Do you still read a book (usually non-fiction) if it was proven to have false or outdated information?
>>25615664First: The uncertain, unsettled condition of this science of Cetology is in the very vestibule attested by the fact, that in some quarters it still remains a moot point whether a whale be a fish. In his System of Nature, A.D. 1776, Linnæus declares, “I hereby separate the whales from the fish.” But of my own knowledge, I know that down to the year 1850, sharks and shad, alewives and herring, against Linnæus’s express edict, were still found dividing the possession of the same seas with the Leviathan. The grounds upon which Linnæus would fain have banished the whales from the waters, he states as follows: “On account of their warm bilocular heart, their lungs, their movable eyelids, their hollow ears, penem intrantem feminam mammis lactantem,” and finally, “ex lege naturæ jure meritoque.” I submitted all this to my friends Simeon Macey and Charley Coffin, of Nantucket, both messmates of mine in a certain voyage, and they united in the opinion that the reasons set forth were altogether insufficient. Charley profanely hinted they were humbug. Be it known that, waiving all argument, I take the good old fashioned ground that the whale is a fish, and call upon holy Jonah to back me.
I have been reading a book about the Sumerians from the 1970s and it's really interesting and alright, but a lot of it isn't on par with the newest research and it might have been wrong on some accounts where newer books say something else. Anyhow, the book is great and as long as you know to read with care and skepticism, there shouldn't be a problem with reading such a book. It might be different for books whose whole point is a singular theory that was proven wrong, those might not be worth it. If you know a few things about the topic of the book, you will have developed a sort of mental filter that is skeptic against claims that might be wrong. If you are not that deep into the topic, you should read more on the topic until you have a good overview of the topic.
>>25615664Yes because the method the author uses could have some truth in it that can be applied elsewhere.
I read a lot of books with “false” or “outdated” information and find them very relevant, yes. Things go through cycles of being true, false, then true again. It’s rare for something to truly be proven as one or the other.
>>25615664Yes, because knowledge has value beyond utilitarianism especially in the pure pursuit of truth. Incorrect information exists as a historical fact and an evolution of history itself. Not to mention, what is considered “false” and “outdated” may be a generalized condemnation of an entire intellectual’s body of work due to some aspect of it being obsolete. I disagree with the woo aspects of Jung’s psychology, but I do believe there is value in his quasi-subjective and phenomenological approach to personality especially in an era where psychology is becoming excessively focused on a surface level results based approach rooted in pharmacology and neurochemistry, thus naturally depersonalizing an inherently personal experience.
>>25615664Yes, but I don't internalize the contents.
>>25615664yes i love Nietzsche anyway
>>25615664Depends. Science book from the 1950s? No.Aristotle? Yes.
Yes. Such things still provide perspective.
When it's kino, yes.
>>25616538>Herodotus>proven to have false or outdated information
>>25616544totally agreed, dude, those giant ants and giant dragon serpents and giant footprints were so omega literally genuinely real, like actually
>>25617916How would you know? Were you there? If animals like cats and dogs were to be extinct somewhere in the future, people could be convinced to threat them as mythological creatures that never existed, simply because they haven't seen one themselves directly. There's no history, reality is an illusion, all we got is the present and it's all the imagination of the one who live it firsthand.
>>25617916>giant antsMarmots that dug up gold bearing soil. But you are right, sir, you win the internet today. Herodotus should have given the scientific Latin name of the animal and published his work in a peer-reviewed journal.>giant footprintSo he records a rock formation in the shape of a footprint two cubits long that the locals say belonged to Heracles. I think it would be cool to such a three-foot impression of a foot, but go back to your onions and marvel movies, bud.
>>25617916We have unironic Mormons and flat earth creationists on this board, you will find no end of apologists for Herodotus
>>25618088Is that cat a real wizard, factually and historically I mean? This photographic evidence is astounding, by my cat never performs acts of sorcery while I'm home?
>>25616538Literally still being vindicated today. The only people who have really put effort into discrediting him are mid-tier academics whose doctoral theses are just lazy takedowns of Herodotus, and largely because they are so small-minded they can't actually imagine that others are more capable than they are.The gold-digging ants was already discussed as a translation issue. Even when Herodotus doubts things and notes that doubt in his book, the actual latter facts *confirm* the stories he relates (see the circumnavigation of Africa by the Phoenicians). And every time an academic talks about how Herodotus' figures must be incorrect, because how could a few hundred thousand soldiers gather in one place, they ignore the fact that every weekend in the fall a hundred thousand people will spontaneously gather in one place *right at their very institutions* to watch a college football game.Academics are small minded. Herodotus critics are small minded. Herodotus himself is great.>>25618110 yes indeed, the apologists are real, and we are right.
>>25615664Every non-fiction books has false information.
>>25618305What is true information, and is it fictive or not?Is Herodotus an informant? Is he informed in fact, fictionally manufactured forms in falsity? Please respond.
>>25618660>What is true informationAre you asking me to solve epistemology? I would personally define it as information which reflects reality. It is not fictive. And? Do you think that a book is either 100% true or 100% false? Reality is not written in extremes, but as a spectrum. Every single non-fiction book ever written contains false information. If you disagree, please name one non-fiction book that does not. Hard mode: no math/physics books.
Yes because 'proven' often comes with some agenda. See james watson for more details.
>>25615664 if it's really good, but probably not. I read non-fiction because I want to learn something. no real reason to learn things that are wrong.
