This is a humorous but informative book talking about everything from why Aristotle was an idiot to quantum mechanics. I found it best in small doses. It could also be a great supplemental resource for the high school years for homeschooling science.

If you're a STEM person or want to store some fun facts and basics in your brain because you're surrounded by STEM people, this book is pretty good.

Nonfiction
Adult
So let’s start with the science I know – I understand gravity and molecular structure, I kinda get electricity and nuclear fission, I love that the periodic table of elements is in order of weight (but also in order of plentifulness in our universe), I think I have a very superficial understanding of relativity, but I don’t even try to get how television works. 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. Benamran is a French computer scientist with a popular YouTube channel; in this book, first published in France in 2015 and now brilliantly translated by Stephanie Delozier Strobel, he traces the history of important science concepts in an engaging and fun narrative, sans any illustrations or math. The book opens with a brief explanation of correlation and causality, and then an explanation of why in science models are important, but that they are NOT the same as reality. Lots of theoretical stuff, but Benamran delivers the info in a casual and friendly style that put me in mind of a lecture from your favourite prof: “[S]tay with me here, you can sleep when we’re done” (p.23). There are nine major sections: Matter (getting down to the atom and nucleus stuff); Light; Electromagnetism (this is where they usually lose me); The Solar System; Classical Mechanics, which covers force, momentum and stuff like that; Life (biology, including blowing away the idea that artist are “left-brained” and why we sometimes jerk when falling asleep); Thermodynamics (transferring heat and making stuff move and change); Special Relativity; and General Relativity. He does his best with the last two topics but it’s still terribly challenging! 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. That’s the atomic level – of course we feel contact at our level. But still a fun thing to mull over. I also really enjoyed the section on the solar system, which kind of unifies science for me, combining chemistry and math and life, and I suppose a bit of physics too. While the best way to read the book is start to finish, it also lends itself easily to dipping and exploring a topic here and there. As an arts major who worked in a major university’s Science faculty, I wish I’d had this book six years ago! Bermanan is quite funny and makes the process fairly painless. I even laughed at a couple of footnotes – in encouraging the reader keep trying to grasp special relativity, he says “…take your time, there’s no hurry. This is important, it’s how your universe works.” Indeed. As with The Physics of Everyday Things, I did find it occasionally tough reading (my last science classes were, quite honestly, in the last century) but generally it’s 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.
More discussion and reviews of this book: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/39952583

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.

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.

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.

Translated from the original French by Stephanie Delozier Strobel, this is a chatty, loose look at science and its history and the people who made that history, and it’s often light on the science and heavy on the chat. This might have something to do with the author having a French language You Tube channel (e-penser) on this same topic. The author has an easy, breezy tone, which can make for a nice read, but can also be annoying, and sometimes I think he assumes too much, such as when he says, "The other school of thought was led by Democritus - and of course Leucippus before that."

I found myself asking, why 'of course'? I'm not a scientist nor an expert on science, but I am very well-read for a lay-person and I try to keep up on science and technology as time permits, yet I'd never heard of Leucippus and I'd guess that most people have not, perhaps even including most scientists, so I didn't get why the author writes like everyone knows this already! No, we don't! Or maybe I'm just cantankerous today!

There was some looseness about grammar in the book, too, such as when I read, "...seemed to made it his life's goal...,' which should have been 'make it' (of course!). Not long after this I read, "Such as, running electricity through water (electrolysis) to break down two volumes of water...yields two volumes of hydrogen gas (H2) and one volume of oxygen gas (O2)." I didn't understand the 'two volumes of water' bit! To me it would have made more sense to talk about a volume of water.

Perhaps this sentence, in a section talking about the transmutation of one substance to another and the work of Lavoisier and Dalton, was transmuted itself, but the transmutation didn't complete properly, leaving two half sentences mismatched together instead of one intelligible one? It was issues like this that made me feel this book could use another read-through before publishing. Since this is a translation, it’s hard to say if these problems reside with the translation or with the original authorship, be advised. And since this was a ARC, perhaps these issues have been corrected since this version was made available for review.

There was unintentional humor, too! In a section talking about Giordano Bruno, there was a numeric reference to a footnote which revealed the source of the quote. It's after the colon in the following sentence "Bruno also believed that God was both the mystical minimum and maximum: the monad, source of all numbers" The numeric reference was 6, but it was repeated - a regularly-sized six, followed closely by a smaller, superscript six. I believe this was a duplication of the reference number. It's a pity it wasn't a triplication which would have given us an amusing 666! Although there are some who believe the number of the beast was not 666 but 616, which is several doors down the street. But again, another read-through would benefit the text and catch minor issues like this.

