Reviews are the beautiful halfway point between textbook and article.
4 Likes
Let’s not confuse science education with science. Books are how science education works, at least at the undergraduate level. Future scientists learn a lot from books. But science is actually done mostly through writing and publishing papers in scientific journals, and that’s how it’s communicated to other scientists.
7 Likes
Very good point, John. I think that, from the outside, it is easy to do so. I suppose that’s the crux of @Faizal_Ali 's argument, too. Though I really don’t believe that @Eddie was depreciating the articles and discussions at all… rather that he was highlighting their importance also.
Is Futuyma active in publishing articles now? If so, how often do the textbooks get updated to reflect the latest and greatest?
Sometimes never. Usually there is about a decade lag time. The vast majority of interesting and timely work never ever gets into a text book. That isn’t what they are for. Upper division biology courses, and grad courses, often (if not usually) are based on the primary literature.
There might be some parallels to a literature course. There are high school textbooks that compile a Sampling of literature together, perhaps with some pedagogical organization. One you get to a sufficiently advanced level, in undergrad, this is totally obsolete. You have to start reading book after book, or poem after poem, of primary literature, buying a dozen books for each course.
It is the same for biology, but our primary literature is articles, not novels.
4 Likes
If @Eddie is to be taken at his word, he was insulting those who rely primarily on articles, and not books, for their information. In so doing, he would be demeaning the people who are most likely to be experts in the field. Most of what I know about evolutionary biology comes from books. I suspect members like @swamidass @Art and @John_Harshman spend more of their time reading articles in the current scientific press. That’s what I do for my professional work.
I also suspect none of us put very much importance on “private side-discussions” that might occur out of our earshot at scientific meeting.
1 Like
I agree mostly but think these side conversations are immensely valuable.
Very interesting… I think that there is a similar parallel in business. When grads hit the corporate world, we express our joy that they were able to persist and learn, but we tell them to forget much of what they’ve been taught, because the environment changes so quickly.
I understand what you are saying, but I think that you are possibly reading too much into what’s been said. I guess I just don’t see it as being as a clear-cut distinction between the two, and not, especially, a depreciation of the articles or side conversation. At any rate, I’m glad to let it drop. I have gleaned much from this conversation. Thanks to all who contributed.
Excellent article. I totally agree with it.
1 Like
I’m not a defender of “ID creationism.” There is no such thing, unless by that you mean the beliefs of ID proponents who happen also to be creationists – which does not include me, as I’ve said many times on this forum, and directly to you in a private message here a few days back. Your continuing to refer to me as a creationist, even though I’ve told you I don’t accept that label for myself, to me indicates disrespect to a conversation partner. Call other people creationists if they have identified as such, but I request you to stop applying that label to me.
I said nothing of the sort. I praised Futuyma for reading scientific books as well as scientific articles, not instead of scientific articles. Obviously I am aware that Futuyma reads many articles as well – no scientist could function without keeping up with articles in his field – so I was talking about the fact that he thinks it also important to keep up with new books on evolutionary theory. A little more careful reading would be appreciated.
The context of my remark was discussions here several months ago, before you were here, as far as I know, about the value of publishing and reading scientific books. Several people here were minimizing the importance of books in scientific work. I granted entirely that articles rather than books were the main thing that counted for tenure, but did not grant that scientists placed no importance on writing and reading books. Futuyma’s remark about Wagner’s book being one of the best books on evolutionary theory he has ever read implies that he reads many such books. I have the impression that some biologists here read very few. I think it most interesting that the guy that people here are holding up as a paradigm, the guy who is being appealed to as an authority in our current discussion of the Royal Society, reads lots of books on evolutionary theory. This might suggest a connection between being a world-class thinker in evolutionary biology, and reading not only articles but also books on the subject.
I gather you have never been to a scientific meeting. Do you think scientists just listen to the presentations, and then go home? Do you think they don’t discuss the presentations? Do you think they don’t ask questions to the presenter? Do you think they don’t offer criticism to the presenter? Do you think that discussions never continue after the formal session is over, walking down the corridor afterwards, over lunch, at the bar?
