I would want to know the author's educational background, what other books they had written, what awards they garnered. I'd Google them, read the wiki, see if their works had been covered in important book review publications. I would do that to at least sort of determine their legitimacy and if they looked ok and the topic interested me I would then buy the book.

I do not discount Amazon reviews in making that assessment as they can often be quite informative, especially regarding non-fiction.

The thing is, so much of what I learned in college and grad school fifty years ago has now been deemed bullshit. Plate tectonics was heresy. Genes never changed. Animals were Pavlovian mechanisms. And so on and on and on. You can only do the best with info available at the time and know that nothing is written in stone. Education never stops.

I understand the first principles of these fields. I then make sure I can follow the logic about what's being said from these first principles. Also, by reading different sources, one begins to abstract and see different themes and patterns.

Just like with Cass Morris and The Aven Cycle. Though in his case he started self publishing the series, so I wonder how easy it is to make that switch.

[removed]

Thank you, helpful response! Tbh journal articles sort of scare me they’re just very difficult to understand and I mean since most commonly they contain some sort of study that was conducted it’s like a very very specific niche thing you get out of it + looking at a single study may be too one-sided even if it’s a peer-reviewed and methodically properly conducted one.. you’d probably rather look at meta-analyses of studies but that’s all a bit too high-level anyway I don’t think the time you have to extend to extract knowledge this way is really worth it even if after this process you might certainly have the most up to date, scientifically accurate knowledge on one certain thing. That’s only really viable if you either have infinite free time or are a scientist in said field and it is your job to possess this "super knowledge"). That’s why I’d prefer really good books because that’s ideally supposed to be sort of the condensed knowledge of someone who has done all that extremely hard work and can now present you with their findings in an easier to understand manner. And the outdated issue may apply to some books but generally I don’t think science moves that fast that if you get a more general overview over things written in idk 2017 that significant parts of that knowledge have been nullified through new findings since.. but of course you have to be careful if you read things about economics written in a time prior to wide-spread internet for example.. anyway where I think you’re correct is that it’s probably a good idea to look out for prescribed readings of reputable universities for certain classes they have or identifying authoritative figures in certain subjects and try to get booklist from them or read a book they‘ve published! Still alot of work but hoping for an easy way to this was maybe rather naive haha

You have to be the gate-keeper here. I think the resolute and ultimate fact you're looking for in these subjects just doesn't exist. Weigh what you learn against your conscience and experiences.

For example, my favorite nutrition advice ever is from Micheal Pollan's "In Defense of Food," that ends with the simple thesis, "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants."

There are thick volumes of antivaxx books chalked full of citations. I steer clear of them, because the medical community has come to the resounding consensus that vaccines are safe. If that doesn't tell you the state of medical science, I don't know what does.

In terms of psychology, there is rarely an idea or a law that can be pointed to as being absolute. Most of it is just what works, and that's very often different for different people. But I do know the protocol for someone experiencing an onset of schizophrenia is to try mood stabilizers first, and if that doesn't work, switch to antipsychotics.

I recently read "Just like someone without mental illness only more so" by Mark Vonnegut. In it, he asks rhetorically, "Whats the difference between someone who recovers [from schizophrenia] and someone who doesn't? The answer is not much."

Think of this all as exploring, not fact-checking. Often I'll meet someone who read a shady health blog that presented an alluring possibility, and the person goes head over heels and declares they've found the holy grail. It just doesn't work like that.

It brings to mind Atomic Habits by James Clear. He presents a simple formula for fostering new habits. I've heard it worked for many people. Is it scientifically backed? Not necessarily, but you can try it out and see for yourself. If it works, it appears Clear knew what he was talking about.

If all of this is too exhausting, read some poetry or philosophy. The human heart craves truth just as much as the brain, but only our heart sings it.

Maybe that’s sort of a misunderstanding with reception I didn’t really mean Amazon reviews. I‘m talking about books that were so popular that when you google them you get a wiki article about the book with a section labelled reception and that states how tbe book‘s been received by the public / journalists / the scientific bubble that book was related to. And then ideally I‘d want books where that Wiki section is mostly people saying positive things instead of things you commonly see such as book failed to adress x, y or disregarded/neglected z ..

Kind of bottom level but the Fakespot browser extension analyses Amazon reviews. Just because a book has lots if positive reviews does not in any way add to the veracity. As a matter of fact, if I see a non-fiction book with thousands of reviews and five stars I immediately think it is probably bs along the lines of Dr. Oz or Oprah.

Probably not what you had in mind but I remember the Goosebumps series having a range of cancelled books like that of the Goosebumps Gold series. I just really appreciate those illustrations on the book's covers that go unused.

so my absolute favorite example of this is a book called "love and consequences" by margaret b. jones.

it was a memoir about her life as a half native kid growing up amid gang violence in foster care in south central LA. the book has intense descriptions of drug use, violence, gang warfare, but also intense love and kindness from Jones' foster family. when it was released, it got good reviews, and jones did several interviews where she talked about "her homies" in the bloods and crips, and her "big ma" foster mother. npr was especially kind to her and her story, and jones essentially recited the plot from dangerous minds.

that's because Margaret b jones was actually Margaret seltzer, a lily white woman from a rich family in orange county who attended private schools her entire life. everything about her, from her personal history ("okay but i heard a lot of these stories while writing in a coffee shop in the hood" was literally one of her defenses) to her ridiculous attempt at an AAVE "blaccent" in interviews was fake.

while seltzer probably had good intentions, she of course centered her fake ass memoir around the most pernicious and harmful stereotypes about Black culture she could think of. her publisher, not wanting to be in the business of printing lies and promoting a weirdo trafficking in racist stereotypes, stopped production and pulled the book.

that this thing got as far as it did is mind boggling. im a white dude from the rust belt and clocked seltzer as a fraud within about six seconds of listening to her. it says a lot about the publishing industry circa 15 years ago that there weren't enough POC in positions of power to go "let's uhhhhh maybe check this lady's background, just to be sure"

anyway there are still copies of the book out there, and its goodreads page is a really funny combination of people who either know its a fraud or don't. i recommend looking it up

I read it as a teen and thought it was profound.

