Online reading group and book discussion forum
  HOME ENTER FORUMS OUR BOOKS LINKS DONATE ADVERTISE CONTACT  
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Sun Oct 21, 2018 2:01 am





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 28 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 1, 5.00 on the average.Evaluations: 1, 5.00 on the average.Evaluations: 1, 5.00 on the average.Evaluations: 1, 5.00 on the average.Evaluations: 1, 5.00 on the average.  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Why do intelligent people reject science? (National Geographic article) 
Author Message
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

BookTalk.org Moderator
Platinum Contributor

Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 4287
Location: NC
Thanks: 1767
Thanked: 1831 times in 1386 posts
Gender: Male

Post Why do intelligent people reject science? (National Geographic article)
Good article!!

Excerpt:

Quote:
The scientific method leads us to truths that are less than self-evident, often mind-blowing, and sometimes hard to swallow. In the early 17th century, when Galileo claimed that the Earth spins on its axis and orbits the sun, he wasn’t just rejecting church doctrine. He was asking people to believe something that defied common sense—because it sure looks like the sun’s going around the Earth, and you can’t feel the Earth spinning. Galileo was put on trial and forced to recant. Two centuries later Charles Darwin escaped that fate. But his idea that all life on Earth evolved from a primordial ancestor and that we humans are distant cousins of apes, whales, and even deep-sea mollusks is still a big ask for a lot of people. So is another 19th-century notion: that carbon dioxide, an invisible gas that we all exhale all the time and that makes up less than a tenth of one percent of the atmosphere, could be affecting Earth’s climate.


http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2015/ ... nbach-text


_________________
-Geo
Question everything


The following user would like to thank geo for this post:
Cattleman, Chris OConnor, DWill, Harry Marks, Litwitlou, Robert Tulip
Sat Dec 31, 2016 1:52 pm
Profile
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Platinum Contributor

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 6067
Location: Berryville, Virginia
Thanks: 1657
Thanked: 1786 times in 1370 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Why do intelligent people reject science? (National Geographic article)
I like the writer and have read his stuff in the Wash Post for years. He's one of the better science communicators. Here, he puts his finger on the thorniest issues of science acceptance vs. denial. I have to admit, I become a little uncomfortable when I recognize myself in the following passage:

"If you’re a rationalist, there’s something a little dispiriting about all this. In Kahan’s descriptions of how we decide what to believe, what we decide sometimes sounds almost incidental. Those of us in the science-communication business are as tribal as anyone else, he told me. We believe in scientific ideas not because we have truly evaluated all the evidence but because we feel an affinity for the scientific community. When I mentioned to Kahan that I fully accept evolution, he said, 'Believing in evolution is just a description about you. It’s not an account of how you reason.'”

I'm not a science communicator, obviously, but I do strongly identify in most cases with the methods scientists have used, and I consider the record of their accomplishments to be trustworthy. I have almost no ability to independently verify their findings, yet I accept them when--that dreaded word--the consensus is that they are the closest to the truth that we do so far have. (What I say applies mostly to the "hard" sciences; I am more sceptical when it comes to social science, psychology, and health/nutrition research.)

"Naive beliefs" also explain well why so many of us refuse to accept the findings of science. We evolved to be strongly influenced by what the person in our group reported to us about our immediate environment and experience, but not so much by what a specialist says about facts of whose existence we're not even aware.

Accepting science seems to equate for some to a loss of control over determining a worldview. Or science is too much a threat to the chosen authority on one's worldview, religion.



The following user would like to thank DWill for this post:
Cattleman, geo, Harry Marks
Sun Jan 01, 2017 12:27 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Beyond Awesome


Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 1010
Location: Texas
Thanks: 446
Thanked: 444 times in 352 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)
Highscores: 1

Post Re: Why do intelligent people reject science? (National Geographic article)
I have not read the article, but I do remember that, as a child, I was taught to respect and listen to my elders. As a result, I grew up with many of the common beliefs,including, but not limited to, religion, politics, and science. I think I was in my early teens when the revelation came that when Mr. A and Mr. B (of Ms. in either case), differed 180 degrees on a specific subject, they both could not be right. One (or both) of them had to be at least partially wrong. It took a while for me to reconcile this to myself; in fact I think I had finished college before I could do so.