If these things are not important, then there is no reason why scientists should hold physical conferences at all. They could just publish their papers and that would be the end of it. The purpose of gathering the scientists together in one physical location is not so they can just sit there and listen to papers read aloud (if all they want is that, it would be more efficient to sit at home and read the papers onine); it is so that they can discuss and debate the papers, and discuss and debate more general issues in the field.
I quote John Harshman, whose post is below yours:
Exactly. A discussion between two experts at a conference might well lead to new research and new conclusions, by one or both experts, down the road. This is not valueless for science. If it were, scientists would never bother to meet physically at conferences. They could just work from their homes and labs.
Yes, that is what I think has happened.
Ah! So it is worth going to conferences to get “the latest scoops.” Exactly. And if that weren’t of value to scientists, they wouldn’t go to conferences.
It is the same in any academic meeting, whether of scientists, economists, historians, literary critics, etc. The important thing is not sitting there hearing a paper read out loud for half an hour. That could be done at home, online. The important thing is a chance to interact with the person presenting the paper, and for the person presenting the paper to get response from a competent audience.
Are you saying, Joshua, that there are full-time evolutionary theorists who never read books by other evolutionary theorists? Who read only articles? Please name me three evolutionary theorists whom you know personally, and who have told you personally: “I have never read a book on evolutionary theory, and never intend to, and don’t need to, to keep up in my field. Books by people like Futuyma are a waste of time for an evolutionary theorist to read.”
I agree with all of this. But it is also true, as Futuyma’s remark indicates, that world-class thinkers in various fields of science also read major books in their field. Futuyma’s statement, which I quoted earlier, indicates that he reads many books on evolutionary theory, of which Wagner’s was only one. And everybody here is holding up Futuyma as some sort of oracle of evolutionary theory. Well, if they have such great respect for his accomplishment, then common sense would suggest that if they want to become evolutionary theorists on his level, they might do well to follow his example, and read major theoretical books as well as (not instead of) the usual journal articles.
I don’t deny this. The purpose of textbooks is to introduce beginners in a field or subfield to the subject-matter, not to discuss cutting-edge research. But not all scientific books are textbooks. Some are extended theoretical discussions which presume advanced knowledge in the field. Such is the book that Futuyma praises by Wagner. Science profs don’t need to read undergrad textbooks (unless they are looking them over for possible classroom use), but they do need to keep up in their field, and if it should happen that one of the most advanced and thorough theoretical discussions of a major question is found in a book rather than an article, it would be academically irresponsible of them not to read the book. Futuyma is not academically irresponsible, so he reads advanced theoretical discussions in his field even when they are found in books. And that is as it should be, in any academic subject.
Nobody denies this. But for a broad theoretical synthesis that takes into account all the important information in those articles, and weaves them into a larger tapestry, often book-length treatment is needed.
Michael Callen has already explained this. I am quite happy if scientists mostly read articles rather than books. But it would be dangerous if they read exclusively articles and wrote off all books in their field as not worth reading.
I was not talking about secret discussions that some people at the conference are excluded from hearing. I am talking about the normal after-the-session discussions that take place, the sort of informal conversations that occur maybe in the bar or cafeteria after or between sessions. These are not secret, and any scientist can participate in them, if he finds them valuable. If you go to conferences, listen to the papers, and then walk out, and never say one word to another professional there, you are not getting the most you can out of the conference. If all you want to do is hear the papers read, you can wait until they are published online later. Why bother going to a conference if you have no intention of conferring with colleagues? If you really believe, as you seem to believe, that “conferring” is of no value, you would never attend a conference at all. You’re not being logical.
I see that Joshua says that side conversations can be “immensely valuable.” That was my point.
1 Like
What exactly is the danger? There may at times be a small benefit, but I can’t see any dangers.
