5 ms·

> If there is someone who still has this gap in their education, you are urged to fill it without any further delay. Maybe Origin holds up better than I would

> If there is someone who still has this gap in their education, you are urged to fill it without any further delay. Maybe Origin holds up better than I would guess but honestly, I'm never going to read that thing. You've got time to read a few thousand books in your life. And I would bet there are many modern books which cover the same material with a more accessible bent and more up to date and comprehensive information. I'm not saying this as some kind of philistine. I studied literature for several years at university. I enjoy it. I've read Dante, Ovid, Thucidydes, Chaucer, Kant, and many more. But most those books are really interesting in historical or pedagogical kind of way. They show you the development of writing as it progressed. And they demonstrate the changing of human philosophy and epistemology. But frankly, most modern people can derive the same concepts and style as they've been handed down and filtered through subsequent authors. Despite the hullabaloo about people declining to read, we live in an amazing literary time. Really good books are being written right now on just about every subject. The writing world is so competitive that authors really have to hone their skill. Especially in the non-fiction category which for several decades has been under a deluge of well researched, focused and didactic books.

kiliantics 6y ago
Maybe we don't all need to read the original Darwin, but I do think there is a serious gap in most peoples' knowledge of how the natural world actually functions, how all the components in an ecosystem are interdependent and necessary. There is a framework of understanding that used to be common knowledge which now only experts and enthusiasts possess. I fear that most people in positions to make decisions that impact our natural environment have insufficient understanding of the potential consequences. Our failure to keep people educated on these matters to a base level has probably seriously contributed to the ecological catastrophe we are experiencing and digging ourselves ever deeper into. People have been taught to have more faith in industrial and technological solutions to any problems, rather than appreciating a need to be stewards of the life support systems of this world that we depend on.
- DubiousPusher 6y ago
  > Maybe we don't all need to read the original Darwin, but I do think there is a serious gap in most peoples' knowledge of how the natural world actually functions, how all the components in an ecosystem are interdependent and necessary. Yes and there are many great contemporary books that cover just these things, from Gould, to Dawkins, to Wilson, to Dennett, to Sagan. It is rare that the originator of an idea is also its best exponent. Though given the praise of its accessibility and interest here I'm willing to give Origin another thought. > Our failure to keep people educated on these matters to a base level has probably seriously contributed to the ecological catastrophe we are experiencing I'm not sure this is true. Environmentalism was basically born in the 60s. Conservation some 40-60 years before that. People used to believe all kinds of ridiculous things about the health benefits of smoke, heavy metals and oil. Americans nearly extincted the buffalo for its industrial uses. An Australian tycoon almost extinct an island chain of penguins and seals by reducing them down to oil which was sold round the world. I could go on as there are many stories of human exploitation of the natural world that go back to ancient times (read about how Roman silver mines in Spain reshaped the Earth into a hell hole there) and beyond. We are honestly probably at peak -people caring about the environment-. It obviously has to go a lot further if we are to avert disaster and stop the extinction event humans have been driving for 15,000 years. But we are hardly at a nadir for people's understanding and love of the natural world.
pvaldes 6y ago
> I'm never going to read that thing. Is surprisingly accesible and easy to follow in fact. Such way to write science using logic and linking obvious facts instead to trying to wrap all in math glitter couldn't happen today.
- EEMac 6y ago
  You get bonus points for the term "math glitter"!
  - DubiousPusher 6y ago
    Heck no! We are in a golden age of accessible science communication. You have to avoid the Gladwells and his ilk but there are people out there like Bill Bryson and Siddhartha Mukherjee that take really complex science, research it well and explain it in clear and practical language.
- guscost 6y ago
  > couldn’t happen today Well, except for Basic Economics ;)
- wsinks 6y ago
  But is it as easily accessible as "Seeing Nature: Deliberate Encounters with the Visible World"? The bar of accessible is much much lower than the Origin of Species.
  - pvaldes 6y ago
    But 'Seing Nature' didn't made the same revolution on our knowledge as 'the Origin of the species'. Neither has the same historical or cultural impact in our society. There are still a lot of people releasing fake news about Darwin for promoting some religious agenda, so educate ourselves in his work to be able to disclose those liars is even more relevant now than ever. Why not read both books in a row starting with the origin?. Is a reasonable goal, will be intellectually rewarding, and everybody could do it in a month.
ajlai 6y ago
It actually holds up really well. Not long, and easy to read. It's been a while since I read it, but I remember being surprised at its simplicity.
jbrot 6y ago
The claim “you’ve only got time to read a few thousand books” surprised me, but some back of the napkin math strongly supports it. Assuming it takes a week to read a book and 70 years of literacy only gives you time for around 3500 books. A more avid reader might average, say, 3 books a week—-but then you only get to around 10,000 books. Now, a monk might be able to read 30 books in a week and get to 100,000, but pragmatically “a few thousand” seems to be an accurate accounting for a person who doesn’t dedicate a large portion of their life towards reading.
- MathematicalArt 6y ago
  I recommend “How to Read a Book” by Mortimer Adler. In short, not every sentence, paragraph, chapter, or even book is of equal informative importance. To read all literature as if everything is equally important is really a mistake. Once one recognizes this, it is then ideal to read only at the level of detail and focus as is required for the particular work. What does it mean to have read a book? To read every single word and symbol? To understand the key ideas and points? Is every book going to be one hundred percent new ideas to you or are there thematic riffs that allow you to shortcut portions of it without loss of understanding of the entire work?
  - ordu 6y ago
    > What does it mean to have read a book? To read every single word and symbol? To understand the key ideas and points? To understand what the author thought at the time, what he was trying to say, what he had said really, how he came to his ideas, ... One cannot predict what he'll find in a book before book will be finished. You cannot know what you do not know. The only way is to read it through. Sometimes I read books twice in a row. From the title to the last page. With all the "thanks", with the contents section, even leafing through a section of literature. Because you never know what you might find. When I need just key ideas from a book I could find them in internet, because someone have them written in her blog. It would take, probably, 10 minutes to read, and why to bother myself with the book?
    - DubiousPusher 6y ago
powerset 6y ago
+1 For recommending Origin as surprisingly enjoyable and worthwhile. The theory itself is explained clearly and quite interesting, but I think that's more of a bonus, and actually the best part is witnessing an early application of the scientific method, and getting the historical context for how the scientific method was developed. Very helpful context for understanding and thinking critically about modern science.

