/lit/ - Literature

>>14915413
Aristotle: History of Animals, Generation of Animals, Movement of Animals, Progression of Animals, Parts of Animals, and On the Soul.

Theophrastus: History of Plants

Pliny the Elder: Natural History

Galen: Corpus

>>14915488
"modern" biology bro

>>14915413
Darwin studied mathematics and was heavily influenced by Sedgewick. Biology's a difficult one because how it's done changes a lot and very often. If you want to understand modern biology, maybe start with the uncovering of DNA and all that, a good book is Meselson, Stahl, and the Replication of DNA: A History of "The Most Beautiful Experiment in Biology"

>>14915498
"as a long term enterprise"

>>14915413
You actually read Darwin? No one does that just get a modern textbook on evolution. Science is not literature primary sources don't matter and are generally hard to read and inaccurate

>>14915413
textbooks: cell biology, anatomy, physiology, physiopathology, neurophysiology, etc

>>14915519
But also "modern".

>>14915522
You're on /lit/, bugman. We start with the Greeks here.

>>14915522
>Science is not literature primary sources don't matter and are generally hard to read and inaccurate
Most of the work done in biology is looking at primary sources though, not textbooks.

>>14915528
I read it as "understand modern biology as [part of] a long term enterprise".

>>14915522
agree with this. Sorry but the physical sciences are not something you can just pick up books for. It's more production rather than consumption.

>>14915413
https://4chan-science.fandom.com/wiki/Biology_Textbook_Recommendations

>>14915550
Go back to plebbit, simpleton.

>>14915545
>Lewin's Genes is graduate level
Also we're on the 12th or 13th edition I think, 9th is super old.

>>14915413
Andreas Vesalius - "On the Fabric of the Human Body" (1543). The beginning of modern medicine.

>>14915550
yeah but the book is cheap

>>14915413
"The Growth of Biological Thought" is a book written by Ernst Mayr, first published in 1982. It is subtitled Diversity, Evolution, and Inheritance, and is as much a book of philosophy and history as it is of biology.[1]

It is a sweeping, academic study of the first 2,400 years of the science of biology. It focuses largely on how the philosophical assumptions of biologists influenced and limited their understanding. It includes many important general observations about the role of philosophy in scientific inquiry and the place of biology amongst the sciences.

Is there a proper English translation of Linnaeus' Systema Naturae?

>>14915488
>Aristotle: History of Animals, Generation of Animals, Movement of Animals, Progression of Animals, Parts of Animals, and On the Soul.
Have you read these volumes? In which of these books does Aristotle explain his system of classification (genus and species)?

>>14915752
Sounds pretty cool desu

>>14915781
'History of Animals' and 'Parts of Animals'.

>>14915765
https://ia800207.us.archive.org/21/items/generalsystemofn03linn/generalsystemofn03linn.pdf

>>14915413
Just read some textbooks. Don't listen to the people ITT suggesting dusty meme authors who wrote a bunch of shit that is outdated and wrong

t. doing my PhD

Theology, followed by Philosophy.

>>14915876
>outdated and wrong
STEMlord detected.

>>14916218
This is a thread about a STEM subject. If this were a thread about the Dutch economy in the 1500s, you'd be right to deride him as a STEMlord, but this is not such a thread, and you are retarded.

>>14916237
Thinking of intellectual inquiry as divided into STEM vs non-STEM is the mark of the retard.

>>14916253
Then why did Aristotle delineate between natural philosophy and philosophy?

>>14916237
>This is a thread about a STEM subject.
Then take it back to /sci/ or reddit, troglodyte.

>>14916267
He didn't.

Biology BS here.

Campbell Biology is a textbook, but unitonically the best entry level primer for the lay man. It is very well written and the illustrations are top tier. If you’re a layman looking to get a “jack of all trades” understanding of the field, this is square one.

In biology you don't start with the Greeks, you start with The Selfish Gene.

