Customer Reviews

Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia 2 Volume Set

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

There are three classes of science & technology encyclopedias currently available. The best and most comprehensive one, by far, is the 20+ volume 15,600 page McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science & Technology-it's in a class by itself but it will cost [quite a bit]. The next class of science & tech encyclopedias are what you might call the mammoth 2-hand desktops. There are only two in this class, Von Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia and the McGraw-Hill Concise Encyclopedia of Science & Technology. The next class of science & tech encyclopedias are the smaller 1-hand desktops of which there are many. After looking at them all and buying several, I've come to the conclusion that the two mammoth desktop encyclopedias are the most useful and the best value. The 20+ volume McGraw-Hill would certainly be nice to have, but if you're the average non-scientist college-educated layman it's too expensive (you could buy a top of the line PowerMac G4 computer for that price) for an encyclopedia whose scientific content will be obsolete in a few short years until McGraw-Hill follows Britannica and makes it available on affordable CDs or online. On the other hand, the smaller more affordable desktop 'encyclopedias' are really misnamed dictionaries given their tremendously broad scope and relatively short length, making them virtually useless (except for James Trefil's excellent Encyclopedia of Science and Technology). That leaves the two mammoth desktop encyclopedias in the middle; they're the best values: large enough to be truly useful, yet small enough to be affordable. Comparing these two qualitatively, they're both authoritative, scholarly, and top-notch. I read each of the encyclopedia's articles on data, information, and computer technology (an admittedly small sample of the enormous content of each). I found the Concise McGraw-Hill to be much more useful. The larger Von Nostrand had more information on these subjects, but it was of such a technical nature that only IT specialists with a heavy mathematics background could understand it. That's great for other professors (who probably wouldn't be consulting a desktop encyclopedia for help in their field anyway) but not very helpful to non-specialists. In other words, as a college-educated liberal arts generalist I learned more from the content of the Concise McGraw-Hill. Comparing them quantitatively in terms of their value, the Concise McGraw-Hill is also a much better value. Von Nostrand's 4192 page encyc. [is costly] while the 2318 page Concise McGraw-Hill goes for [cheaper]. For the price of Von Nostrand's you can purchase the Concise McGraw-Hill and Trefil's smaller but excellent work and still have [money] to spare. Until McGraw-Hill and/or Von Nostrand's delivers their content in more economical and accessible forms the printed Concise McGraw-Hill is the best value available (December 2002).

When I was a kid I got the 4th edition as a birthday present. In the ten years thereafter I don't remember running into many errors.

I ordered the 9th edition for the next generation last spring, and have read most of A-F myself. There are so many errors (at least one per page) in this edition that I wouldn't recommend anyone using this encyclopedia for anything serious. I do not count simple spelling/grammar errors, only things that change the fundamental meaning of a definition.

Readers interested in mathematics or physics should not rely on any mathematical expression. Simple operators like plus/minus can be mixed up, as well as symbols for variables. Often variables are not properly defined, or in some cases incorrectly defined. Readers interested in chemistry should ignore most 2D organic structures because valance and resonance are often ignored.

Every book has it faults, and encyclopedias with many authors are especially vulnerable. IMHO Editor Glenn D. Considine has not done enough "quality control" to ensure that Van Nostrand's Nine is better than, e.g., Wikipedia.

If there were only a few errors per many pages I would have gladly sent my errata to the Editor. One per page leads me to the conclusion: Do not buy this book.

(For Mathematics you're better off with the 31st Edition of the CRC Standard Math Tables, ISBN 1-58488-291-3)

I had owned the 1982 VNE that I frequently referenced during college, saw the "updated" 2008 edition and though I could use it enough to justify the cost. I am impressed with the topic listings, enhaustive for sure, and the three volume 5000+ pages allow for some truly interesting browsing. Unfortunately, many topics simply haven't been updated since the late 80's or mid 90's. For example nuclear technology and energy are very long, but laden with old diagrams and references 20+ years old. The astronaut section is strange...listing individual listings of each class of astronauts like reading a phone book. Most pictures are old, all black and white (even Hubble space pics) and poor in quality. Still, I think the content of the written material has substance and given the pedigree of this encyclopedia I still think it is the first choice for librarians, scientists and classrooms, at least until Wikipedia has matured a bit.

I have had the pleasure of owning and reading the VAN NOSTRAND SCIENTIFIC ENCYCLOPEDIA since the mid-80's edition. This two-volume work of excellence is incredible reading for anyone interested in The Sciences. I read through this tome as a novel...I don't 'look-up' stuff very often, but the general reading is riveting. When I do look-up specific entries, I am never disappointed. I would recommend purchasing a used copy as the cost is pennies on the dollar. I can't afford $500 for a book, no matter how good. I've read the criticisms of this book. I don't agree.