After a relatively long life, I have come up with my personal parameters for controversial subjects. I try to listen to all the evidence, also trying (often unsuccessfully) to winnow out out emotional appeals, references to "authority," and other extraneous (to me) arguments. If an item is really in question, I fram my opinion along the following lines. "Either A or B is possible: at this time the majority of the evidence points to (take your pick)." Not sure if that is the best way to think, but it works for me.


_________________
Love what you do, and do what you love. Don't listen to anyone else who tells you not to do it. -Ray Bradbury

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done, and why. Then do it. -Robert A. Heinlein


The following user would like to thank Cattleman for this post:
DWill, geo, Harry Marks, Robert Tulip
Sun Jan 01, 2017 6:11 pm
Profile Email
Asleep in Reading Chair

Bronze Contributor

Joined: Nov 2017
Posts: 182
Location: New Jersey
Thanks: 86
Thanked: 84 times in 68 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Why do intelligent people reject science? (National Geographic article)
.
When I get involved in vaccine/autism, or evolution/intelligent design, or all humans except those from south Saharan Africa have a tiny percentage of Neanderthal genes in our DNA discussions, my go to statement is, "Hey, I have no stake in this; I just follow the science." But that's not true. I follow as much of the science as I comprehend, but I do not replicate experiments or understand the math. The author writes, "For some people, the tribe is more important than the truth; for the best scientists, the truth is more important than the tribe."

I want to be part of the tribe with the scientists, but sometimes it seems I'm just following along on faith in scientists the same way some people follow their faith in God (or Google.)

Anyway, the article was fascinating and frightening. Thanks for posting it.


_________________
Winter is Coming
11/06
"One thing about this place is that you'd better be able to back up your claims with evidence and provide credible citations that back them up.
If not, you may not like it here among us adults." -- ant


The following user would like to thank Litwitlou for this post:
Harry Marks, Robert Tulip
Mon Jan 22, 2018 7:56 pm
Profile Email
Asleep in Reading Chair

Bronze Contributor

Joined: Nov 2017
Posts: 182
Location: New Jersey
Thanks: 86
Thanked: 84 times in 68 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Why do intelligent people reject science? (National Geographic article)
.

Greenland Is Literally Cracking Apart and Flooding the World

This is from Live Science.

.https://www.livescience.com/62027-green ... aring.html

For some reason, it was reprinted on the Fox News site.


_________________
Winter is Coming
11/06
"One thing about this place is that you'd better be able to back up your claims with evidence and provide credible citations that back them up.
If not, you may not like it here among us adults." -- ant


Fri Mar 23, 2018 6:32 am
Profile Email
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Building a post count to the moon


Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 730
Thanks: 32
Thanked: 394 times in 311 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Why do intelligent people reject science? (National Geographic article)
I think the short answer is that they are not intelligent. If you doubt, go on Facebook and join various pages dedicated to religion v. atheist or evolution v. creationism or flat earth v. globe earth. You will find yourself arguing with the stupidest groups of morons on the face of the planet. Creationists just can't stop with the "if we came from monkeys then why are there still monkeys" idiocy, religionists can't stop asking how something came from nothing no matter how many times it's explained to them and flat earthers (or flerfs, as we call them) may be the stupidest people I have ever encountered. It boils down to religion v. science because nearly all flerfs are devout Christians or Muslims. Creationists are, of course, devoutly religious.