Biology: The Science of Life by Robert A Wallace. More informal than most textbooks, and published pre-1980, so it doesn't get bogged down in the massive expansion of biology since the rise of recombinant DNA technology.

Handbook of Biological Investigation by Ambrose & Ambrose. Not to read cover-to-cover, but for reference. Statistics is relatively more important in biology.

A modern, updated textbook like >>14916293

At this point you should be able to concentrate on a particular field of study. Biology is way too big and changes way too fast to know all of it.

>>14915522
>Science is not literature primary sources don't matter and are generally hard to read and inaccurate
No, you just start general (pop science, textbooks) and work your way toward specific if you have questions.

>>14915550
>Sorry but the physical sciences are not something you can just pick up books for
Oh right, I forgot we're just sticking with #IFuckingLoveScience memes now

>>14915556
They are just recommending the books they were assigned to
read in college.

Start reading college level textbooks, there is literally no other way to understand modern biology

>>14917018
>The Selfish Gene.
starting with hacks lamo

>>14917018
>In biology you don't start with the Greeks, you start with The Selfish Gene.
Lol. Back to plebbit, bugman.

>>14917117
Science is great! Yaaah!!!!

Zammito's The Gestation of German Biology
Richards' The Romantic Conception of Life
Riskin's The Restless Clock

These three will give you a good introduction to the history of the life sciences during the early modern scientific revolution through to Darwin's "breakthrough" and its ambiguous legacy. From there I would recommend reading two of Richards' other books,
>The Tragic Sense of Life: Ernst Haeckel and the Struggle over Evolutionary Thought
and
>The Meaning of Evolution: The Morphological Construction and Ideological Reconstruction of Darwin's Theory

You could also read Reenchanted Science by Harrington.

20th century biology is dominated by the "neo-Darwinian synthesis," which is not Darwinism, and which regards everything outside of itself as heresy. If you try to learn biology from a random textbook you will only be getting the party line. You have to learn it historically.

>>14915498
You need to understand classical conceptions of life in order to understand how the basic categories of the life sciences were established first by the materialists and mechanists of the early modern period and then by the neo-Darwinians, and especially in order to understand how people opposed to neo-Darwinism try to reintroduce other categories.

>>14917157
I forgot to mention Canguilhem's Knowledge of Life (La Connaissance de la vie).

>>14917157
>>14917161
Listen to this guy.

>>14917157

>How the leopard changed it's spots
>Signs of life

Modern Biology can only be understood through the complexity of it's systems and in a precise and well ordered manner, something that can only be done through the language of mathematics, sadly it's a field populated by people under the "math is hard lol!" mantle, and the rest are too focused on genetics to see the bigger picture.

Lmao at autists here recommending outdated books for science

Science evolves, that's why you need the newest information. Get the most recent college books for anatomy (gray's is nice),biochemistry(harper or netter), physiology, etc...


>Read Aristoteles to learn biology
Lmao you guys are living memes

Lmao

Lmao

>>14917362
>Science evolves
So does all knowledge, cumguzzler. That's not the point.

Always ALWAYS start with the Greeks.

>Lmao you guys are living memes
Read a book, vulgarian.

>>14917018
Based post. People will rightfully hate on Dawkins for being an insufferable cunt that steps outside of his field too much, but Selfish Gene is indeed the place to start, whether you like it ir not.

>>14917382
I'm sure a NEET or someone who studies for some meme degree knows more about biology than someone with an MD.
This is literally my job, OP don't start with the greeks these guys are retarded.

>>14915413
Reminder that atheists literally believe in bigfoot

>>14917386
Thank fucking "CHRIST" for your post. The idea that scientists/atheists/etc. must throw away any sense of rationality and logic, and must therefore embrace the earliest writings on a given subject rather than the latest... is an absurdity. Deep down, everyone here knows that reddit is wiser than /x/ and /pol/.

>>14916142
>Campbell Biology
THAT'S OT A REVERSIBLE SKETCH AT ALL YOU LIAR!

