Maybe this is the wrong place to ask, but are there any other cool pieces of “edufiction” like HPMoR? I mean fiction where you can learn about science, economics or other topics just by reading the story, and thinking along with it.
There is lots of historic fiction material, so I’d like to exclude that genre from my question.
They’re not books, I know, but sometimes videogames can be surprisingly educational, especially in fields like economics where it works the same in game and in reality. If you ever want a crash course in all things economic, become a trader in Eve Online.
Also, a game that explicitly allows scams, and celebrates the really good ones, seems like good training for some of the less-pleasant bits of reality. (I started learning real-world finance after I’d already gotten a handle on the Eve variety, and I have to say, the ethics section seemed to read like a list of all the fun bits of the job. It was pretty disconcerting, actually.)
I would say Voltaire’s philosophical tales (Zadig, Candid) apply to that qualification, even if they are more written in order to defend a particular pov than about educating in general.
Hard science-fiction could also qualify, it often contains some valid bits of science. But it’s hard to tell the limit between the author’s imagination and the real science.
Anyway, I second the question, it would be interesting to have more of those.
There are a couple Charles Sheffield books (the story collection “The Compleat McAndrew” is one; I forget which other(s)) where an appendix essay distinguishes the well-supported science from the scientific community’s speculation and from the author’s own speculation.
I wouldn’t put them in the same category as HPMoR, though—they’re clearly written to be exciting stories that happen to teach a little interesting science rather than exciting science that happens to be in the form of an interesting story.
Neal Stephenson’s books often have lots to learn from, e.g. cryptography in Cryptonomicon or economics in The Baroque Cycle (though the latter is historical fiction).
The trouble with Stephenson’s books is that he tends to make a lot of stuff up and insert it into the exposition in such a way that it’s difficult to tell it from the trustworthy material. Cryptonomicon and The Baroque Cycle aren’t so bad about this, but someone who’d, say, learned most of their neoplatonic philosophy from Anathem might come out the other side with some very strange ideas indeed—even if they’d thought, and bothered, to look up the real-world cognates of all his academic smeerps.
Charles Stross is another author with similar habits—although his style is more referential, which makes it essential to keep a laptop with a Wikipedia tab open next to the chair you’re reading in, but ends up drawing a somewhat clearer line between science and fiction.
And in the good direction, you have someone like Peter Watts, who sometimes includes appendixes explaining exactly what science he’s based his speculation on.
Or Greg Egan, who publishes on-line appendixes to his books explaining, say, how Riemannian Thermodynamics would work. With equations and graphics. (Labeled axes!) And video simulations. The appendixes themselves have appendixes!
Well, he did the same thing with earlier novels, The Clockwork Rocket is just the one that came to mind since it’s the latest.
But I found his other novels (at least those where such extra material would make sense) similar in style. I’d call it “unusual physics porn”—no literary masterpieces, but fun to read if you’re into that kind of stuff.
Do you dislike his other work, too, or is there something about this one in particular you disliked?
Come to think of it, I suppose lesswrong is one of the few places where it might be reasonable to assume that someone links directly to a Trope Namer because they’re more familiar with it than the trope.
But as a general rule, because I’m against (and susceptible to) tab explosions.
I personally detested the The Baroque Cycle, which was boring and badly written, though possibly useful as a cure for insomnia.
However, Stephenson’s other books had a lot of good stuff in them, and were actually enjoyable. Snow Crash and Diamond Age contain quite a few notes on economics; and the middle part of Diamond Age consists on a brief overview of the history of computer programming, from Turing Machines to modern information networks. And Anathem is basically a philosophy/epistemology/astronomy primer.
Note that I disagree with some of the key assumptions Stephenson seems to be making in those books (especially Diamond Age and Anathem), but I can still suspend disbelief long enough to enjoy them.
Maybe this is the wrong place to ask, but are there any other cool pieces of “edufiction” like HPMoR? I mean fiction where you can learn about science, economics or other topics just by reading the story, and thinking along with it.
There is lots of historic fiction material, so I’d like to exclude that genre from my question.