For example, I asked why the moon looks upside down if you go to the Southern Hemisphere. A flerf told me to take a paper plate, draw a smiley face on it and tape it to the ceiling. Then stand one side and look up and it will appear rightside up. Now move to the position opposite and note that it now appears upside down. Ta-da!! That's it. That's actually it. So, I said if I stand on one side of it, it will appear on its side. Where does the moon appear on its side? He said as it sets it tilts on its side. Well...yes, it does, but that is predicted by the globe and does not work on a flat earth and besides we should be able to see it on its side when it is at the zenith and yet there is nowhere on earth where this happens and if I'm wrong, prove it. They never did because they couldn't. Intelligent people don't think this way.

In another case, a flerf wanted to know why the earth didn't slope to the left and right when we look at the horizon no matter which direction we face. Because the earth is huge and we are microscopic in comparison and so the horizon looks flat. How could it slope away at the sides in 360 degrees?? Some of them wanted to know why airplanes follow the curve of the earth when they should fly off into space. Yeah!! And they wanted to know how people in the Southern Hemisphere don't fall off--I am not making this up!!! One guy said in Australia planes would look upside down while flying so why don't people in Australia ever talk about all the upside down airplanes zipping around overhead? YEAH!!!! No joke, no exaggeration! Is that intelligent. NO!

One you hear all the time from flerfs is "How can water curve?" See, if you pour water into something, the surface is always flat so how does water stick to the globular earth? You can't explain that gravity is pulling on each and every water molecule and pulling them towards the center of the planet. Why? Because there is no such thing as gravity! Yes, that's right. Gravity doesn't exist, only density. They have actually created a forbidden zone around gravity. You're not allowed to talk about it because it isn't real.

So you say, just look at satellite images, you morons!!! Nope! Fake. All done with CGI and ALL the world's govts are in on it. Oh, and in case you didn't know--there is no outer space!!! See, the earth is flat and stationary. It's surrounded by an "ice wall" and there is a dome over the earth upon which the stars are mounted and the sun and moon are somehow suspended (well, god can do anything, after all). The dome turns. The sun is 33 miles across and 3000 miles up (although they can't agree on this because some of them post photos of the sun in the clouds and point out that some of the clouds are "clearly" passing behind the sun which puts the sun as about 3000 feet not miles. They NEVER explain how this tiny sun can throw off that much heat and light. Nor how it lights only half the earth plane at a time. They can't explain time zones or meteors or why no Arctic or Antarctic explorer has ever seen the ice wall no matter which direction they travel from.

Flerfs ask why no planes ever pass over the poles when, in fact, they do--routinely. They insist distant objects do not vanish under the horizon. They show photos of mirages as proof the earth is flat. They are arrogant assholes and refer to us as "globetards." We are retarded because we believe the earth is a globe, which, they say, is a result of schooling and not experience. If the planet is hurling through space, they say, then why isn't the fragile atmosphere worn away by now? Yep. And they call us globetards. One guy even said that Antarctica is the brain of the flat earth because it looks like a brain.

And who is behind all this globe earthism? NASA!!! NASA, they say, is run by Freemasons who are part of the Illuminati. NASA spells SATAN (if you scatter the letters around and add a "t"). Oh, and the moon landings were fake, of course. The moon is just a lamp the same size as the sun. And it gives off its own light.

And I've only scratched the surface of what these numbnuts believe. Intelligent? No. I'm sorry but NO! They believe this idiotic crap because they are idiots. Period.



The following user would like to thank DB Roy for this post:
Harry Marks
Sat Mar 24, 2018 10:06 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 5593
Location: Canberra
Thanks: 2088
Thanked: 2007 times in 1528 posts
Gender: Male
Country: Australia (au)

Post Re: Why do intelligent people reject science? (National Geographic article)
DWill wrote:
I recognize myself in the following passage: "…the science-communication business are as tribal as anyone else...'”
I accept them when--that dreaded word--the consensus is that they are the closest to the truth that we do so far have. (What I say applies mostly to the "hard" sciences; I am more sceptical when it comes to social science, psychology, and health/nutrition research.)
Debate on climate change is the most vivid example of otherwise intelligent people rejecting science.

