I think that part of the problem is that the things in the natural sciences that interest me seem to have been deemphasized. In physics I am interested in things like optics and acoustics. In biology I am mostly interested in ecology (ecology as pure theory, not as a part of environmentalism). If you are not looking for cosmology, evolution, genetics, etc. then there does not seem to be much left.
Sorry in advance for the essay.
First of all, science builds on itself. Its like learning a musical instrument. You have to do the simple pieces before you can master the harder pieces of music. And learning a musical instrument takes an incredible amount of time to get good at and it also has an incredibly steep learning curve. Furthermore, you can't be a master of all the instruments simply because there isn't enough time in someone's life. You can be a master in one and dabble in others, but likely you'll never achieve the same level of mastery on multiple instruments. You also can't expect to take up classical guitar one day and be playing Pagannini's 24th caprice the next day.
The same with science. It builds on itself. Physics, biology, and chemistry are broad categories like woodwinds, strings and horns. Sub-disciplines like theoretical physics, ecology and organic chemistry act as specific instruments like flute, violin and trombone. All these "instruments" take a huge amount of time to learn and master and you can always learn more; there are always more pieces to learn and compositions to make. You also can't expect to pick up a new "instrument" with no prior knowledge and be able to thoroughly understand the subject.
Math is the sheet music that everyone is reading. Its a written language with a fully functional syntax. But math is a lot more complicated than sheet music with a much more complicated syntax. Learning to read the sheet music of science is part of becoming a master of your instrument. And you'll often come across a piece of music that has all sorts of funky new symbols that you've never encountered before and you need to get over that hurdle and figure it out in order to play the piece.
Like I said, someone who is a master at the trombone might be able to do a decent job at trumpet and someone who is an expert on the piano can dabble playing the guitar, but they are ultimately so specialized that you can't be a master of all of them at the same time.
The social sciences is more like the rhythm section. It still takes effort and skill to become a master, but if you can keep a decent beat then at least you can hit the snare drum or shake the shaker and make a decent contribution. Percussive instruments are generally harder to make sound bad. If you hand someone an African drum who has never played a drum before, they can probably make something resembling a rhythm. If you hand someone a violin that has never played a violin before, they can literally do nothing with it that resembles music. Furthermore, percussion doesn't rely quite as much on written music just as social sciences don't rely quite as much on math.
There are quite a few books written by scientists that make science easier to swallow. This is akin to a master pianist writing a simplified version of their piece that only contains one melody line using one hand rather than including both hands and all the underlying chords. In this case, both the scientist and the master pianist get the gist of their work accross, just without a lot of the richness, depth and complexity.
Einstein was a huge proponent of this simplification for the masses (i.e. simplification for all the non-musicians). He wrote his book entitled
Relativity in which the first few chapters have almost no math and only discuss the conceptual ideas such that they are easily readable by any layperson. The later chapters delve into more complex math. The book is only about 100 pages too, making it a "relatively" easy read for the public (sorry...couldn't resist the pun).
If you're interested in acoustics and how they affect the brain,
This is Your Brain On Music by Daniel Levitin is a great book.
Why Does E=Mc^2 by Brian Cox is a great and mind-bending look at the implications of relativity but dumbed down with almost no math at all.
Zero by Charles Seife is also an interesting read that gives some historical background to mathematics and the concept of zero.
The Golden Ratio by Mario Livio is also a cool book about math.
If you want more suggestions, PM me.
I have a hard time with many of them, and I've studied math for 3 years straight...
