Do you think that older textbooks were better written than modern textbooks...

Do you think that older textbooks were better written than modern textbooks? I think the style of older authors was more flowery than modern authors, who write in a very dull and straigthforward style.

>Obfuscation is good.
>Simplification is easy.

I like when textbooks didn't pull their punches. I always go for older textbooks when learning a subject, because the new ones are designed for spoiled homos who can't read more than 12 pages a day if it doesn't have pretty pictures.

Yes. Modern language education is directed towards average idiots who will never learn a language no matter what they do.

I prefer older textbooks because they go more in-depth and aren't really afraid to spend time explicating upon their subject matter. The recent textbooks I've read are often shorter, and more to the point, but miss a lot of nuance that the older textbooks possess.

It's an anecdotal observation, however, but that's what I noticed.

I'll never understand why some people like those mass-produced late Victorian books

I just think they look gaudy

Not really. Assuming you're talking educational textbooks, I don't read to find a flowery style, I read to get a simple explanation of the topic at hand, one that I can easily quote and refer to when needed, and doesn't fuck around with fancy unnecessary words.

I don't see why anyone would read a textbook for the fucking prose, read it for how well it explained the topic.

It was around the 1970s that education went to shit, I think.

Read criticism from the 50s and early 60s and you'll see it's much more interesting, to the point and has a strong command of the English language. Not to say everything is shit, and it's possible we're only remembering the good ones.

Education is far better than it's ever been, short of some retarded teachers, our curriculum's are generally quite good, at least compared to what they've been in the past.

Don't delude yourself into thinking that there wasn't teachers that felt the need to inject personal views into the classroom back then either, it was just different views on different shit.

And you're absolutely accurate with us only remembering the good ones. It's difficult to find copies of an average textbook from a couple years back unless your school library hasn't updated (they probably haven't), let alone a bad one. So if you go back 50 years, only the absolute best haven't just been discarded.

>Do you think that older textbooks were better written than modern textbooks?
No because most of it is probably wrong now. You cant get a book on psychology from the 50s and think its better than a modern psychology text book because one will give you information thats factual while the other will tell you your patients are all mom fucking bed wetters

I've never read a textbook older than 30 years and those were legal theory and constitutional law, both having seen 20 editions and updates with each.

This too. There's a reason our textbooks were updated, if the information in the old ones was completely up to date with our current understanding, and explained it better than any others did, we'd still be mostly using them.

And as said, the only textbooks really dating back 30 years + are legal stuff that legitimately probably hasn't changed a whole heap in that time, though there'll be 80 different amendments you probably will also have to read.

The exception would be math (and maybe physics/chemistry). The best math textbook I had was G.H Hardy's a course in pure mathematics, 1908

I'm not super knowledgeable in the fields, but based purely on my HSC year topics, I'd say that the sciences are just as prone as any other topic to change, even if some of the basic theories are the same, we teach them really differently, and in different orders, as curriculums change constantly. Not much point getting a textbook if it's not laid out in a consistent way you can actually refer to without needing 40 postit notes. Well, not when one that contains the exact same info but laid out more logically and in keeping with your course exists at least.

Any educational textbook is like this really from my experience.

The basics of math (up to the undergraduate level at least) haven't changed in hundreds of years.
You are right, they are taught differently now than they were, but this isn't necessarily better. For example, integrals were invented before derivatives. Nowadays we teach derivatives first, then derivatives. Hardy's book teaches in the historical order which gives a better understanding of how the ideas came about. Current teaching largely ignored the history of the subject, which I think is important to understanding.

>Nowadays we teach derivatives first, then integrals.
Typo fixed

Maths is really my weak point, so I'm not going to argue about the efficiency either way.

But I'm curious, why do you feel that history of mathematics is important? How does it increase your understanding of the theory? Like, in a social topic, the historical context is obviously important to any analysis or real understanding of it, as you can criticise based upon that, but I'm not sure how that applies to maths?

If the modern teaching method teaches the actual theories better, or at least in an easier to understand way, isn't that superior?

The reason legal textbooks don't change much in Europe is that the principles have been the same since 3rd century.

if you had a chemistry book the same age, the periodic table would only have about 85 elements in it

Yeah, I understand that, that was my point really. Apart from legislations themselves, there's not a huge amount that changes in the basis of the law, it's been a really similar system for a long time now.

I mean shit, I'm Australian, so it's even more the case here, we only have a bit under a couple hundred years of our legal history to worry about.

But you're right, I've had to refer to writings from the 1300's and earlier in papers discussing specific court cases in the current age, it's really not changed a heap.