My take on this is that the “tribal science communicators” have contrived a confusion between the hard science of the greenhouse effect and the soft science of decarbonisation. They use the consensus on the hard science of climate change to assert that their political solution of emission reduction is equally scientific, and reject any debate by using unscientific concepts such as moral hazard.

The reasons people reject climate science involve a perception that decarbonisation of the world economy is a highly political agenda. The mistrust of science emerges from the observation that the political agenda promoted by prominent scientific activists is less than honest and evidence-based.

Further, the memetic history of climate activism goes back to the old debates between socialism and fascism, with the socialists seeing all political progress as conditional on state electoral victory by the united popular front of progressive forces. That same strategic vision explains why science communicators are tribal, because their tribe is the political left.

If you are sceptical about the political objectives of the left, it is natural to also become sceptical of the scientific claims that are used to directly support those political objectives.


_________________
http://rtulip.net


The following user would like to thank Robert Tulip for this post:
DWill, Litwitlou
Sun Mar 25, 2018 3:48 am
Profile Email WWW
Asleep in Reading Chair

Bronze Contributor

Joined: Nov 2017
Posts: 182
Location: New Jersey
Thanks: 86
Thanked: 84 times in 68 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Why do intelligent people reject science? (National Geographic article)
Quote:
Debate on climate change is the most vivid example of otherwise intelligent people rejecting science.


Mr. Tulip, this is the leading headline on the CNN website right now:

Experts say only drastic, immediate change can save us from the dangers of climate change

cnn.com/2018/10/07/world/climate-change ... index.html


_________________
Winter is Coming
11/06
"One thing about this place is that you'd better be able to back up your claims with evidence and provide credible citations that back them up.
If not, you may not like it here among us adults." -- ant


The following user would like to thank Litwitlou for this post:
Robert Tulip
Sun Oct 07, 2018 9:25 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 5593
Location: Canberra
Thanks: 2088
Thanked: 2007 times in 1528 posts
Gender: Male
Country: Australia (au)

Post Re: Why do intelligent people reject science? (National Geographic article)
Litwitlou wrote:
Quote:
Debate on climate change is the most vivid example of otherwise intelligent people rejecting science.
Mr. Tulip, this is the leading headline on the CNN website right now: Experts say only drastic, immediate change can save us from the dangers of climate change

Hi Litwitlou

The IPCC Warming Report is at http://www.ipcc.ch/report/sr15/

While its scientific information about the past and present looks highly accurate, its predictions about the future are entirely political.

The summary for policy makers asserts with high confidence that “Warming from [past] anthropogenic emissions … will persist for centuries to millennia.”

This claim is a primary example of political groupthink overwhelming scientific evidence. A focused effort now on solar radiation management and carbon dioxide removal could remove the embedded warming from past emissions this century, relieving pressure for drastic economic change. The problem is that the UN system is politically committed to the war on fossil fuels, and is unwilling to discuss strategies that might contest the thinking behind that war.


_________________
http://rtulip.net


Sun Oct 07, 2018 10:19 pm
Profile Email WWW
Asleep in Reading Chair

Bronze Contributor

Joined: Nov 2017
Posts: 182
Location: New Jersey
Thanks: 86
Thanked: 84 times in 68 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Why do intelligent people reject science? (National Geographic article)
Robert Tulip wrote:
Litwitlou wrote:
Quote:
Debate on climate change is the most vivid example of otherwise intelligent people rejecting science.
Mr. Tulip, this is the leading headline on the CNN website right now: Experts say only drastic, immediate change can save us from the dangers of climate change



The problem is that the UN system is politically committed to the war on fossil fuels, and is unwilling to discuss strategies that might contest the thinking behind that war.


People have always chosen to settle near oceans, lakes and rivers. These may well be the first areas hit hard by climate change. When the policy makers are forced to leave Manhattan, DC, London, LA, most of Florida, and so on, they'll see reason. We should be disciplined enough to prevent this from happening. We humans managed to see reason early enough to prevent the hydrofluorocarbon disaster -- let's hope we can do it again.


