A Short History of Nearly Everything by Bill Bryson

When I picked up this book, I thought the "everything" in "nearly everything" was everything. In the introduction, the author makes it seem that way too. He fails to mention (anywhere in the book) that his perception of "everything" is just the natural sciences. It is a fun, engaging, acceptably thorough survey of the way mankind first discovered and now views the natural sciences, and for that, it is worth notice. But to say that it is a take on everything is not only wrong, but arrogant and blind.

Chunky Bill Bryson tries his hand at the natural sciences in History

The biggest part of "everything" is man's culture and it is not even regarded except in the findings of science. And even then, it is severely deficient. When it looks at Relativity or Evolution, for example, it passes up the opportunity for really exploring the theories so that the author can spend more time on the scientist’s lives and events surrounding the actual science. I guess that’s why it’s a history, but getting just a taste is painful for those seeking more than just cocktail party anecdotes. The book doesn’t even touch on all the sciences--most notably lacking a survey of psychology. Neuroscience is perhaps at the forefront of "everything" and it isn't even hinted at here.

Instead, Bryson broadcasts, in the officious, repetitive and sarcastic way so many outside of science do, that man and his culture are insignificant, lucky and dangerous. Amnesia strikes the author several times as he asserts how innovative and creative we have been by examining a few of the great natural philosophers and then abruptly claims how harmful and puny we are. He will claim how vast the earth is and how easily it (or an asteroid) could destroy the insignificant mankind and then notes how we are destroying the earth and are a likely candidate for the most destructive thing in the universe.

Bryson sees man's product as shameful and the rest of the universe as brilliant and awesome. The truth of the latter should not necessitate the former. But what else can one expect from someone who thinks "everything" is physical and happens without man's interference?

For a good survey of the thought behind science, read "The Dream of Reason" by Anthony Gottlieb.

For a great survey of the greatest cultural era in history, read "From Dawn to Decadence" by Jacques Barzun.

For insight into the relationship between man, nature and the metaphysical, read "Justice and Equality" by E. Robert Morse.