Help Me Pick a Cover For My Book

#21
I think the title change was a good move - lots of readers would not know what was meant by skeptics until they had bought and read the book.

None of those covers turned me on hugely - but I am the last person to ask about artistic things! Maybe I would have preferred a cover with symbols of science, symbols of meditation, and something representing ψ - not sure what.

Alternatively, maybe an image of the human brain seeming to open out into an infinite plane.

David
 
#22
I don't think he's confused. I think he follows "scientism" through to its terrible conclusions. I think it is naturalists who want to have their cake
and eat it too who are confused. Philosopher Edward Feser has an excellent series of posts on Rosenberg's views.
Confused = not being able to think clearly.
Science has given us the laws of motion, thermodynamics, relativity, quantum field theory... none of which have anything to do with meaning and purpose.
It's not even in the objective of science to answer those questions.

Human thought does that. That's what philosophy is for.
 
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

#24
I voted for number 26.

I am not as gung-ho about the evidence as I used to be. I think something could very well be going on, but there is just so much data to sift through. Its ambiguity, and the fact that I want to retain my intellectual honesty at all costs, have pushed me into the agnostic camp.

Still, I certainly hope reductive materialism is false. I am not going to go around raping and murdering if there is no spiritual dimension to life, but if life lacks meaning then there is absolutely no difference in the universe's (blind) eyes between such atrocities and what might go on in your backyard in the red, red world of the insects. In this sense, secular humanism offers as much false consolation as the religions it disparages. I think the bleak worldview of atheist philosopher Alex Rosenberg is correct if reductive materialism is true.
Yup. Without derailing this thread, I go into the pathetic lack of foresight in the materialist evangelical movement in the Utopianism thread.
 
#25
This is from Rosenberg's wikipedia page:

In 2011 Rosenberg published a defense of what he called "Scientism"—the claim that "the persistent questions" people ask about the nature of reality, the purpose of things, the foundations of value and morality, the way the mind works, the basis of personal identity, and the course of human history, could all be answered by the resources of science.
It's possibly a bleak worldview... from a very confused person :)
Gotta love this brand of Apologetics coming from "scientists".

My vote is with either (1) Robot w/ no brain on tan background, (2) Half-face Terminator Cover
 
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

#26
Gotta love this brand of Apologetics coming from "scientists".

My vote is with either (1) Robot w/ no brain on tan background, (2) Half-face Terminator Cover
Rosenberg's a philosopher actually. What's amusing is the desperate scramble of pathetic responses that tried to disprove his nihilism. Just sad materialist evangelicals can't admit their philosophy drives humanity off a cliff.
 
F
#27
I think the title change was a good move - lots of readers would not know what was meant by skeptics until they had bought and read the book.

None of those covers turned me on hugely - but I am the last person to ask about artistic things! Maybe I would have preferred a cover with symbols of science, symbols of meditation, and something representing ψ - not sure what.

Alternatively, maybe an image of the human brain seeming to open out into an infinite plane.

David
I didn't want to be the first to post something negative, but I didn't really care for any of the covers. They all seem childish in a way. If I had written a book I wanted to be taken seriously, I wouldn't put a cartoon on the front. I'm guessing the publisher presents options, rather than allowing the author to direct the actual content of the cover.
 
#28
I didn't want to be the first to post something negative, but I didn't really care for any of the covers. They all seem childish in a way. If I had written a book I wanted to be taken seriously, I wouldn't put a cartoon on the front. I'm guessing the publisher presents options, rather than allowing the author to direct the actual content of the cover.
Does the artist read the book?
 
F
#29
Does the artist read the book?
I would have to say no on that. I imagine they are given a brief summary. Maybe in the best of cases they speak to the author and get a feeling for what might be desired. But I would imagine this aspect is left to "the professionals"--meaning the people who are in charge of marketing the book.
 
#30
I didn't want to be the first to post something negative, but I didn't really care for any of the covers. They all seem childish in a way. If I had written a book I wanted to be taken seriously, I wouldn't put a cartoon on the front. I'm guessing the publisher presents options, rather than allowing the author to direct the actual content of the cover.
The cartoonish cover fits right in with the popular science genre, at least. I suggest you take a trip to your local Barnes & Noble and examine the covers of recent releases. You are just anti-everything aren't you?
 