>>14917451
The problem is, only a brainlet could write pic related. It casts doubt on his entire career.

>>14917483
Bottom line: all so-called "biology textbooks" must be tossed into the fire.

>>14917498
Absolutely based. Fuck ((( science ))).

>>14917498

Ah, spoke like a true feminist

>>14915413
im part of a neuroscience lab looking at biomarkers for alzheimer's and other neurodegenerative disorders. rest assured, science tells us very little about the things that matter. There's a lot of information about this and that but little wisdom because technology is bereft of it. Those who believe science somehow has answers to anything relating to the human condition are fools, or have never studied science meaningfully.

>>14915413
You'll never really understand how DNA works.

>>>/sci/

>>14918158
i just want to have a job that doesn't consist of cleaning toilets for 12 hours

>>14915413
You need a degree, honestly, you genuinely can't learn a modern science by self-study. Too much of it is practice. That said, a decent university textbook could serve a layperson well, with a big caveat: DON'T READ A TEXTBOOK COVER-TO-COVER, they are reference material. Choose an area you are interested in and delve into that. Also, a biology dictionary is invaluable, the one I got for university was Henderson's Dictionary of Biology, I still use it now .

>>14918186
Depends where they're based.

The diaries of Hippocrates and Leonardo Da Vinci.

>>14918174
There are entry level autoclaving positions in a lot of places. You can clean lab equipment for 12 hours a day instead.

>>14918234
sounds great
what do i need?
i'm 28 is that a bad age for starting a college career?

>>14918256
You need to apply to jobs for washing laboratory equipment.

No, it's more about if you care about what you're doing. There are some places that care about stuff like that, but you find all sorts of people doing research work or studying biology. If you're somewhere where you're outright made to feel bad about being older then move somewhere else that doesn't.

>>14916293
This, reading this volume of Campbell Biology now and it's very easy to understand. Planning on reading Molecular Biology of the Cell next.

>>14915488
Is Aristotle really the most ancient scientific text out there?

>>14918473
Many things can be argued.

>>14918505
What are some other contenders?

>>14918186
>you genuinely can't learn a modern science by self-study

You can get a BS level of understanding if you’re willing to put a few years in and are disciplined.

>>14917386
>>14917451
>>14917483
>>14917498
>>14917549

Ignoring evolution is the beginning of a long, embarrassing decline into irrelevance. Lysenko nearly destroyed the USSR single-handedly, and creationists would do the same if anyone that mattered took them seriously.

>>14918256
Older can actually be better if you got the drinking, fucking and drugs out of your system by then. Julius Axelrod didn't get his degree until he was 29.

>>14918174
A degree won't do shit for your career if you aren't part of a protected class (as Julius Axelrod discovered).

>>14918186
>You need a degree, honestly, you genuinely can't learn a modern science by self-study
Yeah you can; stoners do it all the time. But you really should try to get some lab/field experience because:
1. You will learn jargon and stuff that the textbook glosses over or takes for granted.
2. You will learn how sloppy you can afford to be with your methodology. Most autodidacts *don't* learn this and are consequently terrified of changing their protocols.
3.Modern science is expensive and you'll learn how to use reagents and equipment you can't buy on your own (yet).

And of course you don't necessarily need a degree for this. You can be a student, intern or staffer (like Julius Axelrod).

>DON'T READ A TEXTBOOK COVER-TO-COVER
It depends. You can read Wallace cover-to-cover.

>a biology dictionary is invaluable
This is really helpful if you can find a good one. Also it wouldn't hurt to skim the Cold Spring Harbor protocol books from start to finish just to get an idea of what tools you have to work with.

>>14915498
Just read the journals.

>>14915517
RA Fisher further elaborated on Darwin’s math.

>>14915519
Yes. Biology for personal finances.

go molecular OP

>>14918945
Daily reminder that Lamarckism is coming back and there's nothing Darwin fags can do about it

https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/transformations-lamarckism

Read Ray Peat OP

>>14915522
Early texts form the foundation of where modern science is.