The overall readability though, is good, although there are some oddities and annoyances. The author refers to draft dodger Muhammad Ali when he compares a heavyweight hitter to a problem, but Ali wasn't the greatest by any measure. He comes in third after Wladimir Klitschko and Joe Louis in cumulative title wins, most opponents beaten, and most wins in heavyweight title bouts, and seventh after those two in Longest individual heavyweight championship reigns. There isn't any category where he comes out on top. Except motor mouth, maybe! He was an amusing and sweet guy so I understand but not the self-described greatest.

This is a matter of preference and a minor issue really, but to me it was suggestive of the author going for easy rather than realistic, which is odd choice for a science volume. I could see that sort of thing in a creation "science" book, but in a real work of science? I think the same problem evidences when he tries endearments such as overusing the term "dear readers" and his repeated "joke" when he uses the word 'people' and consistently follows it with "the species, not the magazine" even when 'people' isn't capitalized. The first time might have been amusing, but repeating it endlessly? Not funny. In fact, I found both of these things truly annoying and distracting from the import of the book itself.

On big problem is that this book was written as a print book with academic inclinations, which means it has very wide, tree-killing margins. In an ebook, it matters less because no trees were harmed in its production, but this still doesn't get it off the hook. More voluminous books usurp more energy when stored, retrieved, and transmitted, so a shorter book is always wiser if it can be achieved without seriously compromising readability and quality. Narrower margins would have made this book shorter and less abusive of trees. In a world where trees are really the only entity fighting greenhouse gasses with any determination and application, I can’t favor a book which advocates killing more of them.

There were other issues caused by this being designed from the ground up as a print book and then sent to lowly amateur reviewers like me as an ebook. The organization of the printed page, if it’s anything other than straight-forward text, doesn't translate to screens on a smart phone! The print version has what the author calls 'focus panels' - which I assume are small, hived-off sections, perhaps outlined by a border, which briefly digress into a topic mention in the main text. This might well have worked admirably in the print version, but in the ebook, there is no demarcation between these focus panels and the main text other than a change in font.

Aside from that, one section runs right into another so that, for example, in the chapter on light, in a section talking about Arab scientist Abu Ali al-Ḥasan ibn al-Ḥasan ibn al-Haytham, known more commonly as Alhazen (the author tells us) one screen ends with “...mainly by Ibn“ and the next screen starts with a section on reflection and refraction, which occupies almost the entire screen. Confined tightly to the bottom of that screen is the rest of the sentence that was begun on the previous screen. It’s really disruptive to reading. Evidently no thought whatsoever was given to producing an e-version of the book wherein the focus panels are turned into links which can be tapped to read the content and then tapped again to return to the text. That’s annoying at best.

The section on al-Haytham was regrettable in another way. The author introduces this amazing scientist with the admittedly awkwardly long name, especially for we westerners, and then diminishes the man by saying, "I'm going to shorten that to 'Ali', no offense intended by using the nickname." I did find that offensive. The name Ali is not actually an insulting name in Arabic. It means something along the lines of 'esteemed', or 'worthy', but in western hands it has come to be a term that's at best dismissive and at worst abusive of someone of Arabic descent. I don't understand this patronizing usage. Why not simply use his "last" name (al-Haytham) as he would any other scientist? Why not use the already established 'nickname' of Alhazen? Going the way he went is the equivalent of saying of Einstein, I'm going to shorten that to 'Fritz', no offense intended by using the nickname! Or of saying of Richard Dawkins, I'm going to shorten that to 'Dork', no offense intended by using the nickname. It is offensive, period.

I made it about a quarter of the way though this book. I could read no more of it after I read this in a discussion of the antiquity of telescopes: "[Telescopes] were primarily used on ships for looking at things that were far away...and sometimes, I'm sure, for watching the hottie next door through the window without being seen." I know this guy is French and maybe they think they have a disreputation to keep up, but seriously? It's inappropriate. He couldn’t have said "for spying on the person next door'? Or even 'for spying on the woman next door'? It had to be 'hottie'? That was less than fifteen percent into this book of some 330 pages, so I felt like I ought to have read more than this , but I flatly refuse to continue after a comment like that in a science book. It's supposed to be aimed at the lay reader, not at readers who can only think of getting laid.

In a world where myth, rumor, wild-ass blind conviction, religious fervor, and gossip are all-too-rapidly taking the place of established facts, people need a solid grounding in science and critical-thinking more than ever, and good science books can help. I didn't feel that this one does help, so while I wish the author all the best tackling subjects outside his field of expertise, I cannot recommend this particular effort as a worthy read.

I picked up this book because my students are so interested in science....and I'm so not....that it seemed like a good crossover book for us to discuss together. Instead, I found myself bored. to. tears. So, why, you might ask, did I give it four stars? I did so because I gave it over to my students to read, and they absolutely loved it! If you're not really thrilled by science, this isn't the book for you. It seems like it would be, based on the title, and there are a few interesting tidbits sprinkled throughout, but for the most part, this is a book about the history of science....the people and concepts that modern science builds upon. Some will love it; others won't.