The interest which pupils take in their studies may be greatly increased if the solution of problems and the cold logic of geometrical demonstrations are interspersed with historical remarks and anecdotes. A class in arithmetic will be pleased to hear about the Babylonians and Hindus and their invention of the "Arabic notation"; they will marvel at the thousands of years which elapsed before people had even thought of introducing into the numeral notation the zero; they will find it astounding that it should have taken so long to invent a notation which they themselves can now learn in a month. When they know how to construct a square whose area is double the area of a given square, tell them about the duplication of the cube, of its mythical origin-how the wrath of Apollo could be appeased only by the construction of a cubical altar double the given altar, and how mathematicians long wrestled with this problem. After the class have exhausted their energies on, the theorem of the right triangle, tell them the legend about its discoverer - how Pythagoras, jubilant over his great accomplishment, sacrificed a hecatomb to the Muses who inspired him.

For the more advanced students it warns us against hasty conclusions; it points out the importance of a good notation upon the progress of the science; it discourages excessive specialisation on the part of investigators, by showing how apparently distinct branches have been found to possess unexpected connecting links; it saves the student from wasting time and energy upon problems which were, perhaps, solved long since; it discourages him from attacking an unsolved problem by the same method which has led other mathematicians to failure.

I will restrict my opinion to math then.

I mean, here I think you're over-estimating how much kids care about maths. Evidently for you this is a topic you're passionate about, and that's great, don't get me wrong, and I agree that it's interesting stuff, but I feel it would be better served as a separate course, the curriculum for maths is already stretched as is in a high school setting, with kids being rushed through topic and coming out with poor understandings of it at the end of the course, as they can only teach the very basics of anything, no time to really reinforce stuff, because curriculum says you should have finished it two weeks ago.

I personally believe that in any educational setting, this stuff should have a place, but I just don't feel it's in the middle of a maths class.

You have a much better point here, in more advanced topics I definitely agree it's good to teach people about the history of their topic, at least basic stuff, because it does increase some of the understanding of the links drawn. Though obviously this is less effective if the student is only learning the theory for use in another topic, if they're just going to be applying it to crunch numbers in a lab (or wherever really), it has a lot less value. But in a uni where you can simply make a maths major have to include this stuff, and people taking it as a secondary topic to a major in something else can just not include it or it's not mandatory to attend at least, I think this would be a great idea, you're right.

>here I think you're over-estimating how much kids care about maths.
That is exactly the point. For most kids math is just memorizing facts and formulas. It's no wonder most people in north America hate math, it's boring!
I agree the curriculum is already stretched and it would be hard to fit that superfluous stuff in. I think there should be some history taught in middle school to at least get kids interested. Then in high school there should be the option for people interested to continue and an option for others less interested to take the basic requirements.

that was from a 100+ yo textbook. Definitely more fun to read the drivel I had to deal with

Modern textbooks are more clear but they need to stop with the poor attempts at humor and exclamation marks and other unnecessary stuff. Just give me the information I need.

Best part about modern textbooks are the pictures and illustrations

>You cant get a book on psychology from the 50s and think its better than a modern psychology text book

You couldn't have picked a worse subject for your example.

>Implying psychology wasn't co-opted decades ago

To be fair, Satan, psychiatry was fucking terrible in the past, the treatments caused far more harm than good, and homosexuality doesn't really cause any more social distress than any other paraphilia, which are only diagnosed if it causes you issues day to day.

Some crazy people shouting up a convention isn't proof the whole thing is a sham, and it's a huge heap to go from "some people acted crazy" to "homosexuality is a mental disorder". By far, more heterosexual people have acted crazy, yet you'd have to be a moron to assume that's proof of it being a mental disorder.

>the treatments caused far more harm than good

We will look upon the likes of hormone therapy/transitioning/etc, in years to come, with the same of disbelief that modern man looks upon historical treatments like the lobotomy.

>homosexuality doesn't really cause any more social distress than any other paraphilia

Demonstrably untrue.

>Some crazy people shouting up a convention isn't proof the whole thing is a sham

Some 'crazy people' show up at psychology conventions, threatening violence/etc, and all of sudden the field psychology just happens to take a 180 on the mental condition in question.

Sorry bub, that's too much of a coincidence to me.

I prefer older textbooks.

I have had a few cases where I spent months trying to learn a concepts and got it in hours with "out dated" textbooks.

Reading a second hand copy of Carnot's original notes on entropy was very helpful in better understanding it, as it was too common for many books to explain in the depth needed for such a advanced concept. It really takes several pages to even start talking about it properly.