>>14915523
When should I pick up virology, immunology, and hematology?

>>14920868
Probably a brothel

>>14920994
Nobody goes to whore houses anymore.

>>14921054
you're not in the right country

>>14915522
lol this bug thinking permeates even biology
this is why grads don't know shit outside of their very small area of technical competency

>>14921064
There are popular whore houses in Venezuela?

>>14915528
Lets all just agree to be postmodern and ironic, alright?

>>14919915
Peat is very based and gives an intriguing look into the misappropriation of life science as well as useful diet tips

>>14920868
For virology and hematology you're reading papers. For immunology there are some standard textbooks like Janeway's. Immunology is perhaps the most autistic of the subdisciplines, it's a lot of memorizing receptors and processes.

>>14919915
fucken based I've been saying Lamarck was right for years

>>14922313
Any other subdisciplines I should look at?

>>14922852
Whatever takes your fancy. For virology there's some big differences in whether a virus infects eukaryotes or bacteria or archaea (although as you might imagine there's some crossover, I think the biggest odd one is in DNA viruses like HPV that seem to have some bacteriophage ancestry/relation, you've also got the mega bacteriophage viruses that have their own CRISPR [which is also an *adaptive* immune system, not like our own but with similar properties]).

Another division is in RNA and DNA viruses to some degree, RNA viruses have fun reverse transcriptase stuff going on, there's also another RNA based thing called viroids in plants that are pretty mysterious and amazing. There's some really nice basic experiments you can do with plants btw to get you into microscopy and experimenting and stuff. That can also lead you to looking at agrobacterium in plant transformation (it's used in techniques like floral dip for producing GM plants). There's also zinc fingers, they're like a response to viral DNA that has integrated into genomes except they aren't (they're incredibly weird and understudied, they appear to be something like an adaptive response but [as far as we can tell] they are not, and prior to CRISPR gene editing they were a promising candidate for gene editing and are still used in some niche applications [look up CRISPR, TALENS, and ZFNs to compare]).

It's very hard to understand viruses without knowing about genes and how DNA and RNA and epigenetics works, so I would look at Lewin's Genes/Essential Genes for sure. For blood related stuff it's actually quite easy to train in phlebotomy, but that limits you to taking blood really (although I know people that have gone on from there to do cool stuff). A lot of immunology has crossover with hematology, another area would be developmental biology with the only standard text I know of being Scott Gilbert's eponymous one. Intestines are a super interesting area too.

>>14923228
How about white blood cells, red blood cells, and platelets then?

>>14923719
>white blood cells, red blood cells, and platelets
You'll see a lot of these in immunology and developmental biology.

>>14915413
nowadays biology is all about genetics and biochemistry, so look into textbooks about that. libgen has most of them.

Alberts is good for an all around view of the basics but you'll want more specialized textbooks for the details.

>>14923799
Ah yes. Development biology will couple well with my development psychology training.

>>14915413

Campbell Biology 11th Edition

Are there people who are easier to trigger than /lit/? You toads get riled up about STEM more than /pol/ about jews. If you feel so insecure, why don't explore some hard sciences, so you can be the renaissance men, you wish you were.

Anyone who is criticising the Selfish Gene simply because they don't like Dawkins is WORSE than a redditor who pushes Dawkins simply because he's an atheist.

The gene centered view of evolution was a landmark theory that solved several problems in evolution. Telling people not to read the book because you're a salty pseud makes you a total spastic.

>>14915535
Then where are Homer and Gaius?

>>14915537
Primary sources including, but not limited to, cadavers.

>>14915545
I thought it was understand modern biology as it relates to twister.

>>14915550
How so? I’ve picked up books and watched videos and I think I have a rather good foundation to work with.

>>14915556

>>14915413
Literature =/= knowledge contained in books

This is the consequence of jannies letting philosotards run around on here all day long

>>14915558
That isn’t a site