Latest Additions to the Science Shelf book review archive
February 6, 2009
THE SCIENCE SHELF NEWSLETTER
News about the Science Shelf archive of book reviews, columns, and comments by Fred Bortz
Issue #29, Back from Hiatus edition, February 2009
NOTE: Links that follow take you to the review of the book in question. Each review has a link to buy at Amazon.com if you are interested.
Dear Science Readers,
I wrote in the previous Science Shelf newsletter that I was putting this newsletter on hiatus. I have finally reached a quieter time. I can once again go beyond reviewing books and adding them to the Science Shelf website. This long overdue newsletter is the result.
Happy Birthday Charlie D.!
With Darwin's bicentennial birthday this month, I have seen a number of books about evolution, and I was able to persuade my newspaper clients to let me review 
Why Evolution is True by Jerry A. Coyne. That review prompted two e-mails by readers of the Dallas Morning News, one telling me that I should review a book by Dembski on Intelligent Design, and the other telling me how brave I was for giving Coyne high marks in Big D., especially since Texas was revisiting the issue of how to describe evolution in the state curriculum.
To the first, I responded that with limited space on newspaper book review pages, I generally review books that I can recommend to some readers, even if I didn't particularly like them myself. Coyne's book makes a strong case for evolution, while the recently reviewed Only a Theory by Kenneth Miller, an observant Catholic, did an even better job demolishing Intelligent Design. Sorry, Dembski! Find a different reviewer.
To the second, Ronald Martin Wade, I replied that I was not as brave as he thought, since I live in the Pittsburgh area, not Texas. Then my hometown Pittsburgh Post-Gazette picked up the review and headlined it, "Breaking News! Darwin was Right." No one picketed my house or sent a nasty e-mail, so I can't claim any bravery here, either.
More about Mr. Wade below.
The Great Pluto-versy
Until I read Neil deGrasse Tyson's 
The Pluto Files: The Rise and Fall of America's Favorite Planet, I had never thought about the peculiar American passion for Pluto's status as a planet. Apparently, the rest of the world is more comfortable with its "demotion" to the rank of "dwarf planet."
To Tyson, Pluto will always reign as "the undisputed King of the Kuiper Belt." And his book is rich in humor and story, not to mention wonderful scientific insights, about a distant icy world that remains as interesting scientifically as ever.
To Your Health!
During the hiatus, I also reviewed a pair of books that I would classify as potentially life-saving. The link takes you to a comparative review of 
Anticancer: A New Way of Life by David Servan-Schreiber, M.D., Ph.D., and 
Trick or Treatment: The Undeniable Facts About Alternative Medicine by Simon Singh and Edzard Ernst, M.D.
The comparative review focuses more on psychiatrist and brain-cancer survivor Servan-Schreiber and his remarkable approach to his own disease than on the Singh and Ernst book. So I also posted a full-length review of the latter. If you don't know the difference between complementary medicine (Ernst's field) and alternative medicine, I highly recommend Trick or Treatment.
Meet Max
My correspondence with Ron Wade was entertaining. Despite our different backgrounds, we share an appreciation for irreverent humor and a good intellectual tussle. Without expecting anything in return, he sent me a copy of his self-published 
The Max Parallax: Things You Should Know.
I've only had a chance to scan the book, but I know that it is a collection of entertaining rants by Ron's alter-ego, Max Gross. At least I think Max is Ron's alter-ego. Ron remains coy about that, perhaps fearing that I suspect he may have a split personality.
In any case, you will probably enjoy agreeing and disagreeing with Max at the same time. I think that's the point of the book, which Ron describes as follows on Amazon.com:
An atheist-libertarian and a lukewarm Christian Republican with common backgrounds in security and intelligence work argue their personal views of the human condition; an irreverent and hilarious glimpse of religion, politics, morality and government, an unexpected parallax view.
