checked number of ratings/reviews. I usually check how many different editions are listed on Goodreads. Then I check Amazon and Barnes & Noble online (U.S.) to see whether they have it in all editions. I figure if they don't offer it in paperback, it's probably unlikely to be available in brick and mortar bookstores. Then I check my public library, which is large and very well stocked. If they don't have it, most U.S. libraries probably don't. It's not a perfect system, but it's the only system I could think of.

Betsy wrote: "Thanks, Joel. That might be a useful guideline, but it should be just that, not a rule. I haven't in the past checked number of ratings/reviews. I usually check how many different editions are list..."

Sounds like a really comprehensive system. My system of checking number of ratings is much cruder, but works for me.

It's not always true that "popular is better", but I do find that on this site, there is some correlations between number of ratings and how appealing a book is going to be. Popular fiction like Hunger Games and Harry Potter will obviously have millions of ratings, but I'm not talking about that. I simply mean that if a book only has a few ratings, then it is likely to be something obscure and you can't really rely on the rating because the sample size is too small. When you get to the 500-1000 ratings range, you can be more sure that it's a book that has a wide enough readership that it could appeal to many people, and the rating is pretty reliable. If it has several thousand (and the rating is good), you can be pretty sure that at least it's not a dud.

Beyond: Our Future in Space: Chris Impey

Bad Science

Nazima wrote: "Bad Science"

That was done already in Feb. 2015 (before I joined, but done by this club nonetheless).

Joel wrote: "Nazima wrote: "Bad Science"

That was done already in Feb. 2015 (before I joined, but done by this club nonetheless)."
My bad, i didn't checked properly.

Betsy wrote: "Therese wrote: "Are We Smart Enough to Know How Smart Animals Are?"

This was already nominated this month (see msg. 2). Nominating it again does not increase it's chance of being c..."

No, sorry, I just wasn't aware it had already been nominated. No, I will just vote for it!

The Wasp That Brainwashed the Caterpillar: Evolution's Most Unbelievable Solutions to Life's Biggest Problems by Matt Simon

Sharon wrote: "The Wasp That Brainwashed the Caterpillar: Evolution's Most Unbelievable Solutions to Life's Biggest Problems by Matt Simon"

I'm having trouble deciding about the availability of this one. It was published in the U.S. in October 2016 which should mean it's reasonably available, but it's only available in hardback and e-book from both Amazon and Barnes & Noble online. Not paperback or audiobook. There is an Italian paperback published in May 2017 and a paperback due to be published in the U.K. in September 2017. I believe there is also a German edition but I couldn't find publications information. The hardbacks and e-books also appear to be available in libraries, at least large ones.

I'm inclined to disallow it. It sounds like it will be more widely available in a few months. So let's try it again then.

Nominations are closed. Please vote for your preference at the following poll:

https://www.goodreads.com/poll/show/1...

Because we really only had four valid nominations this month, I added to the poll a few books that had come in second or third in previous months' polls.