_________________
Winter is Coming
11/06
"One thing about this place is that you'd better be able to back up your claims with evidence and provide credible citations that back them up.
If not, you may not like it here among us adults." -- ant


The following user would like to thank Litwitlou for this post:
Harry Marks
Mon Oct 08, 2018 4:14 am
Profile Email
Asleep in Reading Chair

Bronze Contributor

Joined: Nov 2017
Posts: 182
Location: New Jersey
Thanks: 86
Thanked: 84 times in 68 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Why do intelligent people reject science? (National Geographic article)
New York Times

WASHINGTON — The 2018 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Science was awarded on Monday to a pair of American economists, William D. Nordhaus and Paul M. Romer, for their work highlighting the importance of government policy in fostering sustainable economic growth.

Mr. Nordhaus was honored for pioneering the assessment of the economic impact of climate change, including his advocacy for governments to tax carbon emissions.

nytimes.com/2018/10/08/business/economi ... mp;ref=cta

I don't think you're going to like Mr. Nordhaus' plan.


_________________
Winter is Coming
11/06
"One thing about this place is that you'd better be able to back up your claims with evidence and provide credible citations that back them up.
If not, you may not like it here among us adults." -- ant


The following user would like to thank Litwitlou for this post:
Harry Marks, Robert Tulip
Mon Oct 08, 2018 9:56 am
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 5593
Location: Canberra
Thanks: 2088
Thanked: 2007 times in 1528 posts
Gender: Male
Country: Australia (au)

Post Re: Why do intelligent people reject science? (National Geographic article)
Litwitlou wrote:
I don't think you're going to like Mr. Nordhaus' plan.

At https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/econo ... interview/ Nordhaus himself explains the basic flaw of his own ideas, that they are politically impractical. He points out how governments are walking away from effective carbon taxation, and offers no solution to turn around this basic psychological problem.

The unfortunate reality, contradicting the Nordhaus ideology, is that climate change is a security problem, and cannot be solved by market forces. The most pertinent analogy is that global warming is like an invading army, threatening a destruction of national security. With an invasion, the defence of full military mobilization can secure the border and stop the invasion. The alternative of negotiation might delay the successful invasion by a short amount, but with the same final result of loss of sovereignty.

The problem with the Nordhaus strategy for climate change is that decarbonising by changing economic incentives is far too slow to stop dangerous tipping points. The climate movement has put all its eggs in the basket of decarbonisation. This goal aims to slow the catastrophe by reducing the amount of carbon we add to the air, and only delays the onset of a dangerous hothouse tipping point.

The alternative strategy that I advocate is mobilisation designed to remove carbon from the air at a scale larger than total emissions. To understand the scale required, the amount of carbon that would have to be mined from the air each year to put the planet back on a path to a stable climate is twenty cubic kilometres, enough to fill 0.000002% of the world ocean. This could be done by industrial algae production on 1% of the world ocean surface. There is simply no discussion of such a goal, because it undermines the Nordhaus mentality of reliance on market forces through carbon tax and decarbonisation of the economy.

Nordhaus remains within the failed emission reduction paradigm. He makes an elegant economic argument that taxing carbon could provide incentives for innovation that would heavily cut emissions, but this argument fails politically due to the power of the fossil fuel industry, who see carbon tax as sand in the gears of the economy.

Carbon tax advocacy is little more than political blackmail, with the Paris Accord holding a gun to the head of the planet and saying cut emissions or she gets it.
Attachment:
File comment: Paris Accord Blackmails World by threatening dangerous warming unless economy decarbonises.
Cut Emissions or She Gets It.png
Cut Emissions or She Gets It.png [ 66.11 KiB | Viewed 174 times ]


_________________
http://rtulip.net


The following user would like to thank Robert Tulip for this post:
Litwitlou
Tue Oct 09, 2018 6:05 pm
Profile Email WWW
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Needs a book hoarding intervention

BookTalk.org Moderator
Silver Contributor

Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1934
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Thanks: 65
Thanked: 705 times in 545 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Why do intelligent people reject science? (National Geographic article)
Quote:
The unfortunate reality, contradicting the Nordhaus ideology, is that climate change is a security problem, and cannot be solved by market forces.