I rarely recommend a self-published book, but this one earns an exception. I'm sure both Ron and Max will be surprised to read this, since it was truly offered as a gift to a kindred spirit. But I always tell my young readers to follow their questions, and that's exactly what Ron uses Max to do.
My Usual Thanks
Thank you to the growing number of people who are kind enough to buy some of the books that they discovered here through the Science Shelf links. They've even used the link on the Science Shelf homepage to enter and buy books and other Amazon.com products including, most recently, a bread-making machine and cook book.
I'll never know who those buyers are unless they tell me, thanks to Amazon's very sensible privacy policies. I just find out what they have bought, how much they paid, and how much my commission amounts to.
At the current pace, monthly commisions cover the cost of the web address, webhosting, and enough to buy me a two-topping large pizza (no anchovies, please). I'll never expect commissions to cover the time I spend maintaining the archive of book reviews and sending out messages like this. That's a labor of book- and science-love, and your feedback (in terms of increasing numbers of clicks) tells me you appreciate it.
As always, happy science reading, and thanks in advance for your support!
Fred Bortz
Printer-friendly versionPermalink
About us
Science Blog was started in August 2002. It lives, breathes and eats press releases from research organizations around the globe. Most of what you read here are press releases from the outfits named in the stories themselves. Got a news story you think belongs here? Let's talk. The other half of the equation is blog posts from readers like you. So if you have an interest in science, please register and join others like you in an ongoing, vibrant dialog about what makes the world tick. Meantime, please take a minute to read our Privacy Policy and Site Disclaimer.Recommended
Andrew Sullivan Dan Sullivan Doug Arellanes Emmanuelle Richard Faith Sullivan Fred Bortz Heather Havrilesky Henry Copeland Kate Sullivan Ken Layne lagreenbean.com LAist.com Maggie Sullivan Matt Welch NewYorkology Opinion L.A. Ron Kaye Slashdot Steve Elzer & Family TheNewsroom.org Thor Garcia Tony Pierce Wonkette OlderThanks CNET for naming Science Blog one of your Blog 100!
Comments
I’m eager to read the book
July 6, 2009 by johnthomas, 19 weeks 6 days ago
Comment id: 37738
I’m eager to read the book “Why evolution is true” I just read the review of this book. Hope that the language of the book is not so complicated and I am going to enjoy the book! Well, whenever I heard any discussion about Darwin’s theory, one question came into my mind- if human is evolved from monkey then why still there are monkeys in this earth? I mean all the monkeys should turn into Human! – Well I’m not a scientist, may be this question is funny! But is there any explanation of the question in this book?
online games
To Johnthomas, re Why Evolution is True
August 1, 2009 by Fred Bortz, 16 weeks 1 day ago
Comment id: 39126
Johnthomas,
Thank you for your comments. I'm glad my review makes you want to read the book. In fact, I have of books on evolution that I have reviewed over the past 10 years. I'm sure you will find many of them.
One of the more detailed books in that set, The Ancestor's Tale, has one of the best answers to your question about monkeys that I've ever found. It is incorrect to say that we are descended from apes. Rather, we and the apes have a common ancestor, and the monkeys have a common ancestor with that one.
Our species is the one of many latest branches on a growing bushy tree, but, as The Ancestor's Tale and my review of it make clear, it is truly awe-inspiring that evolution is capable of producing such a great variety of wondrous creatures.
Happy reading.
Fred Bortz
Hey, folks! Wasn't that exchange about Pluto fun?
February 8, 2009 by Fred Bortz, 40 weeks 6 days ago
Comment id: 34374
I love it when people can tussle about something without becoming disagreeable. I have nothing more to add, but I wanted to call the conversation to the attention of blog-o-philes.
As an author, I know that passion for your subject, a good sense of humor, and a point of view can lead to a marketable book. So let's suggest some titles for Laurel to consider. I'll start the list with:
Confessions of a Plutophile
Plutophilia and Me
Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus, and I'm from Pluto
It Isn't Goofy to Love Pluto
Good luck, Laurel!
