Bad Science question

Bad Science
Bad Science by Ben Goldacre
In a world where the term “fake news” is commonly used to describe facts and fallacies alike, it can be a challenge to sort through scientific jargon and make informed decisions. Most of us gather information from a mixture of sources, including late night news broadcasts, Facebook statuses, and clickbait internet headlines, and after all the information is consumed a hurricane of thoughts can swirl in the reader’s mind and make it difficult to tell what’s true and what’s false. In his work Bad Science: Quacks, Hacks, and Big Pharma Flacks, Ben Goldacre (a senior clinical research fellow at the Centre for Evidence Based Medicine and a member of Oxford University’s Nuffield Department of Health Sciences who was educated at Magdalen College School in Oxford) , sets out to help readers clear up some commonly believed misconceptions and set up patterns of thinking that better enable us to differentiate truth from fallacy. This paper aims to both summarize and analyze the text, and, finally, to reflect.
To begin, before coming to conclusions on thoughts about the book. It is important to start with a summary. Ben Goldacre disproves commonly believed scientific statements, studys, or believes. Throughout Bad Science he chooses different topics to expose the truth. Ben Acre chooses his topics on beliefs of people who are not doctors and do not know how to decipher the truth from false accusations. For example Acre discusses the idea of “Brain Gym” In chapter two of his work he holds that first describes the idea of brain gym which is “a string of of complicated and proprietary exercises for kids that enhance the experience of whole body brain learning” (Goldacre 2008). Goldacre then claims these as false accusations from “pseudosciences” which are tricking people into thinking something that is true like drinking more water is good into to something false like drinking more water helps whole body learning. Goldacre continues on the book to disprove more misconceptions like the “Brain Gym.” Goldacre puts to use his rich educational background in a way that not only deconstructs fallacies but leaves readers with the truth and empowers them to critically analyze similar topics in the future.
Goldacre spends exactly one chapter discussing each topic. In my opinion this organization helps break up the content into smaller more digestible chunks for readers whole likely don't share his education experiences. That is, Goldacre segments his thoughts in a clear and concise way. I found this helped immensely in my understanding of the text; because it was broken up I was able to pick up and put down the text as necessary to help digest the complex themes. I also found that Goldacre used credible sources in a way that complemented and supported his claims while also adding credibility to himself as an author. Overall I found that the organization of the book was logical, consistent, and enjoyable.
Although I found the organization of the piece appropriate and effective I still found that Goldacre failed to simplify his vocabulary for his intended audience. As is common when discussing scientific topics, Goldacre employed the use of industry and academic jargon that could sometimes be off putting and flew above my head on several occasions. This caused me to disengage as a reader and, in the spirit of all honesty, made me feel left out and bored. In some ways the is ironic; Goldacre spends his whole book trying to figure out why people so easily fall for easily digestible and seemingly logical fallacies, but does so in a way that alienates these readers and would drive the back to easier sources of information. This is not to say everything in the book was lost on me. I walked away with a greater understanding of several misconceptions I had previously held and now feel more empowered to separate fact from fiction in the future. In this way it seems Goldacre reached his audience but I believe he could have done so more effectively.
In conclusion Ben Goldacre spends his book Bad Science informing readers of commonly held misconceptions and, more importantly imploring them to make a habit of critical thinking and source analysis as it pertains to the consumption of scientific information moving forward. He accomplishes this goal by delivering his thoughts in small digestible chunks but could do so more effectively by including the use of more common language and dumbing down his jargon to reach a broader audience. Overall I found this book generally an educational yet unengaging read especially to younger and less educated audiences. I would suggest this to a reader in search of a scholarly read but not to a friend looking for a leisurely novel.