I’m so disappointed!
I was in Bookman’s used books yesterday and they had Michael Behe’s work classified in the science section. I can expect this sort of stuff from the big chain bookstores, but I thought Bookman’s was different.
Shame on Bookman’s
6 thoughts on “Shame on Bookman’s”
Comments are closed.
Perhaps Bookman’s doesn’t feel the compulsion to censor books?
And why do you imply that they ought to shame? Supposing shame is merely an evolutionary by-product of natural selection, and there’s really not any guilt, i.e., moral culpability there, what difference does it make whether they feel shame or not?
Cordially,
Perhaps Bookman’s doesn’t feel the compulsion to censor books?
And why do you imply that they ought to shame? Supposing shame is merely an evolutionary by-product of natural selection, and there’s really not any guilt, i.e., moral culpability there, what difference does it make whether they feel shame or not?
Cordially,
I hope you didn’t faint or go into hysterics.
I hope you didn’t faint or go into hysterics.
I wasn’t suggesting that they censor them at all. They have loads of other books that aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on, but at least they don’t put flat-earth books in the geography section, and if they did, they should feel shame for making an enormous cock-up of their filing.
Still, it raises an interesting question, they are untold books that were once reputable (or at least aspired to be reputable) that are now thoroughly debunked, as Behe’s work has been, assuming that you don’t argue they should be tossed in the garbage, where do they get reclassified to when they no longer have the pretense of science? Is there a section for “Misconceptions?” What about for “Malicious and Misleading literature?”
Further, if you consider “not having a book on their shelves” as censorship, then you can safely argue that Bookman’s does censor their book collection. They do so through their purchasing practices. Every time you visit, you’ll see people have boxes of books rejected that Bookman’s doesn’t want.
People haul them in on hand trucks, and haul them back out again on hand trucks, too, having only their load lightened by a book or two.
That they purchased the book or even sell it isn’t shame worthy, that they classified it under science is.
So, let’s suppose shame is merely an evolutionary by-product… and what else would it be? That doesn’t make it any the less “real.” People feel shame, guilt and culpability when they screw-up (and sometimes when they don’t.) They are completely natural and real emotions, and they are natural motivators for people to do better in the future.
I certainly hope Bookman’s does better in the future.
Of course, I’ve heard rumors that bands of cdesign proponentsists snag books like this out of the woo-woo section and intentionally miss-file them in the science section just to try to mislead children.
I wasn’t suggesting that they censor them at all. They have loads of other books that aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on, but at least they don’t put flat-earth books in the geography section, and if they did, they should feel shame for making an enormous cock-up of their filing.
Still, it raises an interesting question, they are untold books that were once reputable (or at least aspired to be reputable) that are now thoroughly debunked, as Behe’s work has been, assuming that you don’t argue they should be tossed in the garbage, where do they get reclassified to when they no longer have the pretense of science? Is there a section for “Misconceptions?” What about for “Malicious and Misleading literature?”
Further, if you consider “not having a book on their shelves” as censorship, then you can safely argue that Bookman’s does censor their book collection. They do so through their purchasing practices. Every time you visit, you’ll see people have boxes of books rejected that Bookman’s doesn’t want.
People haul them in on hand trucks, and haul them back out again on hand trucks, too, having only their load lightened by a book or two.
That they purchased the book or even sell it isn’t shame worthy, that they classified it under science is.
So, let’s suppose shame is merely an evolutionary by-product… and what else would it be? That doesn’t make it any the less “real.” People feel shame, guilt and culpability when they screw-up (and sometimes when they don’t.) They are completely natural and real emotions, and they are natural motivators for people to do better in the future.
I certainly hope Bookman’s does better in the future.
Of course, I’ve heard rumors that bands of cdesign proponentsists snag books like this out of the woo-woo section and intentionally miss-file them in the science section just to try to mislead children.