Ce sujet est actuellement indiqué comme "en sommeil"—le dernier message date de plus de 90 jours. Vous pouvez le réveiller en postant une réponse.
Has anyone held on to their old editions? If so, how have you justified keeping them?
I posted this question in this particular forum because it's the science content I am most concerned about. I feel that these books aren't that necessary because so much of the material has been superseded. Any thoughts?
One other thing: in 1957 science was conducted like science. That is, there were predictions made that could be tested through experiment or observation. When observations did not match the theories, observations won the battle, and new theories had to be formulated. Today, science has gotten a bit sketchy with non-scientific ideas creeping in that can never be tested. Observation of space has consistently gone against the big bang, yet fudge factors are thrown in to keep the theory alive (e.g. dark matter). String theory is like a religion where there are no tests, can never be tests, and you just have to accept everything on faith.
So your 1957 encyclopaedia on science is probably worth keeping.
In general I think that science has always had theories that went beyond the evidence, after all you can't design experiments unless you have a theory that you're trying to prove.
Since I believe they are all in some kind of electronic format now a set would be just quaint perhaps.
My folks had an Encyclopedia Britannica from, oh, I can't even imagine how old it was; and in the early 60s, got a brand new set of the World Book encyclopedia, which we used quite extensively, and I read random pieces from it often over the years. When they retired, one of my sisters took both sets, because no one else wanted them. About a year later, she donated them to her local library, and they were happy to get them. She died almost two years ago. MrsHouseLibrary and I went north to attend her memorial service. We also happened to visit her town's library (in Washingtonville, NY). It's a lovely old building. Inside, I found both sets of encyclopedias available to reference.
The ones my folks bought -- my kids NEVER used them. I've read a few sections of random volumes, and found them sorely lacking any in-depth information, and inconsistent in the writing styles. My kids have grown and gone, although one is back temporarily, and none have any interest in having them. We're in the process of weeding out (hopefully hundreds of) books we know we'll never read, and the encyclopedias have already been removed from the catalog. The library doesn't want them; the book stores don't want to buy them. More than likely, they'll be donated to Goodwill. Pretty damn sad...
Older children's encyclopedias often included science fare and craft projects which are still of value or illustrate things which would be difficult to find out how-to-do today. For historical purposes they can also be extremely helpful. One example, I needed information on quill pens and found a wonderful article detailing their industrial production in England in a 1912 encyclopedia. Which I would never have found (other than as a passing reference as a writing instrument) in a modern one. The older encyclopedias tended to include more practical topics.
Umm, no. Observation of space has consistently supported the Big Bang theory. The Big Bang is better supported now than it was at any point in the past. The concept of dark matter has nothing to do with Big Bang theory, it has to do with the measured luminosity of stellar objects compared to their measured mass.
The idea that dark matter is a fudge factor thrown in to keep the Big Bang theory alive is silly and completely at odds with history. The Big Bang theory was first formulated in 1931, based upon the observations of the redshift of distant galaxies. Dark matter was hypothesized in 1932 to help explain the motion of stars in the Milky Way.
My parents still have a set that was published in the 30s I think. The Great War is in, but the 2nd hadn't happened yet. As kids we had some enjoyment out of looking up things that weren't in the books, and historical "facts". But it is pure sentiment, no other justifcation.
I think it's key to view these as historical objects. I certainly didn't write any elementary school reports based on those encyclopedias!
->5 GaryPatella: Let me guess: you're into loop quantum gravity?
But, don't forget that Einstein himself used a fudge factor in the equation for general relativity. It's called "the cosmological constant," and so far no one's been able to really budge it.