4 ms·

I don't find modern encyclopedias interesting, but the older encyclopedias (and textbooks) are fascinating. Specifically I love reading entries before major cha

I don't find modern encyclopedias interesting, but the older encyclopedias (and textbooks) are fascinating. Specifically I love reading entries before major changes to a field. Like cells in 1950, right before the double helix structure of DNA was discovered. Or Germany in the inter war period, when everyone knew it was unstable, but no one was quite sure what that meant.

taeric 3y ago
plate tectonics would be a fun one to look into.
kevinmchugh 3y ago
Even into the mid 90s, the extinction of the dinosaurs was an unsolved question. It's really interesting to see how people thought about this over time.
ravenstine 3y ago
I don't know what modern encyclopedias are like (assuming you're referring to physical ones), but I really do think I learned more from encyclopedias and textbooks than from class when I was in school. Some teachers were brilliant and could teach effectively, but in most cases I really was better off just reading through the books, which I actually enjoyed. If modern encyclopedias are like Wikipedia, then I can see how you wouldn't find them interesting. Although Wikipedia does have interesting information within it, it's now written so verbosely that my eyes glaze over most of the time. Yeah, there's simple.wikipedia.org, but it's not nearly complete enough. > Like cells in 1950, right before the double helix structure of DNA was discovered. I had a textbook in middle school that was so old that it said bacteria were believed to be a form of plant!
- cubefox 3y ago
  > If modern encyclopedias are like Wikipedia, then I can see how you wouldn't find them interesting. Although Wikipedia does have interesting information within it, it's now written so verbosely that my eyes glaze over most of the time. Yeah, there's simple.wikipedia.org, but it's not nearly complete enough. The problem with the writing in Wikipedia articles is that they are often extremely detailed in certain aspects, because more and more people kept adding specific bits to it. But then often the overall cohesiveness of the article is lost, and it becomes hard to read. The problem is that Wikipedia articles usually don't have single authors which would ensure the article as a whole is compelling. There is actually an encyclopedia which does much better in this regard: The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. It's a free online source, like Wikipedia, and it is limited to topics of philosophy, but it reads so much better. Even though many of its articles are quite long. Each article is written by an expert in the field. It is the encyclopedia in analytic philosophy. One problem is that sometimes articles are slightly biased because the author has certain views, and this isn't at all obvious unless you're already an expert in this topic. Still, most articles are great.
  - wizzwizz4 3y ago
    > One problem is that sometimes articles are slightly biased because the author has certain views, I just assumed that I hadn't done enough philosophising, and had come to the Wrong conclusion. Glad to see it's not just me!
    - cubefox 3y ago
      Well, it's more like some article seems great if you don't know the topic well, and it may look flawed only when you do know a lot about the subject.
pessimizer 3y ago
Everything educational from 1895 to the end of WWI in the US is deeply, overtly racist - race is inserted into places where one wouldn't even expect it. I'm fascinated by reading the stuff. Especially geography textbooks.
- PhasmaFelis 3y ago
  Yeah, growing up in modern America you think you have a handle on how bad racism can be, but it was something else back then. Jesus.

taeric 3y ago

plate tectonics would be a fun one to look into.

kevinmchugh 3y ago

Even into the mid 90s, the extinction of the dinosaurs was an unsolved question. It's really interesting to see how people thought about this over time.

ravenstine 3y ago

I don't know what modern encyclopedias are like (assuming you're referring to physical ones), but I really do think I learned more from encyclopedias and textbooks than from class when I was in school. Some teachers were brilliant and could teach effectively, but in most cases I really was better off just reading through the books, which I actually enjoyed. If modern encyclopedias are like Wikipedia, then I can see how you wouldn't find them interesting. Although Wikipedia does have interesting information within it, it's now written so verbosely that my eyes glaze over most of the time. Yeah, there's simple.wikipedia.org, but it's not nearly complete enough. > Like cells in 1950, right before the double helix structure of DNA was discovered. I had a textbook in middle school that was so old that it said bacteria were believed to be a form of plant!

cubefox 3y ago
> If modern encyclopedias are like Wikipedia, then I can see how you wouldn't find them interesting. Although Wikipedia does have interesting information within it, it's now written so verbosely that my eyes glaze over most of the time. Yeah, there's simple.wikipedia.org, but it's not nearly complete enough. The problem with the writing in Wikipedia articles is that they are often extremely detailed in certain aspects, because more and more people kept adding specific bits to it. But then often the overall cohesiveness of the article is lost, and it becomes hard to read. The problem is that Wikipedia articles usually don't have single authors which would ensure the article as a whole is compelling. There is actually an encyclopedia which does much better in this regard: The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. It's a free online source, like Wikipedia, and it is limited to topics of philosophy, but it reads so much better. Even though many of its articles are quite long. Each article is written by an expert in the field. It is the encyclopedia in analytic philosophy. One problem is that sometimes articles are slightly biased because the author has certain views, and this isn't at all obvious unless you're already an expert in this topic. Still, most articles are great.
- wizzwizz4 3y ago
  > One problem is that sometimes articles are slightly biased because the author has certain views, I just assumed that I hadn't done enough philosophising, and had come to the Wrong conclusion. Glad to see it's not just me!
  - cubefox 3y ago
    Well, it's more like some article seems great if you don't know the topic well, and it may look flawed only when you do know a lot about the subject.

pessimizer 3y ago

Everything educational from 1895 to the end of WWI in the US is deeply, overtly racist - race is inserted into places where one wouldn't even expect it. I'm fascinated by reading the stuff. Especially geography textbooks.

PhasmaFelis 3y ago
Yeah, growing up in modern America you think you have a handle on how bad racism can be, but it was something else back then. Jesus.