kiliantics 6y ago

Maybe we don't all need to read the original Darwin, but I do think there is a serious gap in most peoples' knowledge of how the natural world actually functions, how all the components in an ecosystem are interdependent and necessary. There is a framework of understanding that used to be common knowledge which now only experts and enthusiasts possess. I fear that most people in positions to make decisions that impact our natural environment have insufficient understanding of the potential consequences. Our failure to keep people educated on these matters to a base level has probably seriously contributed to the ecological catastrophe we are experiencing and digging ourselves ever deeper into. People have been taught to have more faith in industrial and technological solutions to any problems, rather than appreciating a need to be stewards of the life support systems of this world that we depend on.

DubiousPusher 6y ago
> Maybe we don't all need to read the original Darwin, but I do think there is a serious gap in most peoples' knowledge of how the natural world actually functions, how all the components in an ecosystem are interdependent and necessary. Yes and there are many great contemporary books that cover just these things, from Gould, to Dawkins, to Wilson, to Dennett, to Sagan. It is rare that the originator of an idea is also its best exponent. Though given the praise of its accessibility and interest here I'm willing to give Origin another thought. > Our failure to keep people educated on these matters to a base level has probably seriously contributed to the ecological catastrophe we are experiencing I'm not sure this is true. Environmentalism was basically born in the 60s. Conservation some 40-60 years before that. People used to believe all kinds of ridiculous things about the health benefits of smoke, heavy metals and oil. Americans nearly extincted the buffalo for its industrial uses. An Australian tycoon almost extinct an island chain of penguins and seals by reducing them down to oil which was sold round the world. I could go on as there are many stories of human exploitation of the natural world that go back to ancient times (read about how Roman silver mines in Spain reshaped the Earth into a hell hole there) and beyond. We are honestly probably at peak -people caring about the environment-. It obviously has to go a lot further if we are to avert disaster and stop the extinction event humans have been driving for 15,000 years. But we are hardly at a nadir for people's understanding and love of the natural world.