It is hard for me to explain, but I feel like the old ones were a single person talking to me (if they connect I got everything, if not I would try something else) but the new ones feel like a crowd of people shouting (one or two connect, but get drowned in the confusion of the collective).

Side note: (pic) Found a nice copy of "How Things Work" by Roger Jean Segalat at an estate sale. It is not a textbook exactly, more general learning book, more like an encyclopedia, but it clearly communicates like an old fashion book. Bonus points for looking great on a bookshelf.

>hormone therapy/transitioning/etc,

Last I checked, we don't give those to homosexuals. And it's generally considered an absolutely last resort thing, like, nothing else changes your thoughts, and they'll probably kill themselves if they don't get that treatment, so they do it. It's the same for people that think a leg is the cause of all their woes, they can amputate as a last resort treatment if it's bad enough.

>Demonstrably untrue.

Please demonstrate why then. Also, please avoid from listing things that are easily explainable by social or environmental factors, I would like evidence of how homosexuality causes difficulties to function day to day, and noted personal distress.

>Some 'crazy people' show up at psychology conventions, threatening violence/etc, and all of sudden the field psychology just happens to take a 180 on the mental condition in question.


The field was already in a stage of major flux, and many had been arguing that homosexuality should not be included in the next edition of the DSM for years at that stage.

>Sorry bub, that's too much of a coincidence to me.

So what? Because crazy people exist, that invalidates any possible other reasoning why homosexuality was removed? You've yet to give any actual reasoning as to why it's a mental disorder in all cases, or even in any.

I'm not interested in debating someone who's own personal biases are more important to them than any actual logic or reasoning, and I'm getting a feeling that's what you're doing. So, if it is, feel free to take this shit back to /pol/, they'll probably like it better.

>Last I checked, we don't give those to homosexuals.

Was referring to the whole LGBTQA+* rabble at large, for whom homosexuals were merely the thin end of the wedge.

The fact remains that in years to come, the things that I mentioned will be viewed with at least as much horror as the lobotomy.

>Also, please avoid from listing things that are easily explainable by social or environmental factors

This is a chicken-and-egg scenario. You're saying the markedly higher levels of depression/etc in homosexuals, is due to social factors/etc. I maintain whatever social difficulties they face are on account of their homosexuality.

>The field was already in a stage of major flux

Not really. The matter of homosexuality/etc was pretty settled, until homosexuals/etc started getting militant.

>Because crazy people exist, that invalidates any possible other reasoning why homosexuality was removed?

Not at all, but they were undeniably the chief motivation.

>Was referring to the whole LGBTQA+* rabble at large, for whom homosexuals were merely the thin end of the wedge.

You're moving the goalposts, as far as I can see.

>You're saying the markedly higher levels of depression/etc in homosexuals, is due to social factors/etc. I maintain whatever social difficulties they face are on account of their homosexuality.

No, I'm saying that for any other mental illness, the issues prevail no matter what situation you put them in, that's the entire point. A person with MDD is depressed no matter where he is in life. A gay person is unlikely to be (unless they also suffer from other illnesses, obviously) if he's in a situation that accepts his or her sexuality. That's the difference.

Also, you've not actually demonstrated why it's true, all you've demonstrated is a lack of understanding about what makes a mental illness a mental illness.

>The matter of homosexuality/etc was pretty settled

It really wasn't, and you're a moron if you think that a couple events changed the opinions of a huge committee. The DSM isn't written by just one person, and it's not easy to politicise unless you manage to influence nearly every medical professional writing on it. And that's not likely to be done by a couple crazies at a couple conventions, that never actually did anything.

>Not at all, but they were undeniably the chief motivation.

I've literally given you other reasons that were the chief motivation, you keep chucking around buzzwords like "demonstrably" and "undeniably", but you're not backing them up with anything, they're just words.


You're showing me that as I said, your biases are more important to you than any legitimate research or reasoning though, and I'm not interested in flinging shit back and forth with you for another few hours, with no-one changing their opinion, so I'm out. You'd probably have better luck on /r9k/ or /pol/ with this shit.

Chemistry textbooks had a totally different naming convention (they had almost none), so no alkanes and alkenes even it was butanes and I forget the other one. And obv no iso-4-propy whatevers. The textbooks from the 1880s were used up to the 1960s or there about and often the coverage of experiments and certain principles is surprisingly similar, at least when I wrote some shit on it about 10 years ago in the UK.

I also know that maths language has changed massively too in English and some of the older books like translations of Newton's Principia (while dealing with the natural sciences too) the maths language is quite different to now and the early 20th C and late 19th translations often have a couple of pages discussing these changes.