Fred Bortz
Oops, forgot to log in
February 21, 2009 by laurele, 39 weeks 21 hours ago
Comment id: 34750
Somehow, I think you'll recognize this "anonymous" comment as being from me. :)
IAU decision nowhere near unanimous
February 21, 2009 by Anonymous, 39 weeks 21 hours ago
Comment id: 34749
What's this statement in the Feb. 22, 2009 issue of the Pittsburgh Post Gazette about the IAU's "nearly unanimous vote" to demote Pluto (yes, I find these things quickly!)? Only four percent of the IAU voted on the last day of their two week conference. Most who voted are not planetary scientists. This vote was accurately described by Dr. Alan Stern as "hijacked" by dynamicists who deliberately planned to hold it after most participants had already left. Anyone not in the room on this particular day could not vote. No absentee voting was allowed. 424 out of 10,000 is not an overwhelming majority. In fact, while that tiny group passed resolution 5a establishing the categories of "classical planets," "dwarf planets." and "small solar system bodies" by a large number, this is not true of resolution 5b, the umbrella resolution that, had it passed, would have established dwarf planets as a subclass of planets. The vote on 5b was very split, indicating many who supported creating the dwarf planet category did not intend for that category to be not considered a subclass of planets at all.
I wanted to write this comment on the newspaper site, but it looks like there is no comments section, so I'm putting it here instead, and maybe in my blog as well.
Re: IAU vote
February 22, 2009 by Fred Bortz, 39 weeks 12 hours ago
Comment id: 34754
Laurel, the Post-Gazette article is the same review I have published in other papers but heavily edited. In the submitted version, I did not lead with the "near unanimous vote," but rather with the reasons that Tyson suggests for the over-the-top reaction of people to the "demotion" of Pluto. As you would agree, neither the IAU vote nor anyone's definition of the word "planet" changes anything about the body itself. That was what Tyson emphasized throughout the book.
So I stand behind my review, which describes how well Tyson captures the entertaining aspects of the controversy, and addresses the major points.
You can send a letter to the editor if you wish. The website doesn't accept online comments.
Fred
Tyson is wrong about Pluto
February 6, 2009 by laurele, 41 weeks 2 days ago
Comment id: 34322
Tyson is wrong in his statement that only Americans are bothered by the demotion of Pluto. This is simply not the case. There are Internet groups, songs, and poems by people all over the world supporting Pluto's planet status. I run a blog advocating Pluto's reinstatement, and I have heard from people all over the world, in places such as Singapore (where one person started a two-year online petition), the Philippines, Egypt, Morocco, Turkey, England, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and more strongly expressing their belief that Pluto is still a planet. Tyson is also wrong in his claim that people's affinity for Pluto is about the Disney dog. It is not. Most people who support Pluto retaining its planet status are people with an interest in astronomy and the solar system. The outrageous, flawed process used by four percent of the IAU in adopting the planet definition that demoted Pluto only generated more support for its reinstatement.
Tyson is also incorrect in calling Pluto a comet. It is not a comet. Pluto is much bigger than any known comet, and its orbit never takes it into the inner solar system. It is both a planet and a Kuiper Belt Object because it is in a state of hydrostatic equilbrium, meaning it has enough self gravity to pull itself into a round shape. When this happens, objects become geologically differentiated into core, mantle and crust, just like the larger planets and unlike shapeless KBOs. Tyson's minimizing of the importance of hydrostatic equilibrium is quite problematic.
Interestingly, over 300 professional astronomers signed a petition saying they will not use the new planet definition. Many even now are working to get the demotion overturned.
I plan on writing a book of my own on this subject, and I hope you will consider reviewing it when it is completed. In the meantime, you can find my Pluto blog at http://laurele.livejournal.com
An over-reaction here
February 6, 2009 by Fred Bortz, 41 weeks 2 days ago
Comment id: 34324
Laurele,
You are overreacting to a summary of a book review. That's two steps removed from the source, namely the book itself.
