A Dictionary of Science (Oxford Paperback Reference) | 
| Creator: John Daintith
Publisher: Oxford University Press, USA
Category: Book
List Price: $18.95
Buy New: $5.97
You Save: $12.98 (68%)
New (31) Used (11) from $5.97
Avg. Customer Rating:  3 reviews
Sales Rank: 194863
Media: Paperback
Edition: 5
Number Of Items: 1
Pages: 896
Shipping Weight (lbs): 1.5
Dimensions (in): 7.6 x 5.1 x 2.1
ISBN: 0192806416
Dewey Decimal Number: 503
EAN: 9780192806413
ASIN: 0192806416
Publication Date: October 27, 2005
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
Shipping: International shipping available
Condition: Good Condition, delivery time 10 to 12 Working days, via Priority airmail from UK
|
| Also Available In:
|
| Similar Items:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Product Description
This best-selling dictionary contains over 9,000 entries on all aspects of science and provides comprehensive coverage of biology (including human biology), chemistry, physics, the earth sciences, and astronomy. Appendices cover the periodic table, geological time scale, and animal and plant classification. New features include virtual thumb tags for easy reference, expanded areas including astronomy and earth science and more features on key topics such as the Solar System and Genetically Modified Organisms. Also featured are short biographies of leading scientists and chronologies of specific subjects, including plastics, electronics and cell biology. Both concise and wide-ranging, this dictionary is an ideal handy reference work and great introduction for students and non-scientists alike.
|
| Customer Reviews:
 Very thorough but poorly designed and curious omissions August 21, 2008
The Oxford series of dictionaries are consistently thorough to a fault. You are unlikely to find many omissions. NEVERTHELESS, the coverage of post-war, non-European science is WEAK. The clearest check of this lies in the bios of scientists. Several painfully obscure, long-dead Europeans are covered while ESSENTIAL recent scientists are ignored. Each of these dictionaries has a principle editor and a host of contributors, so presumably the problem lies somewhere in there AND in the determination of Oxford and other major university presses (like Cambridge and Harvard) to cease being scholarly presses and instead go for profit profit profit. (See Andre Schiffrin's "The Business of Books" for more on this.)
A more pointed gripe about this series is the layout and design. Readability could be significantly better. And for a book about the sciences, the diagrams and graphics are comparatively poor. Though less thorough the Penguin series does better on these counts.
 I like the OXFord series. Well put together. January 5, 2008
0 out of 2 found this review helpful
I have many of them and my favorite. Dictionary of Economics. In summary a scale that defines savings and interest rates. What moves them expenditure. And what brings it back to balance. The hand of time!
The best choice for those who read a lot of popular science August 16, 2004
31 out of 31 found this review helpful
This is a relatively inexpensive, concise, and handy dictionary of science. It is an updated version of the Concise Science Dictionary originally published by the Oxford University Press in 1984. This, the latest edition, is from 1999. It is aimed at professionals and an educated public who want a quick reference to terms in fields other than their own. Unlike science dictionaries found on the reference shelves of libraries, this book is small enough to fit into a knapsack.
As with all specialized dictionaries the task for editors is to decide what to leave in and what to leave out, and how technical to get. The people at Oxford University Press, one of the preeminent publishers of reference books in the world, have tried to eschew "unnecessary scientific jargon" while "always bearing in mind the needs of the readers" (from the Preface). Nonetheless, many of the entries are highly technical, having been written by experts. Clearly the editors have decided to err on the side of technical precision rather than anything resembling a dumbing down. The entry on "optical activity" for example is a mini essay of about 400 words adorned with a drawing of the D-, L-, and meso-forms of the isomers of tartaric acid along with several cross references to related terms in the dictionary. A two-page boxed entry on "El Nino" however is written in language easily accessible to the average high school graduate, as are many other entries including over 160 mini biographies of important scientists.
I also use The American Heritage Dictionary of Science, another handy (as opposed to comprehensive) reference and would like to make a quick comparison. The Heritage dictionary is a hardcover and contains noticeably more entries (16,000+ to perhaps 10,000 to 12,000 for the Oxford). However the Heritage hasn't been updated since the edition of 1988. Of course a lot has happened in science since then, which is why I purchased the Oxford paperback. The Heritage also uses the entries words or phrases in sentences, usually quoting some scientist whereas the Oxford does not bother. The Heritage also gives the pronunciation of most of the entries (e.g., it's "pree'-on," not "pri'-on" for the mad cow infectious agent) whereas the Oxford does not. The Oxford is more technical overall--it is especially strong in physics--and of course more up to date. The entries also tend to be more thorough. For example, the Oxford has a schematic drawing of a mammalian kidney system whereas the Heritage has only text.
There are seven appendices on SI units, fundamental constants, the solar system, the geographical time scale, plant and animal kingdom classifications, and the periodic table. Curiously, nowhere in the Oxford is the abbreviation SI defined or even noted! The Heritage gives it as the French Systeme International d'Unites (or International System of Units). This is actually an indication of how the Oxford assumes a greater scientific sophistication on the part of its readers than does the Heritage.
Bottom line here is that this book is practically a must for those who read a lot of science in fields other than their own. It is better overall than the Heritage because it is eleven years more up to date; and it is a better choice for most people than the more comprehensive hardcover volumes which are significantly more expensive, heavier and take up more space.
|
|
|
