Well, have you actually read it?

[Jimbo07]

You don't have to convince me of the power of literacy. In my life I've profited from being literate, and even enjoyed the odd book for recreation. I currently have a reading list that I'm making my way through, albeit slowly, due to other demands of life.

However, I was given a copy of Darwin's Black Box. I don't intend to read it. For that matter, except for the odd quoted passage, I don't ever intend to read Darwin directly! There has been enough reporting on the Dover court case, that I don't really feel the need to come further up to speed. But somebody may ask me, "Well, have you actually read it?" For me, reading either of those wouldn't add much.

In general, and perhaps for yourself, where does the utility of reading things for oneself, in an unconquerable universe of books, lead to diminishing returns?

 

[angrysoba]

If you are arguing with somebody about a claim made in a particular book, then that person should be able to give a good summary of the argument. It is wrong for them to say, "Just read the book!" because that puts an unfair onus on you to use up your time to argue against a claim they were too lazy to formulate themselves. I have had that kind of problem with Truthers and a few others who demanded I spent a lot of my time reading/watching stuff they thought made an unanswerable case.

If someone puts forward Person X's argument and you can refute the argument without having to read the book, then there is no need to read the book.

However, if you claim to know what an author has written then I think you should read the book.

 

[arthwollipot]

I haven't read Origin of Species. The archaic grammar puts me off (long sentences, anyone?) But like you, I don't really feel that I need to.

 

[Wowbagger]

I read it (Darwin's Black Box), on a challenge from Creationists, actually!

It starts with big, bold claims.

But, by the time you get to the end of it, it is entirely watered down with a plea to allow purely philosophical views to permeate science. (And, that ain't gonna happen.)

I prefer science books that end with their best arguments and most amazing evidences. Not these impostors that end up only clutching to their weakest ones, before it's all over.


My "favorite" argument is that Evolution is unable to develop any of the "nitty gritty details" that go into every biochemical process. He claims it is time to switch over to Intelligent Design, for this reason. Yet, I don't see any "nitty gritty details" coming out of ID, at all! Meanwhile, Evolution seems to be pretty darn productive with them!

See this recent thread, for an example of the stark contrast in the detail level each side provides: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=273026


I also "love" the bit where he misquotes Daniel Dennett. Really scores points for the man's "integrity" for me, with that one.

 

[angrysoba]

I haven't read Origin of Species. The archaic grammar puts me off (long sentences, anyone?) But like you, I don't really feel that I need to.

I read it and actually enjoyed it. A few things that surprised me:

Darwin actually answers nearly all the questions that Creationists are still asking.

And, there were a lot of interesting ideas that I had never even thought about as being evidence for natural selection such as how certain seeds could have been carried by bats and birds and introduced to areas where they soon flourished at the expense of native flora.

 

[Wowbagger]

I haven't read Origin of Species.

I tried to read Darwin's Origin of Species. But, I do prefer modern books on the subject. Darwin was great, no doubt! But, we know so much more since his time, and it's that newer stuff I love the most!

 

[autumn1971]

I read it and actually enjoyed it. A few things that surprised me:

Darwin actually answers nearly all the questions that Creationists are still asking.

And, there were a lot of interesting ideas that I had never even thought about as being evidence for natural selection such as how certain seeds could have been carried by bats and birds and introduced to areas where they soon flourished at the expense of native flora.

I have read Origin, (well, skipped the pigeons bits. Darwin did love him some pigeons,) and I love the long section where he thinks of the hardest possible cases for his theory and tries to find plausible ways they might have evolved. The creationists don't even ask the good ones: infertile castes in social insects and hexagonal honeycomb-cells are my favorites.

 

[MG1962]

I tried to read Darwin's Origin of Species. But, I do prefer modern books on the subject. Darwin was great, no doubt! But, we know so much more since his time, and it's that newer stuff I love the most!

I would strongly recommend Song Of The Dodo One of the most engaging books on evolution I have ever read

 

[HansMustermann]

@Jimbo:
The only situation where I find the "Have you actually read it?" question to have merit, is when someone makes claims about the contents of a book (or movie, or game, or whatever). Essentially if they're going to make claims about a book, they should know what they're talking about, and be prepared to support it with examples from the actual book.

Basically if someone were to say, dunno, "I'm not reading trilogy X because it's racist," then my answer too would be some form of, "if you didn't actually read it, then how do you know?"

But otherwise it seems to me like nobody has a right to tell you what to read. Unless they're willing to employ you to do that, I guess.

Frankly, your free time is just that: yours. Read whatever interests you.

It's also finite. You just don't have the time to read everything that's ever been written.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I'd invite a WWII-related challenger to read all 250+ gigabytes of documents we have on Hyperwar, but I haven't read all of them myself, so that would be a bit disingenuous.