1 Like
No, it is simply an honest and correct description of the ID movement. Since, like most members of that movement, you refuse to correctly identify it as a form of creationism (as was even confirmed in a court of law), it is up to the rest of us to correct your misrepresentation to avoid others from being misled.
So, to be clear, are you saying that there is a significant amount of scientific evidence that is present in books that cannot be obtained by reading the primary literature? Because, if so, you are simply confirming my claim that you do not understand how science operates.
No disagreement there. And completely irrelevant to your claim that the Royal Society Meeting produced important new findings that will change evolutionary biology. The papers that came from that meeting demonstrated that the conference was just a bunch of empty hype, and the fact that nothing of any note has come from it only confirms that nothing of importance was even divulged in the question periods and side discussions.
And I never said it was not of value to attend conferences. But if a conference does not produce new publishable findings, then it produced nothing new of signficance.
3 Likes
I suggest you ask that question of Futuyma, who indicates that he reads many books of evolutionary theory. Do you think he would do that, if he thought the books were a waste of his time? Why do you think he reads them? Do you think he regards all that reading as of “small” benefit to his thinking?
Don’t forget this is the same guy who rejects all science unless it is being described by scientists who personally did the work themselves.
Eddie: “I listen to scientists with respect when they describe actual empirical work that they personally have carried out .”
Funny he doesn’t use the same standard with the ID-Creationists like Meyer and Behe and their books he is always crowing about. Or James Tour speculating about the impossibility of abiogenesis.
2 Likes
You’re skirting around the claim you actually made: Is reading lots of articles but few books a sign that a scientist is poorly informed? That is what you have suggested.
1 Like
I just wanted to chime in with a physical science perspective, since science isn’t monolithic. I would just say that while the lag time is similar in the physical sciences, at least at the undergraduate level the fields aren’t moving that fast compared to biology.
I could teach General Chemistry out of just about any textbook in the last 60 years and do fine. People still talk about Linus Pauling’s General Chemistry textbook from 1941 as having fairly equivalent content to the modern textbooks, just without the nice figures and pedagogy. I only occasionally teach science discovered post-WWII, most of what I teach was discovered 1800-1930. The same can’t be said for introductory biology and, in particular, molecular biology texts.
As to books vs journals for “keeping up with the field”, I think that’s largely the same. I never recall, throughout grad school, any professor reading “science” from a book or suggesting that books had any real value in scientific discourse. The only currency was journal articles and conference presentations. Books were for reference of technique or compiled data. My colleagues now rarely read books, and when they do they are novels or popular science.
6 Likes
No, I never suggested that. You made an unwarranted inference from my words. Note that Michael Callen read the same words, and did not draw the same inference.
A court of law lacks the intellectual competence to make judgments in the epistemology of science. In any case, you did not invent ID; others did. And since they coined the term, they get to define it; you don’t.
By the way, did you even bother to read the statements I linked you to, regarding the difference between ID and creationism? Or do you like to make your mind up about a position without actually reading the words of the people who hold it, but relying wholly on rumor and hearsay?
It isn’t just about evidence, but about interpretation of the evidence. The goal of a book is to present a major new interpretation of existing evidence, not to present new empirical results. The place to present new empirical results, e.g., what happens when you knock out a certain gene of a fruit fly, is in a journal article. But for a broader synthesis, for the bigger picture of where a field is going, where it might need redirection, etc. often a book-length treatment is needed.
If you think science is all about nothing but facts, or nothing but data, you are dead wrong, and couldn’t be wronger. It’s about giving an account of nature, and that inevitably involves not just discovering or establishing facts, but fitting them into broader theoretical schemes. Traditionally, when a need has been felt to do that latter task, books have often been the vehicle (Newton’s Principia, Darwin’s Origin of Species, the many books written by the founders of the Modern Synthesis in biology (Gaylord Simpson, Mayr, Huxley, etc.). Any scientist who scorns books is scorning one of the major devices for the formulation of broader syntheses – and that would be a deeply anti-intellectual act. Futuyma does not scorn books. Gould didn’t scorn books. Thoughtful scientists don’t scorn books.
Are you not aware that a seed can become a plant? How can you say that some of the informal conversations that took place at the Royal Society conference, springing off from discussions of the papers, will not yield fruit down the line, as the scientists take those conversations home with them to their labs and libraries and studies? Are you a prophet? The total value of a conference is not found only in the papers produced by it; the total value includes also the stimulation to further inquiry engendered by the clashes of views, the exchanges of perspectives, etc. The full value of any scientific conference can only be known in retrospect.
How funny. You don’t even understand the meaning of the words your wrote yourself.
(Yawn). Heard it a million times.
The entire reason the ID movement was born was to rebrand creationism in a form that would avoid Constitutional challenges under the 1st Amendment. Unfortunately, they stupidly put this plot into writing in the famous Wedge document. You can keep telling the same falsehoods until you’re blue in the face. That cat was out of the bag long ago.
Or, to put it more succinctly: “Cdesign proponentsists.” LOL!
And neither have I, as you would know if you actually read my posts carefully. I am simply questioning your claim that someone who reads primarily articles is less informed than someone who reads books as well. That is not the case, as has been pointed out to you be working scientists in this very thread.
And if one reads and believes worthless books by the likes of Michael Behe and Stephen Meyer, one is learning just garbage that would not be accepted by a worthwhile journal.
Well, since the Royal Society was mainly a rehashing of things that had already been known for decades, I do not hold much expectation of anything much coming from it, unless the crackpots and charlatans who thought they were bound for fame and glory realized they were instead about 30 years out of date and decided to start reading some more, well, books to catch up.
1 Like
Michael did; and even John Harshman seemed to think you might have been misreading me. You’re apparently the only one who had the problem getting the right meaning out of my words. Maybe if you had majored in English or Philosophy instead of Psychiatry, you’d be better at interpreting texts.
In other words, you didn’t read the pages I cited. Good to have that clarified.
And of course, I have never defended the book Of Pandas and People; nor have I defended the Dover school board, so your objection is irrelevant.
I never said that you scorned books. All I did was praise Futuyma for reading them. You are the one making a mountain out of a molehill here.
Less informed in what sense? Not less informed about recent experiments – I never made any such claim. You read that claim into my words. I admit that someone can be well-informed about recent technical work in a field by keeping up with the journal articles. But in a field like evolutionary theory (and in most sciences, but especially in evolutionary theory), big-picture discussions need to be had from time to time. That is why most of the Titans of evolutionary theory have written books which address big-picture issues, and that is why the big guns today, like Futuyma, read such books. Show me an evolutionary biologist who has not read a book on evolutionary theory in the past ten years, and I’ll show a very minor, third-string evolutionary biologist, one considered a major player by no one in the field.
Behe had an article published in the Quarterly Review of Biology, a respected journal. Can you claim as much? List for us your publications related to evolutionary theory.
Says the man who wasn’t there, and doubtless would not have been able to follow 90% of the technical arguments in the papers even if he had been there.
Maybe if you learned to post actual scientific points instead of verbose empty rhetoric you wouldn’t appear so clueless. We’re still waiting for you to describe Denton’s positive evidence for ID you boasted of knowing.
Notice brave ID soldier Eddie dodged right around this key point:
“The entire reason the ID movement was born was to rebrand creationism in a form that would avoid Constitutional challenges under the 1st Amendment. Unfortunately, they stupidly put this plot into writing in the famous Wedge document.”
An article which had nothing to do with ID.
That’s pretty funny coming from the man who can’t follow 100% of the technical discussions on evolutionary biology. 
1 Like
I’m sorry, but it is really crazy the amount of time you guys will waste arguing about something that is so insignificant, but that might cast your opponent in a bit of a bad light. Books vs. articles. Earth shattering.
6 Likes