Re: books, web, etc. (was: lazy?)

["John S. Denker" <jsd@MONMOUTH.COM>]

Nathaniel Davis wrote:
> I think there is something here we are forgetting:  proponents of the web
> will say, "The advantage of the web is that anyone can publish their work."
> Be that as it may, detractors of web research would say, "The problem with
> the web is that anyone can publish their work."

That's true as stated, but it is logically incomplete
because it doesn't address the issue that started this
thread:  it doesn't explicitly compare the web with
brick-and-mortar libraries.  And as to the apparently-
implied comparison, I disagree.

> Let's face it:  80% percent (I guessed at this figure) of the work done on
> the web is not substantiated, i.e., their are no bibliographies or footnotes
> that would lead the reader to believe the work can be substantiated or
> researched.

I suspect this was intended to mean that the web is
somehow worse than the alternatives in this respect.
But is it really?  Take a look at a real library.  In
every public library I've seen, including some small
ones and some truly great ones (UCLA, Princeton) the
astrology books outnumber astronomy books.

I often have to deal with fundamentalists who think
that anything in a book in a library must be absolutely
true and important.  Guess what, it aint necessarily so.

> ...  The 'big wigs' we know today have only the notoriety
> they have today because they "have stood on the shoulders" of those before
> them.

Again, that's 100% true in isolation, but I don't see how
it supports the argument that the web is somehow inferior
to other sources of information.

> If we have students conduct research, we must make sure they glean their
> information from reliable sources.

OK...

> A bibliography is crucial in this respect.

OK....

> I, personally, would expect students to include both
> paper and web resources.  A web-bibliography is not
> unheard of in this day and age;

Right...

> nevertheless, for a 'good' paper, research cannot be
> based on web resources alone.

That's overly strong, and therefore not entirely true.

> With such a wealth of 'paper' resources, how can we, in good
> conscience, deny students the education of researching the past?

Huh?  Nobody's denying anybody anything.  My
recommendation was to _not_ deny them the most-efficient
way of solving a problem (be that web or library or
whatever).

> I am only
> 28 years of age; and yet, I have had some of the most exhilarating
> experiences of my life witnessing the original manuscripts (under glass) of
> Galileo, Roentgen, de Brahe, Newton, etc., during my travels abroad.

I once was doing some research on static electricity.  One
of the books I needed was "on reserve", not in the open
stacks, so told the librarians I wanted to check it out.  I
thought they were going to kill me and then have my corpse
arrested  It turns out I was asking for a book by Franklin,
and the library had a copy, but it wasn't a Dover reprint,
it was written AND PRINTED by Franklin.  It took me over
an hour to get them calmed down.  Obviously they weren't
going to let anybody check out the book, but eventually
they did let me read it.  I wasn't allowed to take a pen
or pencil into the room;  they said they'd had problems
with people writing in their books!

It was quite an experience reading such a book!

=====================

There are efforts to put facimiles of such works on the
web.  For most students, this will be their only chance
to read such material.

  http://image.ox.ac.uk/

> Students may not have the advantage of seeing original manuscripts;

Except facsimiles on the web.

> nevertheless, the doctored 'manuscripts' on the web are a poor substitute.

I don't know what this is referring to.  Can anybody
provide an example of a falsified facsimile?

> In short, I see no problem expecting of students library research.  It
> connects the modern generation with the past, which is should be required of
> all science classes.

This posting is the position of the writer, not that of Galileo, Brahe,
Newton, Franklin, or Röntgen.

This posting is the position of the writer, not that of SUNY-BSC, NAU or the AAPT.