Science and Natural History discussion

Post your questions, comments and outrages here to share and discuss with other members. Happy reading!

I've just started Bad Science and I'm enjoying it no end. I thought the introduction was lighthearted and humorous and by the time I'd reached page 26, I'd laughed out loud three times. So, besides, the author's debunking of "fads" in a kind-hearted and illuminating manner, this book is worth the read for the laughs alone. Thanks for whoever suggested it and those who voted to read it. The chapter on homeopathy cracked me right up.

Being able to channel outrage into humour is a gift. I'm re-reading this (thanks, Kristoffer),and what a delight it is. Just got to the end of the homeopathy chapter too.

It is a great shame that Ben Goldacre no longer writes his weekly column for The Guardian. It was the main reason I bought a copy.

I was not familiar with Goldacre, and was a bit worried that this kind of book might fall into a succession of rants. However, I have been pleasantly surprised.

Goldacre uses humor ("There is only one internationally recognized method for identifying something as earwax: pick some up on the end of your finger, and touch it with your tongue.")

More importantly, he tries to explain some of the reasons that people fall for pseudoscience. For example, "I would also be the first to agree that people don't buy expensive cosmetics simply because they have a belief in their efficacy, because it's all 'a bit more complicated than that': these are luxury goods, status items, and they are bought for all kinds of interesting reasons."

I do hope he further explores what part science illiteracy plays in all of this. I am only a few chapters in but, overall, really enjoying this one.

Started reading this last night, got up to the homeopathy chapter (ch 4). Some of these things I already knew, however the moisturizing lotion and the whole beauty product thing is something I hadn´t given much thought to. Good stuff.

One criticism I have about this book so far is that the tone is condescending to people who are scientifically illiterate, which should really be the intended audience of the book as they are the ones who most need to read these things. But by calling them out specifically (humanities majors, journalists) as ignorant, it seems to me that this will only alienate readers. Not a very smart move. I would like to recommend this book to some of my good friends who are in need of scientific enlightenment but I can see that they would be put off by the tone.

Paolo wrote: "One criticism I have about this book so far is that the tone is condescending to people who are scientifically illiterate, which should really be the intended audience of the book as they are the ones who most need to read these things.

Interesting point. Unfortunately, personal experience (and some published academic research) has shown that when it comes to belief, challenging someone's convictions, however gently it is done, does not change anything and often reinforces that belief. Confirmation bias dominates. One of the hardest things in the world is to admit you are wrong. Just look at homeopathy's relentless, but ultimately counter-productive, persecution of Simon Singh. Goldacre's book is for people who are not already committed to pseudo-science. Again this is from personal experience, but loaning the book to people who are wavering and wondering about whether to follow fad diets or alternative therapies is very useful because it equips the reader with tools to discern the facts from the hype. I've not come across anyone who disliked the tone of the book. People tend to be grateful as long as you don't call them out in public and humiliate them about their beliefs.

Another point is why should Goldacre be gentle? That's the trap many science popularisers fall into. I've worked with some of the scientists he names in the book. Wonderful, kind, considerate people, but they end up conceding the high ground to the pseudo-scientists whose glib fallacies are so attractive to the journalists (predominately arts graduates) who cover this field. Don't believe me? Then just look at the alternative health pages of the Huffington Post. Anyone who tries gently to debunk the garbage they publish is howled down. And the Huff Poo is the shortcut of choice for stressed, overworked journalists in need of a quick cut-and-paste story.

Flat Earth News is my suggestion as must-read companion to Bad Science. Anyone got any other reading suggestions?

I am having a hard time with this book. Quite often I want to throw it across the room and run out the door yelling, "how can people be so gullible??" Yes, I am reading the chapter on homeopathy.

Finished Bad Science today and am really glad we read this one. This is one of the most personally helpful books I have ever read. I believe I am much better informed on how to evaluate evidence-based science (or lack thereof) in popular science journalism. However I did find it a bit depressing realizing the extent to which science journalism is lacking. ;)

I want to read this but I'm not sure I'll have time. Going to download it today, though.

ETA: Oh, erm, it's only available in paperback - guess I won't be reading it. Bummer.

Jack wrote: "Being able to channel outrage into humour is a gift. I'm re-reading this (thanks, Kristoffer),and what a delight it is. "

My pleasure, though credit for the book choice belongs to the community.

K.A. wrote: "I want to read this but I'm not sure I'll have time. Going to download it today, though.

ETA: Oh, erm, it's only available in paperback - guess I won't be reading it. Bummer."
Not quite accurate, reading it on the Kindle myself. You should be able to find it here: http://www.amazon.com/Bad-Science-Ben...

UK costumers might be out of luck, either that or Amazon has started hiding Kindle choices on .co.uk for .com users. Either way: quite strange.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bad-Science-B...

Oh, thanks...not sure why that didn't come up for me. Reverse bummer.