Well, have you actually read it?

[SpuriusMaximus]

This is a dangerous assumption to make unless you (generally, not you you) are well-versed in the Bible yourself, and possibly in the literal translations and the major interpretations of it.

Well, generally assuming what the other doesn't know is asking for a surprise, but from my experience (and I think at least one study), most believers really didn't read their book, much less study the theology behind it. In fact, when they do claim that some sophisticate theology explains it, you can bet they never read that.

Oh, a lot will have certain verses and episodes drilled into them in church, and maybe even saw movies on some of those topics, but there are whole swathes of the bible you can be sure most never even heard of. You get them into such territory as God's rules for raping properly in warfare, or Jephthah offering his daughter to God as a burned offering, or God actually losing a wrestling match with Jacob even after cheating by using divine magic, etc, and there's an overwhelming chance they'll say you're making it up.

Of course, you are still right about it being a good idea to actually be well versed in it if you're gonna debate it. But then, ain't that always the case?

 

[Dr. Keith]

At what point does this occur for you, or anyone else? We can't say, "you must read X, in all cases," to know about it. Nobody has the time.

If I'm not going to read it then I'm going to be clear that my view of it is based on reviews by others or my impression of the author from other works or whatever has led me to decide not to read it. I have no problem with admitting as much.

If someone wants me to spend my time on reading something that I feel like I have a good grasp on I am willing to listen, but they need to specifically address my reasons for not wanting to read it. A blanket "You can't know if you haven't read it" will not suffice.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

This is a dangerous assumption to make unless you (generally, not you you) are well-versed in the Bible yourself, and possibly in the literal translations and the major interpretations of it.

My post was in response to my cousins' asking me that question when they struggle to read the back of a cereal box.

 

[rjh01]

Me, too. I was very impressed with the attention to detail and the build-up of his arguments. It's really very hard to dispute any single part of what he did, because it's done so carefully and in such small increments. And I found it quite readable, not particularly archaic. It's not Melville.

Darwin spent decades writing his book. This includes all the study he did to come up with the facts. Would have spent even longer but Wallace came up with the same ideas.

 

[MG1962]

Darwin spent decades writing his book. This includes all the study he did to come up with the facts. Would have spent even longer but Wallace came up with the same ideas.

Even then Darwin really saw the publication as an interim step to a far more detailed description of his theory. He basically was just trying to establish priority as the founder of the concept.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Even then Darwin really saw the publication as an interim step to a far more detailed description of his theory. He basically was just trying to establish priority as the founder of the concept.

I remember that Wallace wrote Darwin, and Darwin, after some consultation, elected to make an announcement concurrent to Wallace's. I don't think he wanted primacy there, just congruence. (And I may well be wrong, of course.)

I don't think we can compare the works of Wallace and Darwin. Wallace intuited the concept while Darwin developed it from scratch. Even Wallace acknowledged that Darwin's understanding of the process was deeper and more thoroughly thought out than his.

 

[MG1962]

I remember that Wallace wrote Darwin, and Darwin, after some consultation, elected to make an announcement concurrent to Wallace's. I don't think he wanted primacy there, just congruence. (And I may well be wrong, of course.)

I don't think we can compare the works of Wallace and Darwin. Wallace intuited the concept while Darwin developed it from scratch. Even Wallace acknowledged that Darwin's understanding of the process was deeper and more thoroughly thought out than his.

There has been a lot of controversy over the years (that I dont buy into) that Wallace handed Darwin the missing pieces of his issue. In todays world Darwin would be the theorist and Wallace definitely the prac man.

As a commercial collector Wallace got access to a lot more environments than Darwin had, and could see much of what Darwin was theorizing about in the real world.

Yes Wallace always looked up to Darwin, but Wallace never realized his own abilities, and being stuck out in the wilds of South East Asia, he never understood the true impact his research and papers were making back home.

To Wallace though I have to give credit to the most basic and elegant description of evolution that I have ever read. In a diary entry long before Darwin published. He once wrote

"Like by like in time and space"

It does not get much better than that lol

 

[Wowbagger]

I'm sorry, but those are italic bold claims.

It was a metaphor. Just like the claims I am talking about weren't really as "big" as the author claimed, neither was the text I used to describe them. They were still bold, but didn't amount to much, in the end.

 

[Dinwar]

It's really very hard to dispute any single part of what he did...

Technically, I would have to agree with you. However, it's what he DIDN'T do that caused his theory to be debated for a long, long time before finally being accepted: he didn't establish a causal mechanism. A lot of scientists, at that time and later, argued that without a mechanism his work really wasn't saying much more than "Hey, this cool thing happens. Somehow. Look at all these cool examples!" And the problem there is that by the time Darwin wrote his book, pretty much everyone knew something was going on, but not what.

To be more specific, Darwin never established precisely what natural selection acted upon. His theory was incomplete, and therefore justifiably considered by many to be untennable.

Wallace intuited the concept while Darwin developed it from scratch.

Hardly from scratch. Look up Eurasmus Darwin sometime. The whole scientific world knew that there was something going on; I don't want to say that the discovery of evolution was inevitable, and I don't mean to downplay the genius of Darwin, but he had a pretty solid basis for developing the concept well before he got on the Beagle.