However I don't think I would enjoy it as much now. Esp when I really hate Hesse's Siddhartha!

Yeah ebook restrictions are often absolutely absurd, which is why I disagree with this ruling on principle. Physical books are not 'licensed' to be artificially withdrawn and repurchased year on year. These virtuous publishers make more profit % than Walmart, Bank of America, Toyota, they all go barely 10% profit. Ebook publishers? -- 35%-40% profits. On average, ebook cost has 37% upmarked just for profit. It's an artificial greed market where none should exist.

Excellent doco on the academic papers and textbook ebook side of this issue: https://vimeo.com/273358286

Bye bye second hand books then haha!

Cool, perhaps. Wouldn’t call it unique at all though… didn’t he even admit that it was basically just a ripoff? :/

You don't, just look for their peer reviewed articles both new and old and put the references under intense scrutiny.

IA are definitely in the wrong here, but I’m afraid that the publishers will use this win to push for even more restrictions on normal libraries. As it stands, a normal library has to pay exorbitant amounts of money per copy of an ebook they buy, and the ebook can only be lent a certain number of times before it has to be repurchased.

Combined with libraries getting less and less funding every year, this is going to turn into a death knell for libraries.

Rankings and ratings are a less reliable metric because unfortunately they can be manipulated and there is often strong commercial incentive to do so.

The easiest way is to find someone who is a trusted authority in the subject area and get them to give you a bibliography that is suited to your level of knowledge. (You don't necessarily need personal access; they may have a blog or have posted online course syllabi, etc.) To identify an expert, look for traditional credentials, like publications in peer-reviewed journals and tenured positions at respected universities. This sort of structure is a lot more reliable than star ratings on online platforms.

A librarian at a good library can also be a really a good resource. If there are any universities in your area you can inquire whether you are allowed to use their library.

Libraries pay for each copy, and they pay about 30x as much per copy. And each copy can only be lended a certain number of times (40 or 50 times) before it has to be repurchased.

This reminds me of all those fan-game projects that sit in a comfortable legal grey area until someone decides to put everything up on Steam and move things from "maybe legal" to "definitely not legal."

When IA were still tying their digital lending to physical copies of individual books, they might have had a slim chance in court. Once they allowed for unlimited lending - regardless of their motivation for it - this chance evaporated.

From an ethical perspective... It's messy. Arguably, archiving out-of-print books from the 60s is probably a good thing. However, distributing unlimited digital copies of an active author's book from the 2010s is somewhat less defensible. If we have a situation somewhere in the middle, who the hell knows?

When it comes to finding good evidence-based information, books are best seen as starting points to provide you with a broad overview of a topic, so that you can then dive into academic journal articles about those elements of a topic that are most relevant for you or you are most interested in.

Generally, books by somebody who knows what they are talking about will be factual, and free from opinion, and statements will be supported in some way with scientific evidence / references. They will also be free from personal anecdotes and 'anecdotal evidence' (ie "after he used this miracle food, the diversity of her gut microbiota seems to have increased exponentially, so this food is fantastic" is not good data). Much like good journalism, you want a book that presents you with data in a structured and easy to understand way, but you don't want to waste your time reading about some person's 'opinion'. You can get an idea of what I mean by reading a couple of articles from your local newspaper, compared to a better news source like, say, The Guardian, where facts tend to be presented without the author's subjective view or interpretation.

My approach would be to find out which universities are well known for exceptional research or training in the field you'd like to learn about, then find the reading lists for relevant subjects at that university. Or you might write to a lecturer or two and ask for their recommendations. That should give you a starting point.

You can also search for books written by professors associated with a well-respected uni, and decide which of those you feel are most authoritative to write about a given topic.

Keep in mind though that all books, by their nature, will contain 'old' information. It takes time for a book to be written, edited and published. By the time it is available, there is a very good chance that some information it contains will be outdated - maybe improved upon, no longer 'best practice', proven to be false, etc. So, books are great resources, but limited in their usefulness depending on what level of knowledge you're looking to gain.

Academic journals can be more accurate and contain much more recent information than books. Google Scholar is a fantastic resource for finding journal articles. You'll still need to work out which articles are great and which are rubbish, but you won't need to deal with as much pop pseudo-science and quackery as you'll find at your local bookstore. And, you'll find more recent information with greater specificity. If an article is not available for free, email the author and ask if they would email it to you - most will be happy to.

Happy learning!

I just got around to reading a sequel of a book I loved (book I loved was Dewitched, sequel is Unhitched) and the end has a synopsis for the third book in the series. The second came out in 2013 and there's no word at all for the third book.

But considering how disappointing Unhitched was and how bad the book 3 synopsis sounded, I'm not upset.

The real dream of spring was the books that weren't written.

One method is to look for authors of scholarly articles whose work is frequently cited by other experts in the same field. Authors whose results are used by other experts in their own research are more likely to be considered reliable.

The book being OOP may be exactly what the author or publisher wants. The right of copyright includes the right NOT to have your work sold.

Govment gon have to pry my late victorian etiquette manual's from my cold dead hands