So how would we implement carbon mining? You state it would not be done by market forces, so that must mean by Government power. But there's no democratic push to make that happen either. So what's the plan to mobilize for carbon mining?



The following user would like to thank LanDroid for this post:
Robert Tulip
Tue Oct 09, 2018 8:48 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 5593
Location: Canberra
Thanks: 2088
Thanked: 2007 times in 1528 posts
Gender: Male
Country: Australia (au)

Post Re: Why do intelligent people reject science? (National Geographic article)
LanDroid wrote:
Quote:
The unfortunate reality, contradicting the Nordhaus ideology, is that climate change is a security problem, and cannot be solved by market forces.

So how would we implement carbon mining? You state it would not be done by market forces, so that must mean by Government power. But there's no democratic push to make that happen either. So what's the plan to mobilize for carbon mining?


I think what will happen is that the fossil fuel industry will realise its social licence to operate rests on answering the push for decarbonisation, so it will invest in carbon mining. My current work on carbon mining is at http://ironsaltaerosol.com/


_________________
http://rtulip.net


The following user would like to thank Robert Tulip for this post:
LanDroid
Tue Oct 09, 2018 10:13 pm
Profile Email WWW
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Platinum Contributor

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 6067
Location: Berryville, Virginia
Thanks: 1657
Thanked: 1786 times in 1370 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Why do intelligent people reject science? (National Geographic article)
Robert has persuaded me that limiting warming to less-than-disastrous levels won't work without massive investment in removal technologies. At the same time, though, renewables have to be aggressively increased, because it will take a few decades for carbon removal to be feasible at scale. The damage that fossils will do in the meantime can't always be erased through later carbon removal.

One point that might be ignored is that, despite advanced oil and gas extraction methods, fossil fuels won't be in sufficient supply to maintain the enormous energy flows the world economy depends on. Renewables are needed for both environmental and economic reasons.



The following user would like to thank DWill for this post:
Harry Marks, Robert Tulip
Wed Oct 10, 2018 8:53 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 28 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 1, 5.00 on the average.Evaluations: 1, 5.00 on the average.Evaluations: 1, 5.00 on the average.Evaluations: 1, 5.00 on the average.Evaluations: 1, 5.00 on the average.  Go to page 1, 2  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:



Site Resources 
HELPFUL INFO:
Forum Rules & Tips
Frequently Asked Questions
BBCode Explained
Author Interview Transcripts
Be a Book Discussion Leader!

IDEAS FOR WHAT TO READ:
Bestsellers
Book Awards
• Book Reviews
• Online Books
• Team Picks
Newspaper Book Sections

WHERE TO BUY BOOKS:
• Great resource pages are coming!

BEHIND THE BOOKS:
• Great resource pages are coming!

PROMOTE YOUR BOOK!
Advertise on BookTalk.org
How To Promote Your Book





BookTalk.org is a thriving book discussion forum, online reading group or book club. We read and talk about both fiction and non-fiction books as a community. Our forums are open to anyone in the world. While discussing books is our passion we also have active forums for talking about poetry, short stories, writing and authors. Our general discussion forum section includes forums for discussing science, religion, philosophy, politics, history, current events, arts, entertainment and more. We hope you join us!


Navigation 
MAIN NAVIGATION

HOMEFORUMSOUR BOOKSAUTHOR INTERVIEWSADVERTISELINKSFAQDONATETERMS OF USEPRIVACY POLICYSITEMAP

OTHER PAGES WORTH EXPLORING
Banned Book ListOnline Reading GroupTop 10 Atheism Books

Copyright © BookTalk.org 2002-2018. All rights reserved.


seo for beginners