100 Books Like Bones of Contention

In this classic book, Kuhn introduces the idea of a "paradigm" and shows that real progress comes through paradigm shifts.

That hit me like a rock when I first read it. I love how in the second edition, Kuhn talks about the difficulties of deep change: "the problem is that the new paradigm is always worse than the old one." 

The new paradigm may be better in some way, but it is also sketchy, unformed, and it creates lots of new uncertainties. So, for somebody to shift to a new paradigm always requires a leap of faith!

I especially love reading historically important scientific works themselves. Reading them, you participate in the thinking of a great scientist and get a feeling for the thinker. Many of these are accessible to the general reader, among them this book, an important contribution to the creation of modern science.

It so angered the Pope that he turned Galileo over to the Roman Inquisition, who found him guilty of heresy for not-so-subtly arguing the truth of Copernicus’ theory that the Earth is not motionless at the center of the universe, as was then believed and defended by the Church but moves around the Sun just like all the other planets. In exchange for publicly recanting this view, he was sentenced to house arrest for the rest of his life. 

I really like this book and I regularly use it as a textbook in my Introduction to the Philosophy of Science course.

What I like is the way that Losee uses very short case studies in the history of science to refute the popular view that, through experimentation and observation, nature decides between competing theories and provides the justification for replacing an older theory with a new one. Although Losee does not always agree with Kuhn, I find that his book beautifully complements the history-based argument in Kuhn’s book, and both are short!

I love reading books on the history of science in its social and cultural context if they are well-written and the author is truly knowledgeable. In my opinion, no one alive does this better than Stephen Gaukroger. This first of the four volumes Gaukroger has written on this subject covers the Medieval and Renaissance run-up to modern science and is my favorite, though the other three are equally excellent.

I like how Gaukroger traces the emergence of modern science from the philosophical ideas of St. Augustine through the creation of the universities and Renaissance magical philosophy to the creation of a materialistic, mathematics—and experiment-based science of nature. I cannot fault either the writing or the scholarship.

One of my early motivations for becoming a geologist was reading my father’s very old book on Geology in the Service of Man. I quickly saw the vital importance of Earth Science in providing the raw materials, energy resources, water, and soils, and the foundations for engineering that we need to survive. I wanted to be part of that grandiose story.

Now, on reading Lewis Dartnell’s sweeping coverage of human history through the lens of our planet’s natural resources and how we use them, I am taken back to how my childhood passion developed. I agree with Lewis Dartnell that today, as the planet’s population soars and environmental concerns take a back seat, it is more essential than ever that we learn to manage Earth’s finite resources. 

In 256 pages Manning tells you about what he calls the “human system.” Nearly half the book is dedicated to the Paleolithic, before farming, cities, and writing, a very unusual feature. Manning is trained as a historian of Africa, and that shines through at many points. He pays lots of attention to migration, languages, and labor history. Unlike most historians, he considers evidence from archeology, linguistics, and genetics as well as written sources. The only drawback to this one is that it is not written in the most accessible or entertaining prose.

This book gave me a profound realization: humans aren’t rational decision-makers—we’re copiers. We survive by inheriting “packages of expertise” passed down through generations, but over time, those packages lose their rationale. When circumstances change, blindly following tradition can become a liability.

My work is about helping people use AI, data, and collaboration to think through the consequences of their actions. This book explains why that’s so difficult—reasoning isn’t what got us here. We memorize and repeat what worked before, even when the world shifts beneath us.

In an increasingly volatile world, that strategy is failing, and this book makes it clear why new approaches to decision-making are needed. If you’ve ever wondered why people resist logic and innovation, this book will change how you see human behavior.

Harari is better known by this book’s predecessor, Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind. However, I enjoyed this book much more. Why? I study human evolution, so even though I enjoyed how the author summarized human history in Sapiens, starting from prehistoric African times, I realized that some ideas are based on wrong or dated information.

However, this book builds on the last portion of Sapiens, the future of humankind. I love speculative hard science fiction, especially those that combine human evolution with dystopian futures. So, of course, I enjoyed this “non-fiction” book.

The author seeks to use evolutionary principles to explain why human violence within societies is uncommon whereas violence between societies, expressed mainly as war, is very common. Chimpanzees are a violent species in which both types of violence are extremely common. Males compete for dominance in violent ways and males frequently direct their violence toward females. But with respect to within-society violence humans have “domesticated” themselves, mostly by, over hundreds of thousands of years, killing the most violent and dangerous males. With respect to between-society violence, however, humans remain chimp-like. Chimps are notorious for intercommunity raiding and killing, and the anthropological and archaeological evidence shows that humans are equally notorious. Humans have therefore evolved to be both nice and nasty—and therein lies the paradox expressed in the book’s subtitle.

We are accustomed to thinking of ourselves as a species mentally superior to all others. This view was challenged in the 19th century with the discovery in Europe of the Neanderthals, an extinct large-brained human-like species. Our superiority seemed to be restored by evidence that Neanderthal extinction followed the arrival in Europe of seemingly dominant Homo sapiens from Africa. Accumulating archaeological and genetic evidence is changing that comfortable picture. Another large-brained but extinct human-like species, the Denisovans, are now also known to have existed in widespread regions of Russia, Asia, and Oceania. Not only were these archaic species technologically and culturally on a par with sapiens, but they also mated occasionally with each other and with our own species. Many people throughout the world carry genetic material from them, and these have contributed to our own regional adaptations. This book challenges our view of ourselves, and implies greater affinity and… show more.