(1) It's full of good humor, which you unfortunately seem to lack, at least on this issue
(2) It doesn't say that Plutophiles are restricted to the U.S.A., but they are peculiarly prominent here (see next point)
(3) The argument over Pluto's status is more a "pop culture" phenomenon in the U.S. than elsewhere.
(4) Tyson relishes good scientific argumentation. To quote the end of my review:
Your Pluto-passion is a good thing. But it needs a little humor for leavening.
If you're writing a book for the popular market, that's an important consideration. If you succeed in getting it published, I'd be glad to look at it for review purposes. Tell your publisher that I have a much better chance of selling a review if I get an advance reading copy. I usually pitch my reviews to newspapers about two months before the book is due to appear.
Fred Bortz
Children's Science Books
Science Book Reviews
Not entirely humorless
February 7, 2009 by laurele, 41 weeks 1 day ago
Comment id: 34329
Fred,
Thanks for responding. I'm going to have to stop being lazy and copying and pasting the same comments about why Pluto's demotion was wrong. I'm really not the dour, humorless person you might have seen in this post. In fact, at my astronomy club in Cranford, NJ, I'm the source of a lot of friendly teasing about my views on Pluto, and it's all in fun. I've met some really wonderful people through amateur astronomy, and we can appreciate and love one another's quirkiness. You can't be a wacky Pluto-loving (fake) redhead and be too serious.
I did read Tyson's book, which he was kind enough to have his publishing company send me as a review copy. Yes, it is fun and entertaining, and he actually quotes several Pluto songs that I have noted in my blog. I hope to get permission from a lot more songwriters to print their Pluto songs in my book.
In some of his interviews, Tyson says that the only Plutophiles are Americans, which in my experience has not been the case. Yes, there is a lot of support for Pluto's planet status in the US, but it's not limited to this country as he sometimes states. And I don't think it's about the dog. My take on it is people are fascinated with Pluto because it is enigmatic and mysterious, the least understood of the planets. There is always an appeal of the unknown, the frontier of knowledge. A good analogy would be people's longtime fascination with Mars as a potential source of life, whether native or inhabited by humans. Mars is nearby; it's somewhat similar to Earth, yet there is so much we don't know about it, and that has sparked curiosity and imagination for decades.
I hope to write a book that is a balance of scientific arguments for Pluto's planethood along with examples of creative works written in response to the demotion as well as blog posts and emails I and others have received from people around the world on this topic. Of course, my ultimate goal is to see Pluto's planet status--and that of all dwarf planets--reinstated.
I appreciate your feedback, and as I have every intention of having my book published, I will make sure to send you an advance review copy. It's going to be a while, as I only decided definitively to do this project within the last two weeks. In the meantime, I hope you won't forget me and my future book.
Laurel
Glad to have unleashed the humor
February 7, 2009 by Fred Bortz, 41 weeks 1 day ago
Comment id: 34336
Dear Laurel,
Now you're talkin'
Have you read Is Pluto a Planet? A Historical Journey Through the Solar System by David A. Weintraub? The link takes you to my review.
That book shares your point of view about Pluto's planetary status. It came out right after the famous 2006 IAU "demotion" meeting, but it had been completed before that. Unfortunately, Weintraub ignores Eris, a.k.a. the Kuiper belt object previously known as Xena.
I wouldn't be surprised if Weintraub is working on a revised edition to take the recent arguments into accounts, so you may have stiff competition for your book.
As for me, I share Tyson's idea that it is really unimportant what category humans decide to put Pluto and other large KBOs in. What is important is to understand those bodies. We are sending a major space probe there (New Horizons), so science is still giving Pluto and the Kuiper belt an appropriate level of attention.