#31
I would have to say no on that. I imagine they are given a brief summary. Maybe in the best of cases they speak to the author and get a feeling for what might be desired. But I would imagine this aspect is left to "the professionals"--meaning the people who are in charge of marketing the book.
You think this book has a publishing deal? Please.
 

Alex

Administrator
#33
I didn't want to be the first to post something negative, but I didn't really care for any of the covers. They all seem childish in a way. If I had written a book I wanted to be taken seriously, I wouldn't put a cartoon on the front. I'm guessing the publisher presents options, rather than allowing the author to direct the actual content of the cover.
My publisher is Anomalist Press... Patrick has been very receptive to cover ideas.

I'm trying to find the balance of playful and serious... with a title like "Why Science is Wrong" you gotta be a little playful.
 
F
#34
My publisher is Anomalist Press... Patrick has been very receptive to cover ideas.

I'm trying to find the balance of playful and serious... with a title like "Why Science is Wrong" you gotta be a little playful.
Got it. That makes sense. I always take everything way too seriously. Cool.
 
#37
My feeling is that cover #5 is the most eye catching, and intriguing, and far more appropriate than the others, as it conveys so much symbolically. Here is my reasoning.

While the human "biological robot" images are very appropriate, I think they are more of an inside joke that Skeptiko regulars will appreciate straight away, but people unfamiliar with the content will miss the reference entirely. In fact, I suspect that anyone unfamiliar with the evolution of Skeptiko (and your personal journey through the world of establishment science) will not get what the image is referencing, and may simply see a silly cartoon on the cover. Only AFTER reading the book, or tuning into skeptiko will potential buyers of the book have that "I get it" moment, by which time you've lost them.

The image needs to speak to people who have no idea yet why mainstream science's touting of the biological robot story is absurd, and so I think that cover #5 of the guy running up a set of cogs will speak louder to the intrigued, but uninitiated potential readers.

The cogs I feel are a fairly universal symbol and appropriate metaphor for the Newtonian mechanistic science paradigm that most of us have grown up in, and that the average and reasonably educated man on the street will be very familiar with, and the image of the guy running across the cogs like a treadmill conveys symbolically the idea that this is going nowhere.

My first instinct was that I liked the biological robot imagery, but then I realised that it is only because I am very familiar with your hashing out of this absurdity, and using this term often in your podcasts. I realised then that potential readers of the book will have no idea what the image is attempting to convey, and I am certain most will totally not get it, and many will judge the book as something less than serious, from the cartoony and wacky image that they don't yet get. The cogs, and the guy running over them, most people with a little effort will get, and may then be intrigued to find out what you are saying about this in the book, whereupon, they will then discover the biological robots.

Phew, a little long winded, but there it is. Hope it helps somehow.

Soul
 
#38
I agree that the robotic cartoons will mean nothing to a person picking up the book. Only we know Alex's fixation with the human robot phrase..
But I like the design of bright yellow number 26.
Maybe I'd like to give 26 the number 5 cog motive - but I'm still not sure about that as an image selling what Alex is trying to say.
If science is wrong it needs something like two test tubes in a 'wrong' X shape or something similar?
How do I vote if I plump for a merger of 5 and 26?
 
#39
I'd like to see the other entries, for the fun of it at least.:)

otherwise 26

Because -

Metaphysically 'The color Yellow has stood for wisdom and intellect throughout the ages' - on an unconscious level it is appealing.
The other cover colours are a bit to bland , sterile even.

Now, having a smiling face on the cover is also psychologically a plus. Though I would alter the left eye , so as not to look so 'Zonked'.
Also change the red on the right portion of the head to white perhaps (the black & white of Scientism). The red eye gives an evil/scary impression. ( but not as scary as Hannibal of #5 )
I'd probably make the face slightly less cartoonish overall, if possible. I like the idea of half human / half robot to represent the conflict we have.

Seeing Rupert’s worthy approval is great news.

#11 would be a close second place ,if no changes are allowed.
 
Last edited:

Alex

Administrator
#40
thx to everyone for some great feedback. We wound up going with #26, but #11 was my personal favorite. I think there were several good ones. Hope to get this book out in the next 30 days.
 
Top