>us
I find that people with the audacity to speak for other's opinions without actually knowing those people always have wildly incorrect opinions themselves, to the point of being contradictory and hypocritical.

Education is in the dredges and it is too infused with euphemistic language and politically correct schlock designed to protect fragile egos and not to educate. Truth is harsh and it should not be skirted about, just tell it as it is not how you want it to be. Modern education is a disaster and the "critical thinking" that these teachers praise so much and encourage their students to do is absent in most the teachers who teach today.

There's no delusion, education was better 200 years ago in france then it was here, nobles were learning in their teen years and beyond what kids here learn in their 20's.

Education as a whole is more accessible and thus better but the quality isn't necessarily.

>Education as a whole is more accessible and thus better
It has become better as a whole as well i.e. The Flynn effect. The top from everything I've ever seen has more or less stayed the same. There are some more complex problems out there so the pinnacles of intellect are higher, but fewer people can get there.

However that's not what you're talking about, you just want to go back to a time where some shitty literal interpretation of I dunno, Plato's Republic was still generally accepted as super valid and you could just spew out rote learning to be smart.

I said us in relation to remembering the best of the best textbooks. And did you even read my post?

Education has always been filled with political bullshit to some degree, the difference is that now it's not in the curriculum, it's just that some teachers feel like they need to teach their opinions too. But this isn't encouraged at all, and if it's in the senior years of high school, teachers can be severely reprimanded over it, as it stops kids from being able to perform accurately on tests. We even have systems in place to stop biased teachers resulting in kids getting shit marks, in Aus, if you get terrible assessment marks because a teacher was biased against you, but do exceptionally well in your HSC exam, your assessment mark will be scaled up to be more in keeping with the HSC mark. And vice versa.

I have a feeling when you say stuff like "truth is harsh and should not be skirted about" that you're upset because your personal opinions aren't being taught, as opposed to any legitimate criticisms of the educational system, because apart from that you've just mostly chucked around buzzwords like "euphemistic language" (how does this apply to education at all? I can't think of a single example of this) and implying that political correctness is the issue. Using strong language doesn't make your point any more valid.

>education was better 200 years ago in france then it was here, nobles were learning in their teen years and beyond what kids here learn in their 20's

Nobles were exposed to an extremely specific form of education back then, on some very very niche topics. Do you think nobles learned any calculus? Kids learn that in high school. Do you think they knew anything about the basics of science, like what an element is, or how cells work? Kids learn that shit in early high school.

The main things school's lack is any sort of philosophical topics, though admittedly I did do some of that in my english course analysis of Hamlet, we learned about some philosophy topics related to the text then.

Overall though? It's stupid to go that education is worse today, when we absolutely have a much wider range of topics taught to students than has ever been the case before, and as you said, it's accessible to everyone.

>Do you think nobles learned any calculus? Kids learn that in high school.
Absolutely 200 and 300 years ago there were kids learning calculus, but that's more to do with ending school earlier and so going to university earlier which in turn took a lot longer but was broader. I think there are elements from such a system we could learn but you're pretty much correct in your evaluation of those other anons' ideas.

Textbooks now take a multiplicity of approaches all at once. So they don't just have a block of text and maybe a few diagrams here and there (in fact I wouldn't be surprised if the early thermodynamics books had no or nearly no diagrams). So in current textbooks you get visual, verbal and kinematic learning, but also historical, methodological, theoretical etc views/readings whatever, or whatever applies to whichever subject we talk about. They're also written with a view to being used throughout a course.

What you usually end up with is each chapter having a set of key points or lessons at the start, the main body of information made up of several parts, then some example problems and actual problems. Then within the main body you'll have around the main text a bunch of pictures and photographs (partly because of learning styles, and partly because of it now being cheaper than in the past). And even within the main text you'll have little boxes containing historical information or case studies or whatever, because when you read through again later on you can spot what you need to revise/cram easier.

That's you're multiple voices. In many ways it's better, in some ways it's worse. If you look up Kuhn's Black Body Theory and Quantum Disconuity (p sure that's the right book) and you'll find heavy criticism of common understanding (common within respected scientists) of aspects of thermodynamics.

I doubt kids were learning calculus 300 years ago, since it was developed less than 400 years ago.

It's weirdish territory since the idea that university students in their early teens were kids is one from ~200 years ago.

Anyway, if they attended those lectures yes they would have learned about calculus. We're also talking about a period where maths was sexy and cool and great mathematicians were like rock stars.

But if you think about it all that's really happened is part of university education (calculus) has been moved onto school education while simultaneously the typical ages for learning calculus have stayed about the same.