I spent about 15 years of my professional life growing crystals for scientific research. I would be offended if I went to a library and found a book on " the cosmic language being spoken by crystals" next to Alan Holden and Phylis Morrison's "Crystals and Crystal Growing". But physical libraries don't do that. They are pretty successful at giving appropriate context to books on shelves. Does an OPAC do the same?
Should libraries emulate Google https://www.google.com/search?q=Crystals <https://www.google.com/search?q=Crystals> which is uncritical
or perhaps Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal> which has a clear point of view?
or is there a way to provide both context and inclusion?

Facebook's take on this: https://www.facebook.com/search/str/crystals/keywords_pages <https://www.facebook.com/search/str/crystals/keywords_pages> explains a lot.




> On Nov 16, 2016, at 12:08 PM, Michelle Lubatti <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> This probably isn't the place to discuss collection development or
> diversity, but why should librarians have the authority to define
> "pseudo-science" and "pseudo-mysticism?"  If our definition includes only
> empirical science and fact, then we will be required to eliminate or label
> most books about religion, philosophy, essay collections, etc.  We could
> only allow materials that have a fact-based historical commentary on these
> subjects.
> 
> I disagree with many of the religious and "pseudo-mysticism" books in my
> library, but I do not agree that I have the authority to discard or create
> a "fringe" category for them.  This would go against all my assertions of
> accepting and promoting diversity.
> 
> I do not adhere to Buddhism, but it's important we carry books about it,
> both history and practice.  I do not believe in spirit animals, but books
> on this topic are popular here and reflect one part of our diverse
> community.  Neither Buddhism nor spirit animals have empirical science
> behind them (science is based on physical matter, so really only philosophy
> can challenge these), but they still hold value for our community.
> 
> We do make a decision to include them under religions, because this seems
> most appropriate and where people will find them.   Although we do have
> books on a Buddhist flavor of mindfulness in our medical section.  These
> have some empirical science behind them, but it's not medical journal
> terminology and quality.
> 
> Collection development is a difficult topic, especially since we are
> inclined to want our own worldviews to be preeminent (even if just
> subconsciously).  This is a good example of where we as librarians can
> (must?) do practical things to encourage diversity.
> 
> Michelle
> 
>> 
>> [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
>> m: +1-510-435-8234
>> skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
>>