Fred Bortz
Children's Science Books
and
Science Book Reviews
Weintraub Does A Good Job
February 7, 2009 by laurele, 41 weeks 1 day ago
Comment id: 34338
Yes, I did read Weintraub's book, and he does a good job chronicling the history of planet definitions and discoveries. He actually does discuss Eris at the end of the book but still refers to it by the term 2003 UB313, which is what it was known as at the time of his book's publication. Specifically, he states, "Rewriting history will not change the fact that no criteria based on physical or astrophysical principles are sufficient to distinguish Pluto and Ceres from Mercury and Jupiter. So our answer must also include: and so are Ceres, Pallas, Vesta, Hygeia, Cybele, Varuna, Ixion, 2002AW197, Quaoar, 2002TC302, 2003EL61 (now Haumea), 2003UB313 (now Eris), Sedna, Orcus, and 2005FY9 (now Makemake)" in reference to his conclusion one paragraph earlier that "Pluto is a planet") (page 218).
I met Weintraub last summer at the Great Planet Debate, and he still maintained the same position. I welcome his writing a revised edition of his book and hope it woudn't be seen as competition with mine. Tyson is right in saying "the more, the merrier" regarding books about Pluto, and I think they can all complement one another rather than compete with one another.
I do still oppose creating an artificial reason to exclude Pluto and round KBOs from being considered planets. For any object, its composition should be fundamental to how it is classified. And I am certainly looking forward to the findings of New Horizons, which will likely provide whole new insights into this debate.
Re: Weintraub
February 7, 2009 by Fred Bortz, 41 weeks 1 day ago
Comment id: 34339
You're right about Weintraub. I mis-summarized my own review, which remarks that he didn't use the "Xena" nickname when discussing 2003 UB313, which might have given his book a more popular feel.
As for the ongoing debate, I sit bemused on the sidelines. Nature is what it is, and we humans sometimes put too much effort into classification schemes. Sometimes such schemes are an aid, and sometimes they get in the way of productive thinking. The Linnaeus classification scheme, for example, is not nearly as useful now as when we didn't know enough about evolution and DNA to make sense of the multitude of life-forms on Earth.
Laurel, I detect a sense of personal investment in this argument--perhaps nothing more than your identity among your friends as the resident Plutophile--when you write:
To me, the distinction is that Pluto and Ceres are members of "belts" of similar bodies in their orbital regions, whereas Jupiter and Mercury are unchallenged as the dominant bodies in theirs. That makes them clearly different. The argument is over whether that difference can or should be accommodated within the broader classification of "planet."
To me, there is only semantics and no scientific value in that argument. Tyson says as much in his book. My review notes that he and his colleagues "finessed" the definitional issue when designing the new Hayden Planetarium exhibits. To some people that may seem like he's "trying to have it both ways." To me, it's that he doesn't really care how the argument turns out. He sees it as a cultural phenomenon, and as a planetarium director, he has to weigh the culture into his planning as well as the science.
That's why I think The Pluto Files is so much fun to read.
Fred Bortz
Re: Weintraub
February 8, 2009 by laurele, 41 weeks 1 hour ago
Comment id: 34373
The statement, "no criteria based on physical or astrophysical principles are sufficient to distinguish Pluto and Ceres from Mercury and Jupiter" is a quote from Weintraub, so I cannot take credit for it. But it does encapsulate my view that whether or not an object is in a belt, if that object is large enough to have attained hydrostatic equilibrium, it is a type of planet. If we use dwarf planet as a subclass of planets to indicate these smaller but still round bodies in belts, we would be taking both the location and geophysical composition of these objects into account when creating the definition.
As far as a personal interest, I have always been fascinated by the solar system, and as a writer, I believe definitions are important. I feel very strongly that the IAU definition is terribly flawed, best described by Jonathan Coulton's song "I'm Your Moon" (quoted in Tyson's book) with the words "They invented a reason..."
Some of it is a personal quirk. I am a person of strong convictions, and when I believe in and advocate for something, I do it with all the energy I can muster. Either that, or some of my friends' suspicions are right, and I really am from Pluto. :)