I don't think he wanted primacy there, just congruence. (And I may well be wrong, of course.)

Perhaps true for Darwin. Definitely not true for his bulldog. He had a number of people more than concerned enough with primacy to make up for his appathy thereto.

As a commercial collector Wallace got access to a lot more environments than Darwin had, and could see much of what Darwin was theorizing about in the real world.

Darwin's own observations were hardly insignificant. He made copious notes and collections while on the Beagle, certainly more than enough to firmly root his theories in practical observation.

 

[MG1962]

Darwin's own observations were hardly insignificant. He made copious notes and collections while on the Beagle, certainly more than enough to firmly root his theories in practical observation.

But at the time Darwin was taking notes and collecting he did not have the over arching concept of evolution in his head yet. That was why he missed the significance of his finches till years later.

On the other hand Wallace was lead to the concept by his continuing observations in the field. And it must be remembered Wallace spent nearly 15 years in the field, exploring some of the most diverse biospheres in the world.

I think it is fair to say Darwin would still have gotten there without Wallace's notes, it just would have taken a little longer. I believe Wallace would have also gotten there without Darwin, again it would have taken a little longer

 

[catsmate]

Hardly from scratch. Look up Eurasmus Darwin sometime. The whole scientific world knew that there was something going on; I don't want to say that the discovery of evolution was inevitable, and I don't mean to downplay the genius of Darwin, but he had a pretty solid basis for developing the concept well before he got on the Beagle.

Indeed. It's somewhat annoying how few people are aware of Dr. Darwin, his influence on his grandson and the importance of him and the other 'Lunarticks' to science and technology.
Sheffield's book (The Amazing Dr. Darwin) is well worth a read.

 

[Jimbo07]

Well, this hasn't turned out to be very controversial. The consensus seems to be something along the lines of "If person B can't summarize the main argument of a book clearly, or at least provide a compelling reason to do so, person A is under no obligation to spend time reading said book."

I think I'd largely agree, so let's move on. I (person A) have been given a book (Darwin's Black Box, as above). Person B has never given me a good reason to read it (and I don't want to start a fight by bringing it up). Now, I don't believe person C should then happen along to read it. I believe C has much better uses of C's time. Is it censorship to recommend against, even if I haven't actually read it? Does it matter that Behe was all but exposed as a liar in the Dover trial? To what extent does surrounding context come into play, in having to read books for oneself and to recommend to others?

BTW, I'm using this example because I own the book, but feel free to generalize. I'm talking about books, not Darwin, here.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

I think the honest thing to do is to just point at some review or summary, and let person C decide for themselves.

ETA: as for the "no obligation" part, I'd even remove the conditional. You're under no obligation to do anything you don't want to, anyway, and you're certainly under no obligation to do the research for someone ELSE's claims. Period. If they claim that the book contains some evidence or reasoning or whatever to support some claim, just like for "there is a flying pig in Australia", the burden of finding and showing it is on that one making the claim.

 

[Myron Proudfoot]

I thought Marlowe really wrote Darwin? Or was that another thread??

 

[MG1962]

I thought Marlowe really wrote Darwin? Or was that another thread??

Well "To Be or Not to Be" Sort of sums up evolution when you think about it

 

[Dinwar]

Is it censorship to recommend against, even if I haven't actually read it?

How can it be? You're not stopping them from reading it in any way--you are offering an opinion. That opinion is "This book is not worth reading." You don't always need to read the book to know that. A trivial example demonstrates that: let's say you know the book "A Dark Night" is a pulp mystery, the literary equivalent of CSI. Let's say you know I hate that type of book. You don't need to read it to advise against me reading it--merely knowing as much as you do allows you to evaluate it and make that determination.

For textbooks it's a bit more difficult, but once you know the information is wrong, that's all you need to know provided you know I'm looking for information on that topic (in other words, if I'm reading it for the historic value, or its role in the culture of ID, or other purposes, the fact that the information is wrong isn't necessarily relevant). In other words, if I'm looking to learn evolution by reading "Darwin's Black Box", advise against it. If I'm looking to see how it played a role in the Dover trial, it's irrational to advise against it. If I'm looking for colorful pictures and interesting text for an art installation (I've seen it happen), the actual text of the book may be entirely irrelevant.

I believe this answers the following question as well:

Does it matter that Behe was all but exposed as a liar in the Dover trial?

To what extent does surrounding context come into play, in having to read books for oneself and to recommend to others?

If you wish to debate the book, you must be familiar with the book. This is merely a specific application of the more general concept "If you wish to debate X, you must be familiar with X." Otherwise, use whatever criteria are relevant for the context of the situation you are in.

But at the time Darwin was taking notes and collecting he did not have the over arching concept of evolution in his head yet......On the other hand Wallace was lead to the concept by his continuing observations in the field.

It's pretty clear from Darwin's journals that he knew there was something going on--and they BOTH were led to that conclusion (as were all those leading up to Darwin) based on observations in the field. Darwin's field efforts didn't stop when the Beagle reached England; remember, he wrote a number of other important books. Check out "Darwin's Century" to see a good history of evolutionary thought. The first few chapters of the book directly deal with evolution pre-Darwin.