• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Well, have you actually read it?

Jimbo07

Illuminator
Jimbo07
Joined
Jan 20, 2006
Messages
4,518
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?
 
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.
 
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 (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. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
arthwollipot said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
angrysoba said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Wowbagger said:
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!
Click to expand...

I would strongly recommend Song Of The Dodo One of the most engaging books on evolution I have ever read
 
@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.
 
arthwollipot said:
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.
Click to expand...

Wowbagger said:
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!
Click to expand...


How about Almost Like a Whale by Steve Jones?
 
HansMustermann said:
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?"
Click to expand...

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.
 
angrysoba said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Gawdzilla said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Jimbo07 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom