As the author of a book that's equally divided between descriptions of neuroscience and descriptions of art, I've spent far too much time pondering the organization of book stores. How should books be classified? Is my book a "science" book, or does it belong in the neglected "Criticism and Essays" section? Personally, I've always been drawn to the books that elude neat categorization. For example, one of my weirder hobbies is checking to see where bookstores put William James. I've seen him shelved in any number of sections, from "Science" to "Philosophy" to "Essays" to "Mysticism".
Which brings me to the latest news in the world of bookstore shelving. Biologists Helping Bookstores is a guerilla effort devoted to putting pseudoscience books in their proper place. They want to move Behe and his creationist cohorts off the "Biology" shelf and onto the "Religion" shelf. They want any book that smacks of the unempirical, mystical, astrological, or spiritual to be relocated away from mainstream science books.
It's a noble effort. But I'm more interested in the questions such an endeavor raises than in helping the vigilante biologists restock my local Borders. Simply put, I think the pursuit neatly encapsulates the demarcation problem. How, exactly, do you define the boundaries of science? Demarcating the science bookshelves is just another way of asking the question.
So, in the spirit of Kuhn, here are a few tough books to categorize.
The Emperor's New Mind, by Roger Penrose. An intriguing idea with zero empirical support. The book tries to connect quantum mechanics to a science of consciousness. It's an absorbing read, but it's not right. At least not yet. Does that make it pseudoscience? Or just an example of revolutionary science? Not all revolutionary science turns out to be right, but it seems like a bad idea to start censoring the crazy ideas that just might be the next paradigm shift. In 1906, Einstein was pseudoscience.
A New Kind of Science, by Stephen Wolfram. It certainly looks like a serious "science" book, but few of its basic ideas went through the peer-review process. Why is Wolfram "science" but not Behe? Are we more indulgent of pseudoscience when it comes to theoretical physics?
The Naked Ape, by Desmond Morris. The first work of evolutionary psychology. It's a controversial classic, but it's also one "just so" story after another. Many of Morris' elegant conjectures no longer hold up. What happens to old science books? The nature of scientific progress means that science books are always out of date. Does that mean we should continually reshelve older science books in "The History of Science" section?
Any book by William James. He's the ultimate category buster.
Any book on string theory.
The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins. Is this a science book? Are all books by scientists (that aren't novels) "science" books?
I look forward to your comments.
- Log in to post comments
I avoided that entire debate by shelving everything alphabetically by author and then hooking up with librarything.com and using tags. Since tags don't require an absolute categorization, you can get a lot more accurate.
I'll respond with the capitalist answer. Books should be shelved where the people most like to buy the book (or take it from a library) will find it. In some cases, I suspect this means intentially misshelving books and I should be surprised if the big chains have done research on this. If no one is going to buy Behe in the religion section, but they will in science then that's where it's placed. An interesting result of this reshelving is if more people actually do buy Behe from religion, I suspect the stores will reshelve accordingly.
From the philosophical point of view, many books cross categories. To fit in "science" category, I'd say a book would need to use the scientific method at the time it was written. For example, Penrose made a testable theory that was a stretch even at the time it was written, but is now accepted as wrong. It would be ok on a science shelf, science history might be more appropriate. I'd say the other way to get on the science shelf is to right about research that is accepted as science through peer review, but I'm only adding this to make the string theory people happy. :)
I lean toward the capitalist's answer as well. The vendor should feel free to place books wherever they will sell. That may mean that a science book sometimes ends up on a table in the front of the store. I've also noticed that books will sometimes be stocked in more than one location, presumably because, recognizing the problem of demarcation, the vendor wants to increase the chances that customers can find the book. I think Dawkins is a perfect example. His book seems a fit for placement in both the religion and the science sections.
It rubs me the wrong way to think of some creationist tripe shelved in the science section, but does this stop anyone who is interested in reading "science" from finding what they wish to read? I'm not all that convinced that anyone with a seriously inquiring attitude will be permanently derailed by accidentally mistaking a creation science book for serious science. Moreover, I would imagine that more than a few well-educated non-scientists perusing the science section at Barnes and Noble might be interested scanning (probably without purchasing) a creation science book simply because they're aware of the politics. These types might not ever look in the religin section and never just stumble upon such a book.
BTW, if one looks in the religious book section, there are probably more than a few books that your average creationist views as evil, secular (or demonic) works that belong in a section other than relgion. And, personally, I would find it rather offensive if bookstores started caving to pressure from evangelists who wanted Dawkins removed from the religion section if copies were available in that section of the store.
This question becomes more complicated when the venue is a public library. The librarian must make the decision while maintaining standards that aren't simply about the bottom line. The library is supposed to be helpful to the serious researcher as well as the casual reader. Generally, I would trust the instincts of librarians on these matters which, not incidentally, might account for librarians sometimes finding themselves embroiled in controversey with interest groups and government try to co-opt libraries to serve functions other than those most of us would endorse.
For everyone who is endorsing this behavior: Grow up, and thanks for making skeptics look like the mature ones (rolls his eyes).
Yes, I've seen the Behe books in the science section as well, and I grumble every time I do. But I know the battle for people's hearts isn't won at the bookshelf.
First, I'm betting that any person who browses the science section at a bookstore is more science literate than the casual reader -- let's be honest, it's not the most frequented section. Most people who are likely to purchase creationism books are already seeking them out. And before we talk about how "impressionable" people are, well, the same logic is used to try to ban books from school libraries.
Second, I do think it's best for booksellers to remain relatively neutral in such matters. There are exceptions: You wouldn't put porn in the kiddie section, for instance (unless you wanted to get a laugh seeing the expression on mom's face). But for the most part, the bookseller should just provide the information and trust readers to make up their own minds about the material. It is a very slippery slope for a bookseller to start sticking book wherever the heck he or she feels like, and Jonah cites some good examples of books that have nothing to do with creationism but probably should be "re-shelved" themselves. Booksellers should just stick the book in the appropriate sections given how they are labeled by the publisher, and let readers form their own opinions about the material.
Third, you realize it's just as easy to stick a legitimate science book in the "science fiction" section, right? You understand that this could backfire, and you could have some very determined creationists re-shelving Gould, Dawkins, and etc. in places where people will never find them? This is what ticks me off most about re-shelving creationism books: It's just really, really stupid. The guy/gal who runs that blog isn't brightest bulb on the christmas tree.
Finally, yes, it's censorship. A very mild form, mind you, but still censorship. When you're placing a book where a person looking for it won't find it, just because you disagree with its contents, that's censorship. I may not agree with the people who read creationist ramblings, but that doesn't give me the right to try to block their access to that material.
Funny how everyone -- on the left and the right -- has no problem with censorship until its the material they like that's getting "re-shelved."
Well then Jonah, congratulations, your post elude neat categorization. :-P
On reshelving:
Childish obstructionism.
A more elaborate action, involving info stickers and other campaign material could make it part of a civilian protest movement. But what is it protesting - the stupidity of readers?
On shelving:
I go with the social/market option too. For example, The God Delusion can be shelved on science, philosophy or religion - and I think a good retailer would put them on all three shelves to increase selling.
On demarcation:
I go with the historical view as long as we lack a "science of science" which has a theory of what it is - right now it is the scientists who can figure out which is science when they "work it".
String theory currently goes without question into science, as there are courses and text books on the subject. ID creationism don't, since it isn't testable in principle (string theory is at high enough energies, btw). I assume Stephen Wolfram is testable in principle, so science in principle - but AFAIK it isn't QM compatible (local hidden variables), which would explain why scientists rejects it.
Btw, I didn't motivate "childish".
Well then, why don't we do this with every store where we didn't agree with the displayed food groups, dress type, or car group? Because as experienced individuals we have learned to live with ambiguity and relative morals.
Hello - I am the author of the recently published first Unified Theory of Evolution- based on information and quantunm network theory viz-
The Future of Life: Meta-Evolution-
now available on Amazon and also freely downloadable from the book website- http://dhtow01.googlepages.com/futureoflife
It postulates that evolution is the major dynamic governing all processes in the universe viz- physical, biological, social, technological, economic, cultural etc- all are governed by the same evolutionary principles and rules at the information /quantum level
The ramifications and prognosis for life of this hypothesis are also examined in the far future.
This book crosses the traditional boundaries of science and integrates all categories of knowledge
good reading
David Tow
I worked in a bookstore for 2 years and, as a huge fan of science, I loathed our placing creationist literature in the biology section. It was very tempting at times to sabotage our shelving standards but as previous posters mention, doing so would be very immature and wouldn't accomplish much. As merchandising supervisor at my store I was able to use my personal discretion in featuring certain titles (mostly science) at the front of our store.
To anyone interested in participating in this obnoxious endeavor: please realize that deliberately misshelving books creates huge customer service and inventory problems for bookstores of all sizes.
The Emperor's New Mind, by Roger Penrose... It's an absorbing read
YMMV. I found it to be duller than toast.
No. I would classify it as philosophy of religion.BTW, I noticed that my local bookstore has a "Religious Fiction" section. Seems redundant to me.
This is such an interesting issue, in part because everyone has a differing opinion on it.
Reshelving books is certainly fun, no doubt, but rather pointless, in the long run, because the statement one would be making by doing this would be lost on the staff, who would likely return the book to its proper position without a second thought in the larger bookstores. In much smaller bookstores, for example used book stores (of which I am a frequenter), this may cause problems and even perhaps loss of business if a book cannot be found where it is supposed to be.
But those are all technicalities. What about the actual classification? We are so intertwined with the idea of neat classification that we often cannot function without it. Why should books neatly fall into certain categories? Molecular biology textbooks, sure, but something like the examples you provide? And the classification itself is highly subjective: what may be fact for me may be fiction for you, etc.
All in all, this really is one of those issues which will continue to be sources of discussion, confusion and frustration for days to come, sort of like "can we REALLY use mice to study human disease?" and "what is perfect statistical replication anyway?".
In 1906, Einstein was pseudoscience.
With statements like that, they may want you over at the Discovery Institute.
Einstein's papers presented clear hypotheses that were empirically testable, if only in principle at the time of publication. The ideas were new, radical, and perhaps even met with hostility, but they were not pseudoscience.
DHT:
Wouldn't that be like throwing a monkey wrench into science? :-P
More importantly, how do you propose to test your theory?
"Additionally, decision states or outcomes from each node may be modelled [sic] as quantum states in a Hilbert space."
Since observables aren't states (and you don't specify "decision states" or their observables "decision outcomes") there is no connection between states and observables, or QM theory.
It's just words. (A lot of them, in fact. ;-)
aaaah, a post chock full with interesting material (as soon as i saw the name "kuhn" i knew i had to read on).
as someone who has spent much time working in archives of various sorts, i suggest why not simply do what libraries do: use the dewey system (which, admittedly, can be somewhat arbitrary) and make sure that there is a database that points to where the book can be found?
mostly, i agree with natalia. these are technicalities (important ones: we DO want to know where to find that book); and what exactly is the point of categorizing the uncategorizable?
i always find it amusing when we talk about vague concepts like "science" or "scientific method" - we tend to pretend that we know or agree what we're talking about but as soon as we scratch the surface just a bit it turns out we don't.
just ask your average biology graduate student what she thinks of library science.
Almost every book has at least two possible Dewey numbers. For example, "Geology of Yorkshire" could equally be shelved under Geology or under Yorkshire.
The more interesting books have more than two possible positions.
The whole point of most books is to describe some relationship.
But those are all technicalities. What about the actual classification? We are so intertwined with the idea of neat classification that we often cannot function without it.