 

[Mojo]

I haven't read Origin of Species. The archaic grammar puts me off (long sentences, anyone?) But like you, I don't really feel that I need to.

I tried to read Darwin's Origin of Species. But, I do prefer modern books on the subject. Darwin was great, no doubt! But, we know so much more since his time, and it's that newer stuff I love the most!

How about Almost Like a Whale by Steve Jones?

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

It's humorous that believers would ask "Have you actually read it" when they obviously haven't read the Bible. At least not for comprehension, anyway.

 

[Jimbo07]

Basically if someone were to say, dunno, "I'm not reading trilogy X because it's racist," then my answer too would be some form of, "if you didn't actually read it, then how do you know?"

Actually, this is exactly my point. I don't intend to ever read Darwin's Black Box, because it's anti-scientific garbage. Similarly, I have no real need to read Origin, since it's not really up to date. I've read enough about them that, unless all of the coverage has been lies, I believe I know enough to move on to other things.

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.

 

[Tiktaalik]

I read it and actually enjoyed it. A few things that surprised me:

Darwin actually answers nearly all the questions that Creationists are still asking.

And, there were a lot of interesting ideas that I had never even thought about as being evidence for natural selection such as how certain seeds could have been carried by bats and birds and introduced to areas where they soon flourished at the expense of native flora.

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.

 

[MetalPig]

It starts with big, bold claims.

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

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

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

So, Big Italics is to blame?

 

[Dinwar]

There are scholarly books (ie, ones making an argument--the level of scholarship is irrelevant to this division) that one must read for one's self. For example, I needed to read "Patterns and Processes in Vertebrate Evolution' for myself, because the information in it was necessary to me and I needed to understand the arguments being made, which was only possible by reading it.

Then therer are scholarly books where a synopsis from someone educated on the topic is sufficient. Creationist books are in that group, because they never make any new arguments--Creationists haven't made a new argument for fifty years or so, so a synopsis is typically sufficient. If you wish to debate a particular book it isn't, of course--one must be familiar with the material being debated--but there is no breach of intellectual honesty in reading a synopsis and saying "Oh, same old same old; moving right along then."

Surprisingly enough, Darwin's most famous book is in the latter category for me. All of the information in that book is available in other, more recent books, and those more recent books include a great deal of information Darwin didn't have access to. So by the time I got a copy of "On The Origine of Species" it was all old news to me. Don't get me wrong, I fully acknowledge the historical importance--it's just that after reading a number of chapters I feel no compulsion to read the whole thing. My field has moved on from that point, and while I have some interest in the history of the field there are far more interesting works that are discussed far less in the literature that are therefore far more worthy of my time. That is, of course, an individual choice, and I by no means expect anyone else to come to the same conclusion.

 

[Garrette]

It's humorous that believers would ask "Have you actually read it" when they obviously haven't read the Bible. At least not for comprehension, anyway.

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.

 

[HansMustermann]

Actually, this is exactly my point. I don't intend to ever read Darwin's Black Box, because it's anti-scientific garbage. Similarly, I have no real need to read Origin, since it's not really up to date. I've read enough about them that, unless all of the coverage has been lies, I believe I know enough to move on to other things.

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 you don't know what it actually says, it seems to me like you could just say you're not interested, rather than make claims about what it says.

 

[HansMustermann]

Just to add: and if someone is taking the stance that I call "argument by denial of service", i.e., essentially "I win unless you read every book/apology/site/etc on the subject." (And we had even a member here that used to do that kind of drivel,) you still don't have to make a claim about a book you haven't read. And there's a reason why I call it denial of service, because essentially it's something that would just fill all your time and then some, preventing the debate, rather than contributing anything to it.

Then you can simply remind them of the burden of proof. It's not your job to do the research for them. If buried inside that book is some good evidence or some good argument for their case, surely it's their job to say what it is, if they did read the book and know it supports their case. It is another argument of the form "X exists" or "Y happens/happened" (the two being actually equivalent), where X="a good argument for/against hypothesis Z". And for any argument of that form, the burden of proof is squarely on the one doing the claim. It's their burden to show an example, not yours to wade through all the drivel ever written and show that every single instance isn't.

It's essentially no different to say that an argument exists somewhere in books X, Y and Z, than to say a flying pig exists somewhere in Australia. The task is disproportionally easier for the one claiming to know one, than for the one who'd have to check every square foot of Australia and show that it doesn't contain a flying pig.

But in that case again it seems to me like you don't need to make a claim yourself about what's in a book you haven't read. You don't have to counter a bogus claim with another. If it's their claim, let THEM have it. Just ask them to show you exactly what argument in there should change your mind.

 

[HansMustermann]

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.

 

[HansMustermann]

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.