A Dictionary of Science (Oxford Paperback Reference) (Paperback)

~ Alan Isaacs (Editor), John Daintith (Editor), E. A. Martin (Editor)

Editorial Reviews

Review

"Handy and readable...for scientists aged nine to ninety."--Nature
Praise for previous editions:
"The book will appeal not just to scientists and science students but also to the interested lay person. And it passes the most difficult test of any dictionary--it is well worth browsing through."--New Scientist

Product Description

Authoritative and up-to-date, this popular dictionary is an ideal reference for both students and non-scientists. Now fully revised and substantially expanded for this new edition, the Concise Science Dictionary provides comprehensive coverage of biology (including human biology), chemistry, physics, the earth sciences, and astronomy, as well as common terms from mathematics and computing. With 9,500 clear and concise entries, the dictionary also incorporates the latest developments in fields such as genetics, molecular biology, cosmology, particle physics, and fullerene chemistry. New material includes biographical entries, box features, chronologies, and tables; and appendices cover the periodic table, tables of SI units, and classifications of the plant and animal kingdoms.

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Paperback: 864 pages
• Publisher: Oxford University Press, USA; 4 edition (December 9, 1999)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0192800981
• ISBN-13: 978-0192800985
• Product Dimensions: 7.8 x 5.1 x 2.2 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.2 pounds
• Average Customer Review: 4.2 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (4 customer reviews)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #2,539,081 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

31 of 31 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars The best choice for those who read a lot of popular science, August 16, 2004

By	Dennis Littrell (SoCal) - See all my reviews (TOP 50 REVIEWER)    (REAL NAME)    (COMMUNITY FORUM 04)

Amazon Verified Purchase

This review is from: Dictionary of Science (Oxford Paperback Reference) (Paperback)

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.

5.0 out of 5 stars Dictionary of Science review, October 17, 2009

By	Paula C. Jacobs (Stuart, Florida USA) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

Amazon Verified Purchase

This review is from: A Dictionary of Science (Oxford Paperback Reference) (Paperback)

I'm a nursing student, but am taking a lot of science classes. I needed a dictionary of scientific terms, not of medical terminology, and I can't think of a better one than the Oxford Dictionary of Science; a trusted name and, so far, everything I've needed to look up has been in there. How did I live without it?

1 of 2 people found the following review helpful:

2.0 out of 5 stars Very thorough but poorly designed and curious omissions, August 20, 2008

By	H. Sansom "huw_the_book" (Brooklyn, NY USA) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

This review is from: A Dictionary of Science (Oxford Paperback Reference) (Paperback)

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.