They’re not books, I know, but sometimes videogames can be surprisingly educational, especially in fields like economics where it works the same in game and in reality. If you ever want a crash course in all things economic, become a trader in Eve Online.
Games are essential for getting a feel for economics—because you can game them.
Also, a game that explicitly allows scams, and celebrates the really good ones, seems like good training for some of the less-pleasant bits of reality. (I started learning real-world finance after I’d already gotten a handle on the Eve variety, and I have to say, the ethics section seemed to read like a list of all the fun bits of the job. It was pretty disconcerting, actually.)
I would say Voltaire’s philosophical tales (Zadig, Candid) apply to that qualification, even if they are more written in order to defend a particular pov than about educating in general.
Hard science-fiction could also qualify, it often contains some valid bits of science. But it’s hard to tell the limit between the author’s imagination and the real science.
Anyway, I second the question, it would be interesting to have more of those.
I recommend repeating your question as a discussion post so that more people will see it.
There are a couple Charles Sheffield books (the story collection “The Compleat McAndrew” is one; I forget which other(s)) where an appendix essay distinguishes the well-supported science from the scientific community’s speculation and from the author’s own speculation.
I wouldn’t put them in the same category as HPMoR, though—they’re clearly written to be exciting stories that happen to teach a little interesting science rather than exciting science that happens to be in the form of an interesting story.
Terry Pratchett’s Maurice and his Educated Rodents (as well as his other books) is educational, though probably not about science.
Neal Stephenson’s books often have lots to learn from, e.g. cryptography in Cryptonomicon or economics in The Baroque Cycle (though the latter is historical fiction).
The trouble with Stephenson’s books is that he tends to make a lot of stuff up and insert it into the exposition in such a way that it’s difficult to tell it from the trustworthy material. Cryptonomicon and The Baroque Cycle aren’t so bad about this, but someone who’d, say, learned most of their neoplatonic philosophy from Anathem might come out the other side with some very strange ideas indeed—even if they’d thought, and bothered, to look up the real-world cognates of all his academic smeerps.
Charles Stross is another author with similar habits—although his style is more referential, which makes it essential to keep a laptop with a Wikipedia tab open next to the chair you’re reading in, but ends up drawing a somewhat clearer line between science and fiction.
And in the good direction, you have someone like Peter Watts, who sometimes includes appendixes explaining exactly what science he’s based his speculation on.
Or Greg Egan, who publishes on-line appendixes to his books explaining, say, how Riemannian Thermodynamics would work. With equations and graphics. (Labeled axes!) And video simulations. The appendixes themselves have appendixes!
Indeed. On the other hand, The Clockwork Rocket was a rubbish novel qua novel, so there’s such a thing as taking it too far.
Well, he did the same thing with earlier novels, The Clockwork Rocket is just the one that came to mind since it’s the latest.
But I found his other novels (at least those where such extra material would make sense) similar in style. I’d call it “unusual physics porn”—no literary masterpieces, but fun to read if you’re into that kind of stuff.
Do you dislike his other work, too, or is there something about this one in particular you disliked?
No, just that one. I liked “Crystal Nights” or Permutation City a lot.
Can I just say I experienced mind-boggling surprise (and a corresponding increase in my respect for you) when I realized that was not a TVTropes link?
Why would that be worth an increase in respect?
Come to think of it, I suppose lesswrong is one of the few places where it might be reasonable to assume that someone links directly to a Trope Namer because they’re more familiar with it than the trope.
But as a general rule, because I’m against (and susceptible to) tab explosions.
I personally detested the The Baroque Cycle, which was boring and badly written, though possibly useful as a cure for insomnia.
However, Stephenson’s other books had a lot of good stuff in them, and were actually enjoyable. Snow Crash and Diamond Age contain quite a few notes on economics; and the middle part of Diamond Age consists on a brief overview of the history of computer programming, from Turing Machines to modern information networks. And Anathem is basically a philosophy/epistemology/astronomy primer.
Note that I disagree with some of the key assumptions Stephenson seems to be making in those books (especially Diamond Age and Anathem), but I can still suspend disbelief long enough to enjoy them.