pvaldes 6y ago

> I'm never going to read that thing. Is surprisingly accesible and easy to follow in fact. Such way to write science using logic and linking obvious facts instead to trying to wrap all in math glitter couldn't happen today.

EEMac 6y ago
You get bonus points for the term "math glitter"!
- DubiousPusher 6y ago
  Heck no! We are in a golden age of accessible science communication. You have to avoid the Gladwells and his ilk but there are people out there like Bill Bryson and Siddhartha Mukherjee that take really complex science, research it well and explain it in clear and practical language.
guscost 6y ago
> couldn’t happen today Well, except for Basic Economics ;)
wsinks 6y ago
But is it as easily accessible as "Seeing Nature: Deliberate Encounters with the Visible World"? The bar of accessible is much much lower than the Origin of Species.
- pvaldes 6y ago
  But 'Seing Nature' didn't made the same revolution on our knowledge as 'the Origin of the species'. Neither has the same historical or cultural impact in our society. There are still a lot of people releasing fake news about Darwin for promoting some religious agenda, so educate ourselves in his work to be able to disclose those liars is even more relevant now than ever. Why not read both books in a row starting with the origin?. Is a reasonable goal, will be intellectually rewarding, and everybody could do it in a month.

ajlai 6y ago

It actually holds up really well. Not long, and easy to read. It's been a while since I read it, but I remember being surprised at its simplicity.

jbrot 6y ago

The claim “you’ve only got time to read a few thousand books” surprised me, but some back of the napkin math strongly supports it. Assuming it takes a week to read a book and 70 years of literacy only gives you time for around 3500 books. A more avid reader might average, say, 3 books a week—-but then you only get to around 10,000 books. Now, a monk might be able to read 30 books in a week and get to 100,000, but pragmatically “a few thousand” seems to be an accurate accounting for a person who doesn’t dedicate a large portion of their life towards reading.

MathematicalArt 6y ago
I recommend “How to Read a Book” by Mortimer Adler. In short, not every sentence, paragraph, chapter, or even book is of equal informative importance. To read all literature as if everything is equally important is really a mistake. Once one recognizes this, it is then ideal to read only at the level of detail and focus as is required for the particular work. What does it mean to have read a book? To read every single word and symbol? To understand the key ideas and points? Is every book going to be one hundred percent new ideas to you or are there thematic riffs that allow you to shortcut portions of it without loss of understanding of the entire work?
- ordu 6y ago
  > What does it mean to have read a book? To read every single word and symbol? To understand the key ideas and points? To understand what the author thought at the time, what he was trying to say, what he had said really, how he came to his ideas, ... One cannot predict what he'll find in a book before book will be finished. You cannot know what you do not know. The only way is to read it through. Sometimes I read books twice in a row. From the title to the last page. With all the "thanks", with the contents section, even leafing through a section of literature. Because you never know what you might find. When I need just key ideas from a book I could find them in internet, because someone have them written in her blog. It would take, probably, 10 minutes to read, and why to bother myself with the book?
  - DubiousPusher 6y ago

powerset 6y ago

+1 For recommending Origin as surprisingly enjoyable and worthwhile. The theory itself is explained clearly and quite interesting, but I think that's more of a bonus, and actually the best part is witnessing an early application of the scientific method, and getting the historical context for how the scientific method was developed. Very helpful context for understanding and thinking critically about modern science.